The Disco 'Tute's new man

Cothran has a blog, vere loqui (he’s a classicist)

Cothran also assumes:

In all of this discussion, there is a particular view of how to demarcate science from non-science. It is philosopher Karl Popper's demarcation criterion: that in order for something to be science it has to be falsifiable, or testable.

Scientific hypotheses do have to be falsifiable, but mere falsifiability does not make science. For example, the statement "assuming that 1,2,3,5,8,13 and 21 are next week's winning Lotto numbers, I hypothesize that 1,2,3,5,8,13 and 21 will be next week's winning Lotto numbers" is certainly falsifiable and easily tested. It's not very scientific, though.

It kind of makes sense. When promoting a view of speciation that recognizes no developments in biology since Paley, why not use a self-described logician who recognizes no developments in logic since Aquinas?

I'm a classicist and an evolutionary geneticist!

One cannot blame Cothran for not being to familiar with Intelligent Design's claims and arguments or he would not have confused the infalsifiability of ID with the falsification of some of ID's minor ideas. While one can falsify the notion of irreducible complexity being an insurmountable problem for evolution, this hardly falsifies ID which makes no statements about Irreducible Complexity, no predictions, nothing... It merely states that we shall call that which we do not understand 'design'.

The Judge was right in his observations, but perhaps for the sake of rhetorics Cothran may have assumed a strawman argument rather than to deal with the much harder to reject observations and rulings of Judge Jones.

Martin (logic-free rhetoric) Cothran thus seems like an appropriate addition to the Disco ‘Tute’s Media Complaints Division stable, joining such intellectual luminaries as Michael (egnorance) Egnor, Michael (media man) Medved, and Granville (second law) Sewell.

Michael (Bigfoot) Medved.

PvM: One cannot blame Cothran for not being to familiar with Intelligent Design's claims and arguments or he would not have confused the infalsifiability of ID with the falsification of some of ID's minor ideas. While one can falsify the notion of irreducible complexity being an insurmountable problem for evolution, this hardly falsifies ID which makes no statements about Irreducible Complexity, no predictions, nothing...

PvM: It merely states that we shall call that which we do not understand 'design'.

The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims. But if it doesn’t make falsifiable claims, then it can’t be said to have made claims that have been found false. Yet this is exactly what they charge.

What Cothran is apparently unable to comprehend is that while ID proponents occasionally make testable empirical claims, ID theory itself does not.

— Richard B. Hoppe

Now to nag my fellow "Darwinists" so they don't keep giving the DI more quotes to mine:

It's important to distinguish ID from classic creationism, because the various positions of the latter do make false claims, and even true claims (e.g. OEC on the age of the Earth) that contradict the false claims of other classic creationist positions (e.g. YEC, geocentrism). With ID there's no "official position" other than "some designer did something at some time."

Careless statements that lump all the strategies under the "creationism" label just beg to have people like Cothran spin them into neat, but misleading sound bites.

Reed A. Cartwright: I'm a classicist and an evolutionary geneticist!

What credible person would join the Discovery Institute at this time? I wondered what their transportation department thought of the dishonest bunch of blowhards down the hall, but that department seems to be defunct or changed its name. These are the guys that got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. These are the guys that ran a dishonest bait and switch scam on their own supporters.

Beats me why guys like Berlinski stick around, since he has claimed that he never bought into the ID scam junk. Are these guys all liars? Is the money that good? Why would someone that acknowledges that they never bought into the ID scam remain associated with the Discovery Institute? It has to be embarassing to be associated with such a bogus group as you have to watch their antics before and after Dover. Why would anyone that didn't agree with the dishonest bait and switch scam going down remain a fellow?

Can any fellows answer that question?

How can we find Cothran's logical opinion of Bigfoot?

How can we find Cothran’s logical opinion of Bigfoot?

— Paul Burnett

Careless statements that lump all the strategies under the “creationism” label just beg to have people like Cothran spin them into neat, but misleading sound bites.

Cothran is “a senior policy analyst” with the Family Foundation of Kentucky

Frank J: Now to nag my fellow "Darwinists" so they don't keep giving the DI more quotes to mine: It's important to distinguish ID from classic creationism, because the various positions of the latter do make false claims, and even true claims (e.g. OEC on the age of the Earth) that contradict the false claims of other classic creationist positions (e.g. YEC, geocentrism). With ID there's no "official position" other than "some designer did something at some time." Careless statements that lump all the strategies under the "creationism" label just beg to have people like Cothran spin them into neat, but misleading sound bites.

Yet we should not let this blind us to the obvious connection between ID and all other variants of right wing creationism.

— harold

But if ID is not falsifiable, as he says in the first part of the argument, then (if you assume Popper's criterion) it is not science—and it cannot therefore be falsified. So how does Jones get around the fact that he says both that ID is not science because it can't be falsified, and that an argument "central to ID" has been falsified?

Just what the Disco ‘Tute needs: an expert on rhetoric!

RBH: Cothran the rhetorician is merely equivocating, using "ID" in multiple senses, slipping between senses of that abbreviation.

It's revealing that Cothran's only graduate degree is an MA in Christian Apologetics from the Simon Greenleaf School (an evangelical outfit that's now part of Trinity International University, an evangelical diploma mill in Illinois). He does claim a BA in philosophy and economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara, but no credentials in either law or the life sciences. So he's perfectly suited for the Disco 'Tute.

It’s revealing that Cothran’s only graduate degree is an MA in Christian Apologetics from the Simon Greenleaf School (an evangelical outfit that’s now part of Trinity International University, an evangelical diploma mill in Illinois). He does claim a BA in philosophy and economics from the University of California at Santa Barbara, but no credentials in either law or the life sciences. So he’s perfectly suited for the Disco ‘Tute.

The 'tute clearly has cast off the cloak of sciencyness and has thrown all of their marbles into the culture war bin. Science is out, gaming the Amazon review system is in. The addition of Medved and this bozo seem to be clear indicators that Dover has put a big hole in the ID=Science canoe, and so they are going back to their strengths - PR and rhetoric.

At least they seem to be able to identify crackpots pretty well. Frankly, if you're a right-wing crackpot and not getting a check from the DI, you should probably talk to your agent.

sciencyness has given way to truthiness?

Colbert called it!

man's an utter genius.

"Disco 'Tute".
You gotta love it.

The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims.

Just remember, the abbreviation “ID” also stands for “intellectual dishonesty.”

— Paul Burnett

I wonder if this shift in ID strategy will require a different stategy from the Brights? Truth may not be enough to protect science (and democracy) from these religious fascists (Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists). We've already witnessed firsthand how easy it is to LIE a country into WAR by the political branch of these lunatics (under Bushco). I think the example of that "victory" of action over reason (choice winger quote: "we make our own reality") is driving them to push more sophists at us (that, and the fact there is NO SCIENCE to offer).
Just because these ID shills are dumb as dirt in terms of science doesn't mean they HAVE to lose in the long term. We've been repressed for EONS by powerful minorities against the wishes of the majority. We can't even stop a war that 70% of us don't want.

Enjoy.

Nigel D:

The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims.

I disagree with this. While it is true that the failure of "ID theory" to make any testable predictions would disqualify it as science, the primary reason ID ain't science is that "ID theory" has no content. How many times have the ID-supporters that pop up on this blog been asked to describe "ID theory"? Hundreds. How many times has the question actually been answered? None. Instead we get such gems as "some biological phenomena are best explained as the result of an intelligent agent", which manages to couple arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity and the non-sequitur "evolutionary theory does not currently have an explanation for X, therefore design". Three logical fallacies for the price of one!

I disagree with this. While it is true that the failure of “ID theory” to make any testable predictions would disqualify it as science, the primary reason ID ain’t science is that “ID theory” has no content.

— Nigel D

Tim Fuller: Truth may not be enough to protect science (and democracy) from these religious fascists (Dominionists and Christian Reconstructionists).

Stanton said: So, in other words, the ID proponents absolutely refuse to scientifically describe anything with ID because there is absolutely nothing inside of ID to be described scientifically in the first place.

Disco 'Tute? for a second there i misread that as Disco Tex (remember him with the Sex-O-lettes and "Get Dancin'" )

i looked, they're on youtube btw

Not only do I remember Disco Tex and the Sex-O-lettes, I also remember Rick Dees and his cast of IDiots, with their unforgettable "Disco Duck." Say, isn't "Disco Duck" what they do when they evade the hard questions?

Of course, where YEC and OEC have made testable claims, the claims have been tested and found wanting. Most especially wanting are YEC claims, with the age of the Earth firmly established in the vicinity of 4.5 billion years, and no conceivable way for a global flood to occur, and no conceivable way for a wooden boat to preserve all extant species etc.

Nigel D.

Of course, and different anti-evolution groups have steadily been abandoning various failed claims. They keep only the ones they think they can get away with. Even YEC group AIG has abandoned some Hovind's sillier claims. But ~90% of the public has no idea of the age of the Earth, let alone how it's determined, so YEC groups persist. OEC groups target a more educated and skeptical audience, but like YECs, insist on saying enough about their position that people will notice the contradictions with other creationist positions.

I would have loved to be a "fly on the wall" in some closed-door meetings of anti-evolution groups ca. 1980-85. Some must have said "Game's over, man. Not only do we have no claims that pass the tests, even when we peddle those that fail, we risk alerting people to the contradictions." Another chimes in" "I know! Let's just cherry pick and quote mine 'weaknesses' of 'Darwinism,' most people will infer their favorite fairy tale anyway." A third chimes in: "Great, but we better get a lawyer to make sure we say it right."

As for "what to teach," sometimes I'm amazed that they didn't go with the designer-free "teach the controversy" from the beginning. But I guess it's either a case of "let's see what we can get away with" or that some groups resisted the designer-free strategy as conceding too much ground to "naturalism." Or some of each.

It is a strange history. Anti-evolutionism was generally of an "old earth" variety until - well, it was after the evidence from radioisotopes nailed down the absolute ages quite well. Nowadays, so it seems, one hardly ever hears from "day-age" or "gap" advocates. As the science advances, creationism retreats. One exception is the recognition of "micro"evolution.

It just figures: when scientists want to demonstrate something scientists go out and collect observations or do experiments. When IDiots want to demonstrate something they get a PR man...

Looks like 'The Classical Teacher ', of which Martin Cothran, Managing Editor is not exactly pushing Epicurus or De Rerum Natura.

Its canon is aimed at Vulgate literacy and its title page declares :

"Education Advisors: The Brothers of the Mystic Order of Conceptual Clarity"

It is a strange history. Anti-evolutionism was generally of an “old earth” variety until - well, it was after the evidence from radioisotopes nailed down the absolute ages quite well.

— Tom S

Sometime or other, some intelligent agent or other (maybe one god or another, or maybe space aliens or time travelers) designed one or another biological structure (or maybe process), and then somehow or other manufactured the designed biological whatsit, doing so while leaving no independent evidence of either the design process or the manufacturing process, and no independent evidence of the presence (or even the existence) of the designing and manufacturing agent(s).

“...even though in practice inferring design is the first step in identifying an intelligent agent, taken by itself design does not require that such an agent be posited. The notion of design that emerges from the design inference must not be confused with intelligent agency” (Dembski, The Design Inference, 227)

Steve S: Yeah, "ID theory" doesn't have any content. At all.

One cannot blame Cothran for not being to familiar with Intelligent Design’s claims and arguments or he would not have confused the infalsifiability of ID with the falsification of some of ID’s minor ideas. (emphasis added)

the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's (page 64, emphasis added)

...[E]ven if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. [p. 79]

You Darwinists can crow until you are blue in the face that Judge Jones’ Dover opinion is a masterpiece, but that doesn’t mean that other judges are going to accept it.

Good Gods, is Cothran still trying to hype up that "dilemma?" I myself refuted that claim on his own blog, and all he did was repeat the claim and pretend it was never addressed.

What I pointed out was that we (proponents of evolution, that is) state that SOME ID claims are non-falsifiable, while OTHER ID claims are falisifiable and have been proven false. When I asked him to describe a specific ID claim about which evolutionists had made conflicting statements, the argument ended then and there, only to be restarted on another blog where comments aren't allowed.

Martin Cothran is just another creationist hiding from the obvious falsehood of his "theory" behind a lot of barely-relevant tangential points, and pretending all of his enemies are nothing but immature children posting ad-hominem attacks. All you need to do is look at his own blog to see how flimsy his arguments are.

In one spot in the Dover opinion, Judge Jones said that irreducible complexity is “central to ID,” as opposed to just being one of ID’s “minor ideas”:

the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s (page 64, emphasis added)

— ABC (oh, Lordy, the sock puppets get less original each time)

Also, the Dover opinion said, …[E]ven if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. [p. 79]

Why do you cdesign proponentsists whine endlessly about the problems with Jones’ decision but never ask for a do-over?

You know you’d get the same decision next time, that’s why.

. . . if one judge can practice philosophy of science, what is to stop others from doing the same? Perhaps the next judge to hear an ID case will decide that science simply means "the process of searching for the best logical explanations for observed data." In that case, schools might be allowed to teach … ID… Is this really a can of worms that ID opponents want to open?

My blood chills ... when these essentially harmless hypocrisies are joined with the all-American tradition of litigiousness, for it is in the hand of courts and lawyers that real damage to cherished academic ideas is likely to be done . . . courts are where many of my colleagues seem determined to go with the ID issue. . . I believe we will ultimately come to regret this. Although there was general jubilation at the ruling, I think the joy will be short-lived, for we have affirmed the principle that a federal judge, not scientists or teachers, can dictate what is and what is not science, and what may or may not be taught in the classroom. Forgive me if I do not feel more free.

So if irreducible complexity is merely a test for evolution and not a test for ID, then what did Jones show about ID by “refuting” irreducible complexity? Absolutely nothing!

You Darwinists can crow until you are blue in the face that Judge Jones’ Dover opinion is a masterpiece, but that doesn’t mean that other judges are going to accept it.

Although there was general jubilation at the ruling, I think the joy will be short-lived, for we have affirmed the principle that a federal judge, not scientists or teachers, can dictate what is and what is not science, and what may or may not be taught in the classroom. Forgive me if I do not feel more free.

ABC: I think a lot of school districts are avoiding litigation by avoiding such hot-button terms as "intelligent design" and "creation science" and just quietly teaching about Darwinism's weaknesses in the name of teaching more about Darwinism. A lot of schools avoid the problem by just not teaching Darwinism at all.

Also, biology professor J. Scott Turner said of Kitzmiller,

My blood chills ... when these essentially harmless hypocrisies are joined with the all-American tradition of litigiousness, for it is in the hand of courts and lawyers that real damage to cherished academic ideas is likely to be done . . . courts are where many of my colleagues seem determined to go with the ID issue. . . I believe we will ultimately come to regret this. Although there was general jubilation at the ruling, I think the joy will be short-lived, for we have affirmed the principle that a federal judge, not scientists or teachers, can dictate what is and what is not science, and what may or may not be taught in the classroom. Forgive me if I do not feel more free.

ABC=Larry

Well, now that Fafarmanpoodle has shown up, this thread is doomed so I'll close it.

I've re-opened comments since Cothran has responded on the Disco 'Tute's Media Complaints Division (see trackback). I'll have a reply to Cothran sometime tonight or tomorrow.

Derails will be sent to the Bathroom Wall.

I’ve re-opened comments since Cothran has responded on the Disco ‘Tute’s Media Complaints Division (see trackback). I’ll have a reply to Cothran sometime tonight or tomorrow.

Re Cothran: What nonsensical gibberish! Rhetoric being the only weapon the IDers have, you'd think they'd be better at it. Kudos to you RBH taking the time to pick out what bare coherance lies there. It would seem the horse we are kicking is not only dead, but beginning to rot and fester.

The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn’t make falsifiable claims.

Cothran engages in the same sort of silly word play as the first time, conflating ID as a movement with ID as a theory. While claiming to understand the distinction, he shows no sign of doing so and never addresses it. The unsoundness of the argument from irreducible complexity is a blow to the ID movement, which leans heavily on it in their attempt to give the movement legitimacy, but if the argument were sound (which is like saying if 1 were equal to 2) that would do nothing to further any ID “theory”, which doesn’t exist, it would only falsify ToE.

even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design.

And how does this change the facts that Intelligent Design is not science and that all ID proponents have demonstrated absolutely no motivation to use Intelligent Design as a science in the first place, ABC?

Larry is a blithering idiot.

And you say that if the argument of irreducible complexity were sound, that “would only falsify ToE”? ONLY? Wouldn’t falsification of ToE be worthy of a Nobel prize, at least?

You are the one who is engaging in “silly word play.” The difference here is that Martin Cothran’s interpretation of Jones’ statements is literal whereas your interpretation is a big song and dance. Cothran essentially says “this is what Jones said” whereas you Darwinists say something like, “this is what Jones really wanted to say but didn’t say because he lacks the ability to express himself.”

— Larry, er, I mean ABC of course

And you say that if the argument of irreducible complexity were sound, that “would only falsify ToE”? ONLY? Wouldn’t falsification of ToE be worthy of a Nobel prize, at least? What Jones said is that IC could not have helped the defendants even if it falsifies ToE. That’s rich.