Human Nature, another thing the Discovery Institute knows little about!

In a post I read this morning, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, one of the more prolific Discovery Institute (DI) talking heads, says something incredibly foolish. Here's his post "Intelligent Design and Human Exceptionalism" and here is the quote:

"Here's an analogy. Let's say you know two very wealthy people. One came by his wealth via a lottery, a blind process, and he sees no purpose or intention behind it. It was the luck of the draw. The other, whether he inherited his wealth or came by it through enterprise, perceives it as a gift motivated by an underlying design. His fortune is not by the luck of the draw. It was given to him on purpose.
Both individuals are exceptionally wealthy. Which is likelier to use his money to advance good causes, to share it with others, to see himself as, in some sense,deputized to put his fortune to noble uses?"

I underlined the two interesting phrases.  My comment to klingy it simple, isn't he making an awfully wild assumption here?  Does someone who wins the lottery required to see no purpose?  Is someone who inherits, or gains though enterprise, going to perceive it as a gift motivated by some underlying design?  Really?

Now I am not yet addressing the purpose of the article, I am focused on his statement.  It's an analogy klingy is using the try and force a square peg, Intelligent Design (ID), into a round hole, Human Exceptionalism.  But just look at his analogy.  His answer to his own question is, of course, the person who inherited or came through his work through enterprise is much more likely to put his fortune to noble uses.  This way he can try and create a relationship between ID, as he characterizes as inherited/enterprising, and evolution, which he characterizes as blind process.

Now here comes the human nature part of the equation that klingy ignores.  Do you agree that someone who inherits money, or comes to it through enterprise, is more likely to put that money to noble purposes?  And do you also agree that a lottery winner would be selfish and not share his money?

See what I mean?  I don't have statistics to support either answer, and I am sure that klingy doesn't either or he would have been spouting them.  He's expressing a point of view as if it's reality in order to spin things the way he wishes.  Think about it, how many spoiled, self-entitled brats have you read about who inherited their fortune?  We have names for them, 'trust fund babies/brats/bums'.  We read about them in the paper all the time.  Rich kids who flout the law because of their entitlement and wealth -- even self-made people who are horrendous examples of human beings.  As tempting as it would be to name a few names, I'm pretty sure you can think of a number of your own examples.  It is a pretty big leap to assume they are more likely to be using their fortune 'to noble uses'.

On the other hand, can you think of lottery winners who donates part, a majority, and even all of their winnings to charity?  That one is easy to Google and you see hundreds of examples.  Some people didn't need the money, others used a small part and donated the rest to avoid the issues that have been popularized by reports in the news and on TV of how 'The Lottery Ruined My Life.".  There were several examples of people donating their entire winnings away to one or more charities!  So, to me, it's an equally big leap to assume someone who won a lottery is more likely to not use that money for anything noble!

One a personal note, I am not wealthy, in the terms of money in the bank.  I have neither won the lottery nor inherited any great wealth.  While it might be interesting to win a lottery and see if it actually ruins my life, regardless, I am a donor to a number of charities.  I donate to charities that have affected myself, my family, and my friends personally.  For example charities related to heart, cancer, MS, diabetes, and Parkinson's diseases.  I also donate to some organizations like Goodwill, Vietnam Vets, Boy and Girl Scouts, Special Olympics and my local PBS/NPR station.

Do I give a sizable percentage of my income?  I'm not sure of the exact amount, but in all honesty, I doubt it.  I would be shocked if I even hit 10%, let alone anything sizable.  But then, I don't have a great deal of disposable income.  Like many people my most sizable expense each month is a mortgage and car payments and they take up a pretty big chunk.  After that its living expenses, like food, utilities, insurance, and retirement.  Followed by savings and a small emergency fund.  While you may or may not agree, I place those things well ahead of any charitable donations.  Does that make me 'noble' in some way?  I never thought of it that way . . . and I still don't.  I know that I don't feel 'deputized', I just behave in the way I was raised, and that included my charitable donations.

It's not based on the source of your money, donating is a personal decision and one I believe is more based on who you are than what you have.  Yes, a wealthy person can give more than I can, but they give not because they got it from a particular source, they give because of who they are!

As for the rest of the article, it's nothing more than another effort to make the idea of human exceptionalism into something more than it is.  It is a belief, most often based on religion (man is made in the image of one deity or another . . .).  Of course klingy tries to use such beliefs as justification for ID.  He also mis-characterizes ID as:

"On the other hand, against a backdrop of intelligent design, which is a scientific not religious argument for purpose behind nature . . ."

His misspelled 'science', when used in conjunction with ID, the correct spelling is 'pseudo-science'.  But then, this is what the DI does, they spin!  How many times have I, and many others have, pointed out examples.  This is clearly another one!  I honestly think they could spin any subject and find a way to make it sound as if it support ID.  Look at how many they have already spun.  As long as the donations come in, the spin will continue to entertain us.

What is the probability of a Creationist actually calculating the Odds of Evolution occurring?

Over the years I have had a number of problems with the calculations of folks who try and mathematically prove the impossibility of evolution. If you've been following this blog, you know about my Playing Card Analogy.

If you have, you can skip the rest of this paragraph because I will re-state it just to make sure we are all on the same page. The analogy goes like this: You take a plain deck of 52 playing cards. You shuffle them up and deal them out face up. Look at the order you dealt them out. The odds of dealing them out in that particular order are astronomical, 52 factorial (52!), which is 1*2*3 . . .*52). The question is did you beat those odds when dealing out the cards? The answer is no! Unless you predicted the order before dealing, which you did not do, then you did not beat the odds. The applicable odds were that the cards would be in some order, and the odds of that happening are 100%!

OK, now you are familiar, or you already were familiar with my analogy. Larry Moran, over on his Sandwalk blog, had an interesting post "Targets, arrows, and the lottery fallacy". He relates the most common problem when Creationists (Yes, I include the Discovery Institute in that list.) calculate the probabilities for evolution. It is an assumption that the outcome was in some manner predetermined, or that it is the only possible outcome.  As with my card analogy, the odds calculation makes no sense unless the order of the cards was the only possible outcome or the predicted outcome.

So the question, and it's certainly a philosophical one and not a scientific one, is whether or not the human form is the intended outcome? If you claim 'yes', then my next question will be for you to prove it. I can imagine someone whipping out an appropriate Biblical reference about being 'created in his image', but that does not constitute proof. Obviously there isn't anything that mandates the human form.  We are a result, no one can prove we are a predicted, or the only possibility.  We are only a result.

So let's apply this to the 'thinking' of folks like Behe and Dembski. When they declare something as Irreducibly Complex and use a 'design filter' to support that declaration, what they are in fact saying is that looking at the present state of the example, claiming it was the only possible outcome, therefore the odds are astronomical. They don't see, by intent, that the current state is a result, not a prediction. The reality is that some magical hindsight is nothing more than wishful thinking. Something like "I want there to be a God, so therefore I have to invent things that the God had to have done in order to fulfill my desire." Isn't that exactly what folks 'calculating' such probabilities are really saying?

Larry had this to say:

"Do you see the fallacy? Just because we observe a complex adaptation or structure does NOT mean that it was specified or pre-ordained. There are certainly many different structures that could have evolved—most of them we never see because they didn't happen. And when a particular result is observed it doesn't mean that there was only one pathway (target) to producing that structure"

Assuming only one possible outcome is just that, an assumption.  Folks like Behe and Dembski make that assumption and then reinforce it with their religious belief set.  They want to see design, therefore there must be design!  When are the folks from the DI going to acknowledge all the other possible outcomes other than the present state?  I have to assume never, because to admit that other outcomes were even possible would pretty much be a mortal hit to the whole Creationism/Intelligent Design idea.  Humans have to have been the intended outcome, in fact the only outcome, or ID is meaningless.

So, what is the probability of a Creationist actually calculating the odds of Evolution occurring?  How close to absolute zero can we get?  I think we found the both the theoretical and physical limit.