Ya don't get along with creationists, we get it...

[patcalhoun]

That said, I've got a few questions.

 

1. Can the creationist movement achieve its objectives where science education is concerned? I suspect we'll see a movement that has the political and legal energy to secure a major reconsideration of establishment clause case law or at least craft an argument for some significant ID education program that would pass the present judiciary's muster. What do you think?

 

2, If creationists overcome at least the national legal hurdles, the battle in most states will turn to the legislatures and school boards. In that war of public opinion, what can secularists do to prevent a resurgence of anti-evolution pedagogy in the schools? I have no idea; I haven't thought that far ahead yet, but maybe a few of you have.

[ecoli]

Why are you assuming creationists are trying to take over the classrooms? Don't confuse intellegent design proponents and people who believe in the creation story. They aren't necesarily the same people.

 

You make it sound as though ID proponents are waging a war... don't be so dramatic.

[Tetrahedrite]

As a scientist, I have absolutely no respect for the teaching of any type of creationism or ID in science classes. Blind Freddy can see that neither can be used as an alternative for evidence based concepts such as ToE. I have absolutely no problem with these concepts being taught in religion classes, as long as they are in no way offered up as alternative to real science.

 

1/ At the present minute, I think there are enough intelligent (and secular) people, both in the general public, in the judiciary, and in public schools, who will realise that any move towards a non-scientific teaching of science will only serve to dumb down the population. However, if christian fundamentalism continues to grow within the USA, I think it is possible that a combination of political sway (from people like Bush, for example), activist judges and school boards in areas in with high levels of christian fundamentalism, may eventually result in ID being taught in some areas (eg Kentucky, and other red states). Gladly, in Australia, the state governments who control education have dismissed ID as unscientific and it is really a non-issue.

 

2/If the legal hurdles were overcome, I think it would be both detrimental to the students and the country. One possible consequence is that universities may not be as willing to take those students from schools promoting ID (especially in the science fields). A refusal to accept evolution may also lead to a reduction in the number of students persuing careers in research, which would impact on biotechnology, drug manufacture, medical science etc.

In a selfish way, I hope that the US continues down the fundamentalist path with issues such as Stem Cell research and ID because it opens up opportunities for countries such as Australia to conduct research and produce products which the USA would otherwise be doing.

[Pangloss]

Science fiction author Orson Scott Card, who has recently begun to make a second reputation for himself as a conservative blogger and editorial writer, had an interesting perspective piece on this the other day.

 

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

 

His (anti-ID) position was basically that ID proponents should not be criticized on the same basis as the traditional debunking of creationism. There are "Darwinists" who base their position on faith and close the door of science in so doing. Those people are just as wrong as the IDers.

 

He goes on to say that the only valid basis for arguing against IDers is that while there are problems with the evolutionary model, those problems amount to questions, and ID amounts to an answer, and it's an answer that has not been proven.

 

His ultimate point apparently being that schools should focus on teaching the scientific method and critical thinking, and not wrote transmission of evolution as if it were some kind of faith.

 

Anyway, it's a good read so I thought I'd pass it along.

[ecoli]

thanks Pangloss, sounds like me and Card would get along.

[bascule]

He goes on to say that the only valid basis for arguing against IDers is that while there are problems with the evolutionary model, those problems amount to questions, and ID amounts to an answer[/i'], and it's an answer that has not been proven.

 

Yep, that is precisely the crux of the argument against Intelligent Design. ID isn't science, it's an enormous argument from incredulity, the "God in the Gaps" argument. The whole thing is based on a logical fallacy. Science is based on logic.

[In My Memory]

Patcalhoun,

That said' date=' I've got a few questions.

 

1. Can the creationist movement achieve its objectives where science education is concerned? I suspect we'll see a movement that has the political and legal energy to secure a major reconsideration of establishment clause case law or at least craft an argument for some significant ID education program that would pass the present judiciary's muster. What do you think?

 

2, If creationists overcome at least the national legal hurdles, the battle in most states will turn to the legislatures and school boards. In that war of public opinion, what can secularists do to prevent a resurgence of anti-evolution pedagogy in the schools? I have no idea; I haven't thought that far ahead yet, but maybe a few of you have.[/quote']

1. No. Creationists have been tried injecting creationism into the classroom and it didnt work, then they tried calling it creation science and it didnt work, then they tried calling it Intelligent Design and it didnt work, and the next big step after that is to call it something like "critical examination of evolution" and that wont work either. There have been no changes in creationist arguments for 200+ years, they've only added more syllables to their jargon and hope that no one will notice.

 

If creationists couldnt figure out why "second law of thermodynamics prevents evolution" was wrong under the guise of creationism, creation science, and Intelligent Design, then they arent going to figure out what makes it wrong for any future renaming of their "theory". There are no academic objections to evolution that creationists can muster, so they'll find a home in any academic environment.

 

At best, if creationists can come up with a scientific alternative to evolution, they can first claim the next 10 nobel prizes honored to them, and then can be taught alongside evolution in classrooms. That'll never happen until they learn to use the scientific method.

 

 

2. Peer review creationist findings. I have the book Scientific Creationism (1971) by Henry Morris, and I've critiqued it here and here. Its pretty standard for creationist texts, and I dont think any creationist writings are any much better. When creationist findings are revealed for what they really are, they get laughed out academic circles and hopefully out of schools. If creationists manage to circumvent the First Amendment establishment clause, then creationists are forced to defend creationism based on its scientific merit, and I dont think they can do that.

 

I remember a quote by IDist William Dembski when he said "soon we'll be taking evolutionists to court and force them to defend their silly theory what what it really is, that'll show everyone how 'scientific' it is". There were probably no better examples of dramatic irony after that statement than the Dover PA trial :D

 

 

Ecoli,

Don't confuse intellegent design proponents and people who believe in the creation story. They aren't necesarily the same people.

And dont confuse theistic evolutionists with ID proponents for the same reason

 

 

Pangloss,

His (anti-ID) position was basically that ID proponents should not be criticized on the same basis as the traditional debunking of creationism.

If thats true, someone should tell the authors of ID textbooks to do a better job than using MSWord's find/replace feature to change "God" and "creationism" to "designer" and "Intelligent Design"

[swansont]

Science fiction author Orson Scott Card' date=' who has recently begun to make a second reputation for himself as a conservative blogger and editorial writer, had an interesting perspective piece on this the other day.

 

http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-01-08-1.html

 

His (anti-ID) position was basically that ID proponents should not be criticized on the same basis as the traditional debunking of creationism. There are "Darwinists" who base their position on faith and close the door of science in so doing. Those people are just as wrong as the IDers.

 

He goes on to say that the only valid basis for arguing against IDers is that while there are problems with the evolutionary model, those problems amount to [i']questions[/i], and ID amounts to an answer, and it's an answer that has not been proven.

 

His ultimate point apparently being that schools should focus on teaching the scientific method and critical thinking, and not wrote transmission of evolution as if it were some kind of faith.

 

Anyway, it's a good read so I thought I'd pass it along.

 

It's not bad, but a problem with it is that he says "Evolution and Darwinism have been treated as synonyms for so long that too many people think they're the same thing. But they're not, and never have been." and the rest of the piece seems to pretty much ignore this point, seeing as he keeps talking about "Darwinists" and "Darwinism."

[swansont]

Why are you assuming creationists are trying to take over the classrooms? Don't confuse intellegent design proponents and people who believe in the creation story. They aren't necesarily the same people.

 

You make it sound as though ID proponents are waging a war... don't be so dramatic.

 

Because they have admitted as much. e.g. Ken Ham' date=' Answers in Genesis: "[i']the best strategy to influence schools is one that uses grassroots efforts—not the current court system—to help students hear both sides of the creation/evolution debate.[/i]"

 

Some of the people are the same.

 

"A Battle Plan: Practical Steps to Combat Evolution

By Dr. Kent Hovind"

 

Both sides are being dramatic.

[AL]

The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific. The main points are:

1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).

2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).

3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).

4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).

5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).

6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).

7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true).

This seems like a bit of a strawman, as I've read Behe's work as well as many critiques of his work written by actual people who've read his book and neither I or nor they would make or have made most of these statements. A few I might make if allowed to qualify them further.

 

Regarding claim 1), it may not be strict, literal, young 6,000-year-old earth creationism, but it is a rehash of Paley's natural theology and an attempt to instill a need for a god-concept in science by arguing from the gaps evolution can't explain. Same deal, the only difference is in what they see as the gaps. The young earth creationists think geologists can't explain the Grand Canyon, the IDers think evolution can't explain how the vertebrate immune system evolved. Even if they were both right, this does not substantiate their case beyond "currently accepted theories can't explain this." I also find it silly that Card would say the IDists accept evolution to some extent and that this distinguishes them from creationists. Even a staunch YEC like Kent Hovind will say "microevolution occurs" so it could be said that the YECs too accept evolution to some extent, but this isn't a point of contention if they don't contend it. It's what the IDers and YECs do contend about evolution that is the issue, so of course a statement like "IDers and YECs reject evolution" may be seen as too general, but it should be interpreted as being specific.

For claim 2), I wouldn't doubt some people unfortunately do argue along those lines. Behe has a phd in biochemistry and Dembski has one each in philosophy and mathematics. Both take the approach of their disciplines in formulating their argument (e.g. Dembski tries to recast Paley's arguments using a lot of unnecessary mathematical formalism). Not that it matters even if they didn't have such degrees, as a good argument is still a good argument and a bad one still bad regardless of degree. I suppose I should bring up that Dembski himself resorted to credentialism to dismiss a critique of his use of the No Free Lunch theorems by a reviewer with only a bachelor's in statistics. Unfortunately for Dembski, one of the co-authors of the No Free Lunch theorem (who has a phd) agreed that Dembski misused the theorem.

 

Claim 3) is just silly. I think proponents of evolution do an excellent job of explaining their theory carefully as well as acknowledging the limits. I think it's the acknowledging the limits part that sometimes gets them in trouble.

 

Claim 4) is silly as well. It's important to point out where their argument is faulty, but of course it's a straightforward argumentum ad logicam to say because their argument is fallacious that their conclusion is wrong. It is however, reasonable to conclude that if their argument is fallacious, they did not make their case with respect to that argument and should not be treated as though they had (i.e. if we are to call it science, it must at least have a case).

 

I'm not going to address claim 5), even though I should since this thread was posted in the politics forum. Sue me.

 

In my opinion, Mark Perakh has written some of the best critiques of ID. Some of his writings can be found on talkorigins, a few you'll have to get in print publications. He does not resort to any silly arguments, and I think Orson Scott Card should read some of his works before suggesting that proponents of evolution are running from the fight.

 

All that said, I don't deny there are bad arguments made for evolution. To his credit, Dembski addresses a few of them quite well. For instance, it is sometimes said that the Mandelbrot equation implies that complexity can arise by simplicity, since the infinitely complex Mandelbrot set fractal can be generated by the simple complex* equation Z = Z^2 + C. This is right up Dembski's alley, being a mathematician. Dembski argues that this simply isn't true. While the equation is simple, the process of taking a value generated by the equation and plotting it onto a coordinate system to generate the fractal requires a complicated algorithm. I agree with Dembski's counterargument, although I never found this Mandelbrot argument to be very convincing to begin with and a refutation of it certainly does not imply that simplicity cannot give rise to complexity. Moreover, we can still argue over whether there is more than just a nebulous line between simplicity and complexity (which is why I never found the argument convincing), but that's another matter.

*Complex here means it refers to the complex numbers, not complex as opposed to simple or uncomplicated.

[patcalhoun]

Regarding claim 1), it may not be strict, literal, young 6,000-year-old earth creationism, but it is a rehash of Paley's natural theology and an attempt to instill a need[/i'] for a god-concept in science by arguing from the gaps evolution can't explain. Same deal, the only difference is in what they see as the gaps.

 

I believe is the point Card was trying to make is that conspiracy theories don't help ID's cause. It's an argument we should expect either from the:

 

1. weakest (knowledgably-speaking) critics of intelligent design,

 

2. or from the most authoritarian (psychologically speaking),

 

3. or as part of a concerted effort to frame a public policy agenda for the benefit of an audience consisting of members of the first two groups.

 

Insofar as Card is critiquing the effectiveness of this attack, weak participants aren't useful, authoritarian ones (I'd number Dawkins--hell, maybe even me--amongst these) lack persuasive appeal, and for whatever reason the public advocates are stalling at the grass roots. I don't think Card was thinking of the last group when he wrote that, though, but I suspect group 3 fails because it apes the tactics of so-called neoconservatism's critics. Replace Paley with Strauss and you have something that comes across like tinfoil conspiracy-mongering. On the other hand, you might find a judge in the Third Circuit amenable to such a story if its the only disspositive history admitted into evidence.

 

For claim 2), I wouldn't doubt some people unfortunately do argue along those lines. Behe has a phd in biochemistry and Dembski has one each in philosophy and mathematics. Both take the approach of their disciplines in formulating their argument (e.g. Dembski tries to recast Paley's arguments using a lot of unnecessary mathematical formalism). Not that it matters even if they didn't have such degrees, as a good argument is still a good argument and a bad one still bad regardless of degree. I suppose I should bring up that Dembski himself resorted to credentialism to dismiss a critique of his use of the No Free Lunch theorems by a reviewer with only a bachelor's in statistics. Unfortunately for Dembski, one of the co-authors of the No Free Lunch theorem (who has a phd) agreed that Dembski misused the theorem.

 

Another way to read Dembski's remarks is as retort to an attack on his credentials; that is not covered by what Card describes as credentialism. Offering the least favorable take of Dembski's reaction to score in a "well, they do it too" attack is also behavior I don't think Card would find especially useful.

 

Claim 3) is just silly. I think proponents of evolution do an excellent job of explaining their theory carefully as well as acknowledging the limits.

 

Then you have a low standard for persuasiveness [1]. A majority of Americans believe that man was created in his present form, and the next largest group excepts gene frequency change but considers either mutation or natural selection to be purposeful rather than random.

 

I think it's the acknowledging the limits part that sometimes gets them in trouble.

 

Yes, the "we only mean that allele frequency changes over time" and "evolution is not abiogenesis" smirks are not very helpful. That evolution is now widely considered to include abiogenesis speaks a great deal about science educator's success in persuasively transmiting the theory.

 

Claim 4) is silly as well. It's important to point out where their argument is faulty, but of course it's a straightforward argumentum ad logicam to say because their argument is fallacious that their conclusion is wrong.

 

Card is referring to the "oh this is wrong and here's why...oh, everything else is wrong (hand wave) so the conclusions are wrong" approach. This is where you zone in a handful of objections and then say "oh, and there's a crapload of other problems." Maybe Card sees everybody zoning in on the same handful of issues. Maybe the lay critics need to spend more time browsing through talk.origins. Whatever the problem is, Card thinks it's not doing enough to slow down the ID movement.

 

5), even though I should since this thread was posted in the politics forum. Sue me.

 

Me neither. This is only my personal experience, but the loudness of a lay critic on points of the law is inversely proportional to his lack of awe in his ignorance of the law and its application. I don't profess to be anymore knowledgeable about law than anyone else, but I think I know enough that impresses me how unqualified I am to look at a decision and say "this is what it means and this is how we should apply it."

 

In my opinion, Mark Perakh has written some of the best critiques of ID. Some of his writings can be found on talkorigins, a few you'll have to get in print publications.

 

Yeah, which is why Card's preferred means of attacking ID isn't working on a national scale. Who the hell reads talk.origins besides (admittedly tens of thousands) of committed Internet activists?

 

He does not resort to any silly arguments, and I think Orson Scott Card should read some of his works before suggesting that proponents of evolution are running from the fight.

 

A review of ID criticism does not begin or end with Internet celebrities; arguably, it need not consider them at all. There are plenty of well funded, well publicized organizations at the national scale advancing arguments and seizing the five minutes of airtime and three paragraphs of print space this debate gets in a month.

[Pangloss]

Interesting post, AL.

 

 

It's not bad, but a problem with it is that he says "Evolution and Darwinism have been treated as synonyms for so long that too many people think they're the same thing. But they're not, and never have been." and the rest of the piece seems to pretty much ignore this point, seeing as he keeps talking about "Darwinists" and "Darwinism."

 

I had much the same initial reaction as you and AL did as I was reading it, and in fact for much of my reading of it I wasn't actually sure if he was going to come down on the side of "creation" or "evolution" (using those possibly errant terms for the sake of simplicity), and I wasn't sure if in fact I was actually just reading a moderate conservative's effort to trod a fine line and do some serious hair-splitting.

 

So I would have to nod in acknowledgement at any criticism along those lines, even though my final impression was a different one.

[AL]

Another way to read Dembski's remarks is as retort to an attack on his credentials; that is not covered by what Card describes as credentialism. Offering the least favorable take of Dembski's reaction to score in a "well' date=' they do it too" attack is also behavior I don't think Card would find especially useful.[/quote']

I am in agreement with Card that resorting to "he lacks the credentials to have an opinion" arguments are little more than irrelevant ad hominems and I make no excuses for proponents of evolution who resort to such arguments so this isn't a case of "well, they do it too" and I am not in any way suggesting that proponents of evolution are justified in doing same. You might view my bringing up Dembski's counter-critique as a cheap shot, a charge I plead guilty to, but I brought it up as an illustration of the fact that people with higher degrees can make bad arguments, people with lower ones can make good arguments. And if we are in agreement that arguing from credentials is fallacious, then calling Dembski on this is both warranted and justified.

 

Then you have a low standard for persuasiveness [1']. A majority of Americans believe that man was created in his present form, and the next largest group excepts gene frequency change but considers either mutation or natural selection to be purposeful rather than random.

I suppose one way to measure persuasiveness is by how much it influences popular opinion, but it certainly isn't the only way. Popular opinion polls don't control for the fact that many people don't gather information on the debate before formulating an opinion, so it isn't a really good way to measure how well argued the case for evolution is if people aren't listening. My main point is that proponents of evolution are not simply saying "take our word for it" as Card suggests. They have a case, and they have arguments.

[philcandless]

I suppose one way to measure persuasiveness is by how much it influences popular opinion, but it certainly isn't the only way.

 

I think Card is concerned about how successful secularists have been for making the case to the public, in which case persuasiveness through popularity is what's relevant.