The Very Definition of Irony

Please lower the gain on your irony-meters for this one, you might not want to replace it after you read this post.

 I was doing a little catch-up reading and caught this one over at Larry Moran's Sandwalk blog: "A refreshing admission on Uncommon Descent", without reading his post, I knew it was going to be fun.  The only sanity you get from Uncommon Descent is either unintentional or an attempt at obfuscation.  Unlike most ID Proponents, I will get to the whole article to see the context of the Uncommon Descent post.  If you aren't familiar with Uncommon Descent, it's the blog that used to belong to Wild Bill Dembski, who has since not only left the Discovery Institute fold, but a few years back he turned it over to a revolving collection of apologists.  I can't in good conscience refer to Uncommon Descent as 'UD' because here in Dayton Ohio that's the initials and common reference to one of the finest Catholic Universities in the country, the University of Dayton, and also one that teaches actual science in their biology classes.  In fact, as I mentioned in a previous post, UD doesn't even mention ID on it's website, but it does have classes on Evolution, quite a few of them in fact.

I've written about Uncommon Descent before -- a few times about how my comments on one of their posts or another magically disappears. One time it was because of something one of their posters claimed: "Creationists know more about Evolution?", which was really hilarious to read.  Another time was about something called an 'Intelligent Design (ID) Quiz', which was really nothing more than a survey and made little sense, "An Intelligent Design Quiz . . . not really" and for once my answers did make it on the site, not my direct comment, but part of another post by the 'quiz' author, who thought I was 'sneering and arrogant', (comment posted # 49).  Of course my posted response to him never found it's way onto their site, which is pretty much par for the course.  I find it funny that he asks for my opinion and because he didn't like it, I was sneering and arrogant.  But when I mention how his quiz was little more than a ploy to give those who already drank the DI's kool-aid to stroke his ego, the comment never makes it online.  Yet he was full of self-congratulations from the people who said nice things about ID, who he called thoughtful and kind.  Wonder why? 

As you can tell I have little to no respect for Uncommon Descent, whether it was under Dembski's moniker or one of the other posters.  So once I saw Larry's post, I knew it was going to be good.  I just have to post the opening paragraph from Uncommon Descent:

"Probably one of the most daunting aspects of carrying on debates either about proper critical thinking, theism vs atheism, or intelligent design and its implications is the seeming implacable nature of those we debate here and elsewhere. It most often seems that no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse makes one iota of difference to our interlocutors; however, I think this is probably because most of those who will take the time to seek our position out and criticize it on its home turf are already fully committed against such positions, and are often emotionally entrenched."(Uncommon Descent: The Benefit of Arguments at UD)

I just had to underline a couple of things to point out, and will address them, but I have to address the irony of the whole post.  If you read just this paragraph, you might not realize it was an ID proponent.  It would be easy to confuse because what you are seeing is a common DI tactic.  They take innocuous phrases and try and spin them for their own purposes.  The words sound so reasonable, but really?  Let's take a closer look.  If you read the rest of the post, William J. Murray, one of the multitude of ID apologists on Uncommon Descent, tells the story of how he 'taught' his granddaughter to a theist by telling why he was one.  Hmmm, sounds fishy to me, how about you?

I recall a book by Ann Coulter, you know the Bill O'Reilly for people who can actually read.  She decided to learn about the whole Evolution vs ID issue by visiting the Discovery Institute.  There she knelt down in front of a few of their usual talking heads and swallowed the kool-aid whole.  Now a reasonable person might have taken a little bit of time to get the scientific view from . . . oh, I don't know . . . actual working biologists, but not Coulter.  She prefers her science of the pseudo-science variety.  Why muddy up the waters with facts.  Like Coulter, Murray, isn't interested in an opposing view, so he tells his granddaughter one side and lo-and-behold, claims she's sold.  Isn't that such a cute story.

More fodder for the irony meter, his last line:

"Every once in a while it’s nice to be reminded that, sometimes, reason and evidence can actually get through to a person."(Uncommon Descent: The Benefit of Arguments at UD)

Reason and evidence? I am almost curious at what he considers reason and evidence? He does list a few things -- cosmological fine-tuning, bio-semiotics and cellular nano-technology, and also first-cause and moral arguments -- but are those things based on reason and evidence or based on wishful thinking and conjecture?  Has there been anything actually resembling evidence presents that supports a theistic position on any of those topics?  Now, remember, claiming to have evidence and actually having evidence are radically different things.

I do want to address a few of the things I underlined in the first quote: 

First of all, Critical Thinking, is the ID community really interested in Critical Thinking?  Has anyone actually seen any evidence of this?  I would like to remind everyone of one of the lines from the judicial decision from the Kitzmiller v. Dover et al:

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM [Intelligent Design Movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, p89)

They use the term all the time, but they really don't want people thinking critically about Intelligent Design, their idea of critical thinking is an effort to damage science education on the assumption that it would allow ID to wedge it's way into the science classroom.  So far, it's been an abject failure . . . primarily because ID proponents haven't managed to support their version of Creationism with anything but wishful thinking.

OK, next up, Theism vs Atheism.  How many times has this come up in a debate about ID, and yet people like those at Uncommon Descent keep claiming that ID is not a form of Creationism.  If that were true, then why should theism vs atheism even come up?  We all know why, because Intelligent Design is Creationism minus any specific reference to the Christian God.  Therefore any debate quickly boils down to one apologist or another defending their religious faith while trying not to use religious terms.  How many times has an ID proponent unofficially identified the 'designer' as the Christian God?  How many times have their denied their religious roots while speaking at religious meetings, organized by religious organizations, and published in the religious press?  So there is a definite 'theistic' side, but then where does the 'atheism' come in?

So here is another example where an ID proponent is using the same sort of 'evidence' they claim supports ID as the support for their religious beliefs . . . Yes, read the whole post for yourself.  An ID proponent is publicly acknowledging that his ID beliefs are based on and the basis for his religious beliefs.  I know it won't impact the DI's constant denial of their religious beliefs, but here it is, again.  And I love the head-patting and sucking up many of the commenters gave Murray.  So they obviously agree! 

Here's one part I will never be able to forgive the ID supporters, the accusation that science is in some way atheistic.  That is a lie and nothing more than another gutter level tactic. They try and sell the idea that if you support science, you are obviously an atheist.  They are trying to create an artificial binary choice as a tactic to push theists into the Creationism/ID side.  But most theists haven't bought into it.  Creationists, like the DI and the posters at Uncommon Descent, are not making much headway against not only actual scientists, but the religious groups and schools where they believe pushing their religion would be an advantage -- but major religious groups haven't bought into their snake oil.  Just check out the Clergy Letter project again to see what I am talking about, over 14,000 signatures of Christian, Jewish, Unitarian, and Buddhist clergy supporting real science over pseudo-science.

The third things I underlined, ID and it's implications.  Just what implications are they talking about?  What has the ID Movement (IDM) actually accomplished?  What implications are their for science?  So far, with the exception of a few politicians pandering for votes, exactly what has the impact of the past 20 years of the DI's marketing campaign been on science and on science education?  Pretty minimal.  They have achieved none of their goals, they have done nothing in the way of actual scientific research, and their collection of tactics and strategies relies on lies and mis-direction.

Finally, no amount of logic, evidence or even reasonable discourse, really?  Scientific theories get changed all the time.  Real scientists working in actual labs and studying biology have updated and augmented the Theory of Evolution since Darwin.  Logic and discourse are two of the tools they use regularly.  Although I have heard that the discourse isn't always considered 'reasonable', and you can always find examples of scientists who are dug in so deep it takes something like dynamite to get them to accept change, but if you look at the changes over the decades, you can see even the most entrenched 'evolutionist' has changed considerably over time.  Can Creationists say the same thing?

How different are the DI's arguments from the William Paley "Natural Theology" arguments of the early 19th century?  While the terminology is different, the basic arguments are the same.  Said of Paley's Watchmaker Analogy:

" . . . creationists revived versions of the argument to dispute the concepts of evolution and natural selection, and there was renewed interest in the watchmaker argument. They related the analogy to the "argument from design," where it was used to support arguments for the existence of God, as well as for the intelligent design of the universe." (Wikipedia: Watchmaker Analogy)

All in all, I was entertained. I hope that Murray's granddaughter takes an actual science class from a school that teaches science, not the pseudo-science that Murray appears to like so much. OK, you can re-set the gain on your irony-meters back to normal. I just didn't want to be responsible for you having to replace them . . . yet again.

Kirk Pt III: Fantasy and Science

Kirk Durston has yet another post and this one is much less interesting.  Before getting into it, I wanted to comment on the title "Confusing Fantasy with Science".  I don't think real scientists have a problem with confusing the two, after all at one point all science started out as fantasy, didn't it?  Someone had an incredible idea and did the work to not only prove their idea was reality, but take it to a point so that architects and engineers could take the idea and turn it into useful and practical stuff, stuff that actually works.  Sometimes the idea didn't even originate with the scientists, they just happened to be the ones who turned an idea into reality.  Jules Vernes' works are excellent examples.  We've been to the moon, although not using a giant cannon.  We have submarines that travel considerably longer distances than 20,000 leagues, don't we?  Many of the things we see as ubiquitous today were once solely within the realm of science fiction and fantasy.  Cell phones, computers and doesn't the Apple Watch remind anyone else of the Dick Tracy two-way wrist unit?  If real scientists got confused between the science and fantasy, I doubt their success rate would be very high.  They might imagine, but they would never be able to put their imaginations to such practical applications, would they? 

OK, on the Kirk's article.  He starts off with a lie, at least in my opinion it's a lie:

"In order for atheism to survive the advance of science, it must come up with a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the incredible fine-tuning required for the universe to support life, and the origin of life itself."

The first part of his comment seems pretty ridiculous, "In order for atheism to survive the advance of science . . ."  By definition atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.  Why is that predicated on anything science comes up with?  The rest of it is just as bad, why does atheism have to develop a natural explanation of the origin of the universe?  Why does it have to explain something that exists only in the imagination of people like Kirk, the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument?  The only way I think any of this could happen is if Creationists are suddenly about to have a breakthrough in which science confirms, undeniably confirms, the existence of  deity and the host of things Creationists insist could have only happened through the actions of said deity.  I don't see that happening, although I bet Kirk is hoping it confirms the existence of an evangelical Christian God, or else the newly identified deity might not take too kindly to Kirk.  Atheism requires nothing like this, so why would Kirk word it this way? 

I think he's doing a couple of things.  First off by stating it this way, he's trying to equate science and atheism, which is a common, and yet disreputable, tactic and one frequently used by the Discovery Institute and their friends.  Science is not 'atheistic', nor is it 'theistic', at best, neutral.  By trying to equate the two, he's attempting to sell people who do believe in one deity or another that they cannot accept science without dropping their belief.  If that were the case then why do so many scientists profess theistic beliefs?  While it's true that the percentage of scientists who profess such beliefs is lower than the general population, it's also true that the better educated you are, the less likely you are to share some theistic belief set.  No wonder the DI is so intent on damaging science education!

Second, I think he's doing a little projection (the defense mechanism).  How I see things is that while claiming atheists have to explain the universe, the reality is if a religion doesn't come up with supernatural explanations, it will not only fail to survive the advances of science, but it will fail to gain adherents..  I mean when you think of it how many supernatural explanations and entire religions have fallen by the wayside of the decades and centuries?

While they blame science, it's not science that is disproving God, it's that people try and use God as an explanation for something they do not understand -- a very self-limiting process.  Once we do understand it better, the God explanation falls flat.  While they like to blame science, the reality is they are doing it to themselves by clinging to superseded ideas in the perception that they are somehow protecting their cherished beliefs.  The reality is they simply look foolish!  This is also know as the "God of the Gaps' argument, and we'll be discussing that more later.

But back to Kirk.  I think he's also using another tactic.  By claiming that atheism HAS to accomplish certain things, he knows that any answer science comes up with will never satisfy someone like Kirk or any of his friends.  Which means as long as he doesn't accept the answer, he can keep claiming science as some sort of failure.  Sort of like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and making nonsensical noises to avoid hearing something he doesn't want to hear.

I don't believe this line is true either:

" . . . scientists have pointed out that the universe appears to be unbelievably fine-tuned to be able to support life".  

Scientists have not done this in any way, in fact they have shown the opposite.  The majority of the universe we have discovered, granted is a tiny part of the whole, but it is incapable of supporting life as we know it.  You would survive for how long on the Moon, or Mars, or Jupiter if you were suddenly transported their in your shirt sleeves?  Minutes, seconds, even less?  I know Creationists like to point out that the Earth and the Universe is somehow fine-tuned, but that doesn't fit the evidence, not that they will ever admit it.

He also states that Eugene Koonin basically says life is highly improbable, therefore "Koonin's solution is to propose an infinite multiverse".  Eugene Koonin did not propose an infinite multiverse, at best he philosophically thinks that it might increase the odds of life forming somewhere.  But it has nothing to do with the fine-tuned idea.  The multiverse is more a philosophical question than a scientific question and has been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, and even science fiction.  But scientists engaging is a debate doesn't automatically make it a viable scientific theory, which Kirk seems to want it to be so he can try and poke holes in it.

What he is doing is another common tactic.  Building a straw-man so he can tear it down.  In this post he's redefined atheism, misrepresented science claiming that it has 'proven' the fine-tuning nonsense, and it looks like he's quote-mining Eugene Koonin to build a straw-man.  Halfway into Kirk's article and he's already used a number of disreputable Creationist tactics.  The Discovery Institute must be so proud.

He finally got to his main argument, that  . . . well let him tell you:

"So the multiverse has become atheism's "god of the gaps" but some scientists point out that multiverse "science" is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, "they are not observationally or experimentally testable -- and never will be."

His link is to his own blog where he postulates that the whole idea of the multiverse is mainly to avoid the idea of one unseen creator.  So according to Kirk science invented a whole concept just to avoid the possibility of one particular version of a deity?  Sounds more like something Creationists did, as in Creation Science, when they invented a whole new conceptual view of religion in order to avoid facing the reality of science.  So much projection in one short posting!

In order for the multiverse to be a 'God of the Gaps' argument, some scientists would have to stand up and claim the multiverse is the answer for a specific set of questions for which there is no other current answer, or one for which current answers are rejected at least by the scientist making the multiverse claim.  That's how the God of the Gaps argument works.  We see it every time someone like Michael Behe tries to pass of irreducible complexity as science, or Wild Bill Dembski tries to convince us of his specified complexity filter, or any time kennie ham posts  . . . well . . . anything.  What we see are 'explanations' devoid of any scientific support other than wishful thinking.  Is that what we see when scientists debate the many ideas about a multiverse?  The four types, the nine types,and all the potential permutations?  It's still way too soon to call the multiverse the answer to anything, while no one knows what future discoveries might change that, Kirk is trying to discredit it already. 

At this point the multiverse is an idea, barely a hypothesis and one they readily admit may never go much further.  There are any number of ideas about it,  I think Kirk is more afraid of what the multiverse would do for his religious beliefs. Imagine if we found a multitude of other universes and what if none of them provide any evidence of a deity? 

It seems that Kirk doesn't want scientists to be able to imagine and debate fantastic ideas at all.  After all what is Creationism/Intelligent Design but a flight of fancy centered around a narrow view of one particular deity.  How dare scientists make flights of fancy of their own, especially ones that fail to pay homage to Kirk's version of a God!

What Kirk appears to fail to realize is that where innovation comes from?  It doesn't stem from staring at the tried and true, but from an individual, or group of individuals, looking at something from a unique angles, developing the ideas, and proving the ideas in ways no one previously had imagined.  Not all ideas will pan out, as Kirk and his buddies prove on a daily basis.  But it's that fantastical thinking that offers a way to the future that Kirk wants to deny to anyone but I guess himself.

Let's see so far, Kirk has questioned belief in science, the peer-review process, and now the multiverse.  And yet is all three posts he hasn't really offered anything but the usual creationist canards about science and how scientists work.  At best he's reiterated some of the negative aspects of science -- things already recognized and often being addressed by real scientists, while at the same time he's misrepresented a great deal, like peer review, the multiverse, Eugene Koonin, and even the God of the Gaps argument.  You're not doing to well, Kirk.  And I thought your posts might be a bit more fun.  Hey Kirk, don't you have anything original?