When everything else fails...

Posted 2 December 2007 by PvM

The Discovery Institute, after having realized that Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically infertile and vacuous and after their devastating loss at the Dover trial, seems to have retreated to their fundamental opposition to materialism. Hopelessly confused by Phil Johnson's misunderstanding of methodological and philosophical naturalism, the DI seems to be intent to blame evil Darwinists for immoral behaviors such as eugenics. Let me start of by pointing out that any such attempt is doomed from the beginning for the simple reason that the Discovery Institute and other ID Creationists have claimed that Darwinism cannot provide foundation for morality, or in other words, Darwinism cannot serve as a principle on which to build a decision of what is 'good' and what is 'bad'. This means that Eugenics cannot have a foundation in amoral scientific concepts lest there exists an external principle on which to base the decision as to what is good and bad for society. People should therefor not be surprised that eugenics has been a principle which preceded Darwinism. Equally unsurprised will be the well informed readers who are familiar with the eugenic history of Christian evangelicals in the United States. But I digress. The Discovery Institute, after having come to the inevitable conclusion that Intelligent Design is likely to remain without scientific relevance has changed its approach. While I predict that their attempts will become an ever greater disaster than their attempts to introduce the concept of Intelligent Design into schools, there is an even greater concern. Namely by violating St Augustine's fair warnings about Christians saying foolish things (about science), an observer may easily come to reject the whole teaching of Christianity as a similarly foolish enterprise. On Evolution News, Bruce Chapman is celebrating the 'victory' of West over Mark Borrello. Although Bruce was himself not present at the event, he seems to believe that West has scored by convincing skeptics of the relevance of his arguments. And what is the argument really? The belief that humans are somehow different from animals. We will have to wait until the talk appears on Youtube but until then we have some commentary which suggests that Mark Borrello demolished West's slick powerpoint arguments

Nonetheless, Mark Kicked Ass. He pointed out that West Argument only involved mention of four biologists, and that many biologists were thinking, saying, doing different things than suggested by West. He pointed out West's cherry picking of history and his quote mining. He pointed out that the same populous that favored forced sterilization also was opposed to evolution and Darwinism, which very much undermined West's argument.

Tracking Blogs on the Event How the West was ‘Won’: with spin and rewriting history by PZ Myers from Pharyngula John West at the McLaurin Institute by PZ Myers from Pharyngula

One word: crap.

Declare Victory! (What Battle Was This?) by Tangled Up In Blue Guy In Which I Meet John West by Tangled Up In Blue Guy John West's Talk at the University of Minnesota by Kristine Harley

Reverend Barking Nonsequitur and I attended the talk of Discovery Institute Fellow John West at the University of Minnesota tonight. The talk drew a large crowd of skeptics and fellow scientists, including PZ Myers and Mark Borrello, who delivered a rebuttal to West's talk. Rev. Barky taped almost the whole thing on my new digital camera, and hopefully soon it will be posted at YouTube (as soon as we work out the technical difficulties - isn't intelligent design wonderful?).

John West's Talk at the University of Minnesota, Part 2 by Kristine Harley John West vs The Evil Scientists by Barking Nonsequitur West meets his match John Lynch Stranger Fruit John West can Play the Violin But Not the Fiddle by Greg Laden Being Spartan with the facts by John Pieret from Thoughts in a Haystack

It should just be noted that attempts to link Darwin directly to eugenics, and from there to Nazism, run afoul of the fact that the Spartans were practicing eugenics, based on notions of animal and plant breeding, long before Darwin was born (and were admired by Hitler for it) and that the rise of eugenics after Darwin came amid "the eclipse of Darwin" during the late 19th and early 20th century, when natural selection was greatly discounted in evolutionary accounts. As I said at Mike's blog, none of that excuses the role of biologists and many other scientists in the eugenics movement. It just goes to show that the attempt to simplistically link eugenics directly to "Darwinism" is to the history of science what young-Earth creationism is to the history of the planet.

37 Comments

realpc · 2 December 2007

"having realized that Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically infertile and vacuous and after their devastating loss at the Dover trial"

You're kidding, aren't you? You can't possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.

PvM · 2 December 2007

You’re kidding, aren’t you? You can’t possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.
— realpc

The scientific value of Intelligent Design was decided before the Dover ruling which merely formalized the scientific infertility of ID as a legal matter.

tacitus · 2 December 2007

Ironically, Bible literalists will often use the eugenics argument to justify God commanding Joshua to eradicate entire tribes of people as the Israelites fought to occupy the Holy Land.

Of course, they will deny it's anything like eugenics, but they argue that God required the wholesale extermination of tribes down to the very last child because they were so lost in sin and depravity even future generations could not be saved. They had to be wiped out.

Sure looks and smells a lot like eugenics to me.

Mike Haubrich, FCD · 2 December 2007

Revisionist history, realpc?

The defendants counted on Judge Jones ruling that ID was a valid "theory." They asked him to rule that it is a valid theory. DaveScot was excited to discover that Jones was a Republican, a Christian and a Bush appointee. It was only after he ruled based on the evidence that the ID'ers howled in pain that he was a liberal activist judge that oughta be tossed for extending his reach.

The scientific value of ID has never been tested because it has never provided anything to test, and so the DI relies on the sort of misdirection provided by talks such as West presented last Friday. And on movies in which they cry "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!"

Jackelope King · 2 December 2007

realpc: "having realized that Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically infertile and vacuous and after their devastating loss at the Dover trial" You're kidding, aren't you? You can't possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.

Nope. It's decided in the lab, in the field, and in peer-reviewed journals. It's decided when scientists all over the world test and retest a hypothesis over and over countless times to get the best data possible and to provide the best possible explanation for that data. It's decided when a theory makes predictions and explains new, previously unknown data. It's decided when a theory has survived the rigors of years of scientific scrutiny the world over. ID hasn't done any of that in the past twenty years. That's how we conclude that it isn't science. The courts agree. And by your silence on the substance of the post, I'm sure you agree that the Discovery Institute is being dishonest in its representation of West's presentation. Unless you're some sort of troll, but goodness knows that no good Christian would stoop to such things.

JohnK · 2 December 2007

PvM wrote: The scientific value of Intelligent Design was decided before the Dover ruling...

Jackelope King · 2 December 2007

realpc: "having realized that Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically infertile and vacuous and after their devastating loss at the Dover trial" You're kidding, aren't you? You can't possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.

CleveDan · 2 December 2007

My favorite internet comedian, Kent Hovind is out of the picture for a while and now my other two favorites are uniting over eugenics......Alex Jones and the DI..fabulous

stevaroni · 2 December 2007

RealPC blathers... You’re kidding, aren’t you? You can’t possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.

No, the scientific value of theories is decided by the objective evidence discovered to support them. Which is why evolution always wins. When it comes time to put the evidence on the table, Evolution always brings out an awkwardly large pile of dead bodies and giant genomic databases. Creationism has a pretty story and the sound of crickets chirping. You're right that a courtroom is a laughable place to determine the scientific value of anything, but sadly, we don't get a choice. Creationism chooses to fight in courtrooms, where it hopes to appeal to emotional arguments, because it learned long ago that with no evidence it has no chance of winning anywhere else, especially in venues where "the scientific value of theories is decided", because they're awkwardly uppity about the whole "evidence" thing.

Stanton · 2 December 2007

tacitus: Ironically, Bible literalists will often use the eugenics argument to justify God commanding Joshua to eradicate entire tribes of people as the Israelites fought to occupy the Holy Land. Of course, they will deny it's anything like eugenics, but they argue that God required the wholesale extermination of tribes down to the very last child because they were so lost in sin and depravity even future generations could not be saved. They had to be wiped out. Sure looks and smells a lot like eugenics to me.

Technically speaking, this isn't "eugenics," but "genocide," as the former is artificial selection forced onto populations without consent, i.e., forced sterilization, or viewing women as being baby and or soldier factories, etc, while the latter is the literal murder of entire populations and or civilizations, where you go out and kill the people, rather than prevent them from breeding. Granted, both are often done for the sake of aesthetics and ideals, and some civilizations have done both simultaneously.

KL · 2 December 2007

Another drive-by courtesy of realpc. What a jerk. Never stays around and answers to any challenges to his/her inane statements.

tacitus · 2 December 2007

Technically speaking, this isn’t “eugenics,” but “genocide,” as the former is artificial selection forced onto populations without consent, i.e., forced sterilization, or viewing women as being baby and or soldier factories, etc, while the latter is the literal murder of entire populations and or civilizations, where you go out and kill the people, rather than prevent them from breeding

Well, yes, sort of. It was certainly genocide (if you can apply that to as small a population as a city or tribe), but the justification that Bible literalists use is not that they were wiped out because of hatred or expediency but specifically because the tribe in question had undesirable and heritable character traits that could not be allowed to be propagated. I believe that is what you call eugenics, just by way of the very blunt instrument of genocide. And God saw that it was good.

ben · 3 December 2007

realpc: "having realized that Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically infertile and vacuous and after their devastating loss at the Dover trial" You're kidding, aren't you? You can't possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.

There's a scientific theory of intelligent design? State it, or link to it, please.

Frank J · 3 December 2007

Like the snake oil salesman who, behind closed doors says "of course I don't use the stuff, it doesn't work," the DI peddles whatever it can get away with, including having it both ways with whether or not "Darwinism" leads to eugenics, the heartbreak of psoriasis, whatever.

Meanwhile, if "sales" were bad and they really needed to do something to overcome the loss at Dover, they'd be doing the exact opposite of what they are doing. Without any reference to a designer - the audience can infer that just as neatly as they infer YEC from Behe's old-Earth-common-descent model (yeah, I never cease to be amazed at that either) - they'd just go about saying (and testing) what happened, when, and how, in biological history that would make their "theory" qualify as something other than "Darwinism."

But like the snake oil salesman would say: "Work? I don't need to work, I'm selling like crazy."

Edwin Hensley · 3 December 2007

RealPC,

Here is a quote from Martin Luther from his book On The Jews And Their Lies, which can be read about in the following link. Martin Luther is the major editor of the protestant bible, moving Hebrew, James, Jude and Revelation to the end because he doubted their authenticity, and moving the apocrypha books into their own section ion his 1543 German bible. He did so because he did not like Catholic doctrine derived from Maccabees. He justified this by noting that these books were in the Greek Septuagint but not the Hebrew Masoretic text. Nonetheless, the apocrypha books were put in there own section in the 1611 King James bible and later removed completely.

RealPC, how can you justify the statements below from one of the greatest persons in the history of Christendom and the most prominent editor of all time of the protestant bible? Can you blame his actions on Darwin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies

"their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time."

Luther created the following 8 point plan for the Jews:

"First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. ..."
"Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. ..."
"Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. ..."
"Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. ..."
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. ..."
"Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. ... Such money should now be used in ... the following [way]... Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]..."
"Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow... For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants."
"If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews' blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country" and "we must drive them out like mad dogs." [30]

Flint · 3 December 2007

Hopelessly confused by Phil Johnson’s misunderstanding of methodological and philosophical naturalism,

I don't think this is correct. Johnson, at least initially (I don't know about today), "knew" his particular god was out there doing stuff, as per the doctrines of his Faith. Since this was unquestionably the case, the only possible reason scientists weren't finding it was, they weren't explicitly looking for it. I believe Johnson was entirely confident that a few creationist scientists, well-armed because they already knew exactly what they were looking for, would have no difficulty at all in producing it. I imagine Johnson remains sorely vexed that these guys aren't even trying - no research, no labs, no budget, no results. And since proof of the activities of Johnson's god MUST be out there, and MUST be stone obvious (they are to him, after all), and since nobody is even bothering to look, it must be because they don't WANT to look. Methodological naturalism isn't what prevents scientists from even making the effort, but philosophical naturalism is - it tells the scientists that there's no hope, that science in principle can't investigate what Johnson finds obvious. So this isn't "confusion", it's a logical implication to a legal mind. So I think it's probably correct to say that the DI has by now conceded that there really was never any science there to research, and focus must now be redirected away from science and toward other PR strategies. But the two main strategies are legal cases and political elections and appointments. And the creationists (and the DI) have been badly embarrassed in the legal end, which is why realpc needs to deflect this defeat - which he'd be touting from the rooftops if Jones had been a creationist (and therefore his fixation would override his intellect). Had Jones decided in his favor, realpc would be citing "proof" that creationism is science. But when it's an adverse decision, then it doesn't count. And this is how PR battles are fought.

PvM · 3 December 2007

You may have hit the nail upon its head, Phil Johnson may actually have believed the 'scientists' who assured him that science could reliably detect the 'Designer'. He would not be the first ID proponent misled by this.

PvM · 3 December 2007

The videos are there

enjoy

Bill Gascoyne · 3 December 2007

Let me start of by pointing out that any such attempt is doomed from the beginning for the simple reason that the Discovery Institute and other ID Creationists have claimed that Darwinism cannot provide foundation for morality, or in other words, Darwinism cannot serve as a principle on which to build a decision of what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’.

This is what they may claim, but I believe the emphasis in this statement is wrong. It's not that they fear that "Darwinism cannot provide foundation for morality," what they fear is that a scientific world view has the potential to undermine the morality taught by Christianity. If anything like birth control or abortion or euthanasia or homosexuality gets scientific support in any way, shape, or form, religion may be forced to (*gasp*) change the way it views these topics, a la Galileo, and admit that they were wrong.

Mac · 3 December 2007

realpc: "having realized that Intelligent Design is doomed to remain scientifically infertile and vacuous and after their devastating loss at the Dover trial" You're kidding, aren't you? You can't possibly think that the scientific value of theories is decided in courtrooms.

Realpc, please read your quoted statement a little more carefully. The trial did not determine the scientific infertility of ID. The trial, according to the original author, instead caused the Discovery Institute to realize the doomed fate of ID. (Although I think they're still in denial) Critical reading skills, people.

Frank J · 3 December 2007

You may have hit the nail upon its head, Phil Johnson may actually have believed the ‘scientists’ who assured him that science could reliably detect the ‘Designer’.
— PvM

Not just detect the designer, but anti-evolutionists in the early days of ID must have been hoping that some scientist "savior" would finally deliver evidence of independent origin of "kinds." They even seemed willing to concede a progressive OEC timeline as long as our "kind" was given its elusive special status. Then along comes Michael Behe who not only conceded common descent, but actually proposed a potential front-loading explanation that ties together all life, then backed away from it as soon as a critic showed him how easy it would be to confirm.

realpc · 3 December 2007

"the scientific value of theories is decided by the objective evidence discovered to support them.

Which is why evolution always wins."

Yes, evolution wins! It has no serious rivals. But we're questioning Darwinian evolution, not evolution in general. Where is the objective evidence for Darwinian evolution? It does not exist.

And that is why we want you to stop teaching it as an established theory.

The judge was probably fooled, as so many are, into thinking ID opposes evolution. That is how you win every time, by pretending this is about evolution. You know darn well it's about one particular theory of evolution which has never been tested.

Your beloved neo-Darwinist theory of evolution cannot be proven wrong because you can ALWAYS say it could happen given billions of years and an infinite number of universes. However implausible, however devoid of evidence, however defiant of common sense and scientific sense, and every kind of sense.

Your so-called "theory" can never be questioned because no one can ever prove that it could not have happened.

Give ID a chance. If you're so sure they're wrong, why do you feel threatened? Why do you struggle so hard to keep them down? If they're wrong, you have nothing to fear.

But you're so scared, so protective of your beloved materialism and atheism.

And by the way I am not a Christian and have nothing to do with DI. I am just someone who would rather think for myself than follow mindlessly.

NGL · 3 December 2007

realpc: "the scientific value of theories is decided by the objective evidence discovered to support them. Which is why evolution always wins." Yes, evolution wins! It has no serious rivals. But we're questioning Darwinian evolution, not evolution in general. Where is the objective evidence for Darwinian evolution? It does not exist. And that is why we want you to stop teaching it as an established theory. The judge was probably fooled, as so many are, into thinking ID opposes evolution. That is how you win every time, by pretending this is about evolution. You know darn well it's about one particular theory of evolution which has never been tested. Your beloved neo-Darwinist theory of evolution cannot be proven wrong because you can ALWAYS say it could happen given billions of years and an infinite number of universes. However implausible, however devoid of evidence, however defiant of common sense and scientific sense, and every kind of sense. Your so-called "theory" can never be questioned because no one can ever prove that it could not have happened. Give ID a chance. If you're so sure they're wrong, why do you feel threatened? Why do you struggle so hard to keep them down? If they're wrong, you have nothing to fear. But you're so scared, so protective of your beloved materialism and atheism. And by the way I am not a Christian and have nothing to do with DI. I am just someone who would rather think for myself than follow mindlessly.

Wow. The overwhelming retardery in this post is so staggering, I think a few of my brain cells died. You obviously have neither any understanding nor interest in evolutionary theory, and your attempts at flamebaiting will be ignored. No one cares what you have to say. We don't feel threatened. We're not intimidated by the ego you substitute for an intellect. We aren't afraid of being proven wrong. Your contributions to this thread are worthless, and your attempts at getting under our skin are a complete and total failure. I'd pity you if you were worth the time, but you aren't. So, please, unless you have something of substance to contribute, I urge you to take the next available flight to Nilbog, and take your poofy pink hair with you. No one here likes you. Stop posting.

Stanton · 3 December 2007

What NGL is trying to say, realpc, is that when you argue about differences between "general evolution," "Darwinian evolution" and "neo-Darwinist theory of evolution," your scientific naivety sticks out like a sore thumb, and that you sound as silly as a pseudo-chemist arguing over the differences and dangers of confusing water with dihydrogen oxide.

Also, please do realize that "not (being) a Christian" has never been a valid excuse for denying reality. For example, Harun Yahya is the most prominent creationist in Turkey, and has been quite successful in using the threat of violence against numerous university professors in order to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory in Turkish universities, as well as manipulating the Turkish judicial system into barring the WordPress website from Turkey, on account of how a few Turkish bloggers wrote critical blog-postings about him and refused to retract them.

Stanton · 3 December 2007

Two more things, realpc...

1) No one has been able to prove how Intelligent Design can be used to do science, especially since all of its proponents have been extraordinarily unwilling to use it in scientific explanations, whether to describe phenomena, or to even describe Intelligent Design itself. To argue fairness in regards to Intelligent Design is absolute hypocrisy, given ID's scientific sterility.

2) You are lying through your teeth when you allege that you are allegedly thinking for yourself when you also parrot the extraordinarily tired Creationist canard of accusing your opponent of being a materialistic atheist.

Science Avenger · 3 December 2007

Ban RealPC until he stops making shit up.

Henry J · 3 December 2007

Where do anti-evolutionists get the notion that everybody who accepts the ToE wants it to be correct? I could name several species of life form that I'd much rather be able to deny being distantly related to. But it doesn't work that way.

Henry

Henry J · 3 December 2007

Correction to #137076 - make that types of life forms instead of species.

Henry

realpc · 4 December 2007

when you argue about differences between “general evolution,” “Darwinian evolution” and “neo-Darwinist theory of evolution," your scientific naivety sticks out like a sore thumb

What exactly is naive about it Stanton? I'm not using your favorite label of the moment? I think we all know very well what Darwin hypothesized, and we all know that his hypothesis became accepted as the understanding of genetics advanced, and was renamed neo-Darwinism. It is essentially the same idea, and you know what it is and you know what I am referring to. And you know there is a world of difference between "evolution theory" in general, and the specific hypothesis that is currently considered the standard accepted theory. Sometimes Darwinists complain that the theory has evolved and become increasingly advanced, and non-biologists are no longer capable of understanding it. BS. It's the same old simple idea, just as lacking in evidence as it ever was. Biologists fell in love with Darwinism because it appeared to solve one of the greatest mysteries. But love can be blind.

Henry J · 4 December 2007

The theory of evolution is a body of knowledge that contains many hypotheses.

One of the major ones is simply that complex organisms came from recent nearby ancestors very similar to themselves.

Henry

Frank J · 5 December 2007

One of the major ones is simply that complex organisms came from recent nearby ancestors very similar to themselves.
— Henry J

And that part is so well-established that most anti-evolution activists in recent years either concede it (like Behe) or simply avoid stating a formal alternative hypothesis in the first place. Can anyone tell what's realpc's alternative to that, if any? There's certainly no sign of it in the above comment among all the stuff about "Darwinism" and "Darwinists."

realpc · 5 December 2007

I believe in evolution and have stated it hundreds of times at this blog. I have absolutely no doubt about evolution, and I never did. I am not a Christian and I think literal belief in any religious text is ludicrous. I also think the Darwinian theory is bogus. It explains how evolution is controlled and species are kept relatively stable. It DOES not explain the origin of new species. And you all know this, but hate to admit it.

Frank J · 5 December 2007

realpc:

Are you trying to say that you accept only "microevolution"? And how do you think new species originate if not by the "Darwinian theory"? I don't need mechanistic details, just the basics - whether in-vivo (e.g. saltation) or in-vitro (separate abiogenesis for each new species), and approximately how many years ago certain species (e.g. H. sapiens, Cambrian phyla) originated.

Please see if you can answer them without using terms like "common design" or "common origin."

PvM · 5 December 2007

realpc: I believe in evolution and have stated it hundreds of times at this blog. I have absolutely no doubt about evolution, and I never did. I am not a Christian and I think literal belief in any religious text is ludicrous. I also think the Darwinian theory is bogus. It explains how evolution is controlled and species are kept relatively stable. It DOES not explain the origin of new species. And you all know this, but hate to admit it.

Maybe it is time for you to read something about Darwinism, such as perhaps the Origin of Species?

Stanton · 5 December 2007

realpc: I believe in evolution and have stated it hundreds of times at this blog. I have absolutely no doubt about evolution, and I never did. I am not a Christian and I think literal belief in any religious text is ludicrous. I also think the Darwinian theory is bogus. It explains how evolution is controlled and species are kept relatively stable. It DOES not explain the origin of new species. And you all know this, but hate to admit it.

You honestly think that Darwin's magnum opus, "On the Origin of Species" does not address how new species form? And you continue to be amazed why we continue to disregard what you say as nonsense? (nevermind the fact that you also parrot creationist arguments nonstop, also)

Richard · 14 December 2007

Speciation can also occur in ways that Darwin didn't predict, like genetic drift and polyploidy. Could you also consider endosymbiosis a mechanism for speciation? Just thinking of Kwang Jeon's observations where amoebae took up bacteria and seemed to become dependent on them.

Henry J · 14 December 2007

Could you also consider endosymbiosis a mechanism for speciation?

Makes sense to me (for asexual species that is) but I'm not a biologist (so I don't know if a biologist might disagree). With asexual reproduction (i.e., no routine recombination of a large fraction of the genome) species is in a sense just another rank of taxonomic group, below genus and above subspecies (i.e., determined by convenience of the people doing the classifying). (With sexual species of course, the species "boundary" is intended to be related to the likelihood of significant DNA exchange between two groups that are within range of each other.) Henry