Descate's Blunder or the Discovery Institute's?

The Discovery Institute (DI) is getting all pseudo-philosophical again, this time the target is René Descartes and they take it upon themselves to decide Descartes is wrong.  Here is their post: "Descartes’s Blunder".  Now before diving into the DI's opinions, which I am sure will find a way to support Intelligent Design, let's look at their latest target for a minute.

René Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650) was a French philosopher, mathematician, and scientist. Dubbed the father of modern western philosophy, much of subsequent Western philosophy is a response to his writings.  For those of you who aren't familiar with his philosophy, maybe you are more familiar with his mathematics.  The Cartesian coordinate system was named after him. He is credited as the father of analytical geometry, the bridge between algebra and geometry, used in the discovery of infinitesimal calculus and analysis. Descartes was also one of the key figures in the scientific revolution. (Wikipedia: René Descartes)

Just by that description, you can see why he is not one of the DI's favorite people.  I mean a key figure in the scientific revolution, you know the changes that replaced religion as the source of scientific knowledge and heralded modern science and the scientific methodology.  No wonder they don't like him.

OK, back to their post. The DI, though their talking head Michael Egnor, claim that self-awareness isn't the foundation for Epistemology, but that 'non-contradiction' comes first.  OK, some brief explanations, which I had to refresh myself because it's been a while since any philosophy courses. 

• Epistemology studies the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief.  
• Self-awareness somewhat based on Descartes' "I think, Therefore I am. (Cogito ergo sum)".  It actually goes quite a bit further, but the DI limits it to make their point.  Follow the link and you will see what I mean.  
• Non-contradiction originates from the writings of Aristotle, although the DI prefers to give credit to religious figure Thomas Aquinas who sorta simplified it.  The idea being that something cannot be both one thing and the opposite at the same time.

So, how does the DI tie all this together, and let's not forget my prediction of somehow tying to into support for their religious proposition of Intelligent Design (ID).  First off they want us to claim you cannot be self-aware if you aren't non-contradictory first.  

"Aquinas derives his principle from Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction: a thing cannot be and not be at the same time. It is the most fundamental thing we know, because if we do not know it, even Descartes’s first principle — cogito ergo sum — is not true. If being and not being could coexist, if contradiction were metaphysically possible, then it would be possible for me to think and at the same time not to exist.
The law of non-contradiction, not cogito ergo sum, is the foundation of knowledge."

OK, so is non-contradictory really the first thing we know -- remember we are talking epistemology here -- knowledge and how we know something.  I disagree with the DI, which probably comes as no surprise.  Look at it simply.  "I think, therefore I am" recognizes that you exist, that you accept your existence.  Until you accept your existence as reality, does the very idea of two contrary states even really occur to you?  I believe that it's only until after you accept your existence can the very idea that you cannot both exist and not exist at the same time even occur to you.

I know, I know, we could spend days on such chicken-egg arguments, but that's not the point.  What I am most curious about is how the DI spins this effort to unthrone Descartes as the 'father of Western Philosophy' into support for ID.  And, predictably, they do:

"Materialists and atheists claim that ID is scientifically wrong, and claim that ID is not scientifically testable. But of course, in order to be scientifically wrong, ID must be scientifically testable."

No!  When we refer to ID as to not being scientifically wrong, not being scientifically testable is only part of the reasoning.  Think about all the arguments against ID:  the lack of evidence, mischaracterizations of evolutionary theory, the lack of explanatory power of irreducible complexity and specified complexity (two pillars of ID), the lack of any falsifiability, and the religious connotations however they try to hide it.  It's not just a testability issue:

Testability, a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components:

1. The logical property that is variously described as contingency, defeasibility, or falsifiability, which means that counterexamples to the hypothesis are logically possible.
2. The practical feasibility of observing a reproducible series of such counterexamples if they do exist.

In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience. Upon this property of its constituent hypotheses rests the ability to decide whether a theory can be supported or falsified by the data of actual experience. If hypotheses are tested, initial results may also be labeled inconclusive. (Wikipedia: Testability)

Look at this part again: "In short, a hypothesis is testable if there is some real hope of deciding whether it is true or false of real experience." and tell me how Intelligent Design has any real hope of being testable?  How does one construct a test for the actions of a deity?

But let's look further, where is the evidence for ID?  No one has managed to offer more than the appearance of design.  This lack of supporting evidence also explains why ID is scientifically wrong, you have nothing to test, no evidence to examine.  It's like trying to use a piece of vaporware.

So all this twisting and spinning to try and claim Descartes messed up is just another smokescreen to try and make some sort of claim as to the scientific viability of ID.  I would think that offering actual supporting evidence would be much more conclusive.

So let's summarize, rather than offer any evidence showing how scientifically testable ID is, the DI plays pseudo-philosophical word games trying to convince us that the only way anyone can claim it's not testable is by believing it must be testable.  Actually the DI should really pay more attention to the concept of non-contradiction.  After all, you cannot be pro-science and anti-science at the same time, can you?  No matter how many ill-fitting lab coats you wear, the anti-science shows through!

Why did Methodological Naturalism Replace a Theological View of the Universe?

Sort of interesting article from the Adventist Review Online: "Cliff’s Edge – The Neo-Darwinian Inquisition", but like many similar arguments, it misses a simple, yet key, point.

Cliff Goldstein said:

"Sure, like 400 or 500 years ago, “natural philosophers” (the term “scientist” is a nineteenth century creation) nibbled away at the dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority that for eons dominated the intellectual landscape. My favorite line in the history of the West came when—defying the stranglehold that Aristotle (the Darwin of his day) had on just about every discipline (like Darwinism today)—Englishman Francis Bacon declared, “I cannot be called upon to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which is itself on trial.” Wow! In other words, How dare you condemn me for violating a tenet of your worldview when your worldview itself is what I am challenging to begin with?"

I think Cliff is missing a few points.  First off a question, why did dogma, tradition, and ecclesiastical authority dominate the intellectual landscape for eons?  Do you see what I am getting at?  Cliff is complaining that natural philosophers nibbled away at that authority, but does Cliff explore why that authority was so paramount for so long?  Eons is stretching it, but it was the principle authority for a long, long time.  So why was it so?

In all honesty, it was the only game in town, wasn't it?  Who controlled the educational system?  Religious groups, did they not?  Monarchies ruled by the grace of one deity or another, didn't they?  Look at every town and you find often the largest and most ornate building was a religious one.  There were regular mandatory gatherings, and people were not allowed to exempt themselves, were they?  It literally was the only option, and it wasn't much of an option.  Even in the largest cities you might have multiple religious groups, but often they were segregated in certain areas -- or often they segregated themselves.  Marriages were often based on religion, children raised in the religion of their parents . . . and endless list helping to keep religion the only game in town.

Cliff also doesn't want to remind people that religions are incredibly jealous masters, even Christianity, which sells itself as being good and wholesome, has as its first commandment 'Thou shalt have no God before me'.  OK, sometimes it's listed second -- after the one about idols.  But the point is that adherence to the Christian God is before murder, theft, and adultery -- which is a perfect example of religion's priorities.  Most religions decry other religions, often tolerating them more than actually accepting them.  Many theists might never admit it, but anyone not of their specific religion is looking down as some sort of lesser human being. They are taught to feel sorry for others who fail to share their belief set and are constantly trying to convert them

Not complying with the religious authority could get you ostracized, banished, or even killed, it was hard to even consider any possible alternative.  Now let's ask the same question in a different way?  Did those dogmatic, traditional, or ecclesiastical authorities offer answers that actually worked?  Did prayer cure disease?  Did a deity help you plant the crops that would let you survive through a barren winter?  Did it help you build shelters, or explain how the sun rose each night or where it went at the end of every day?  In other words did religious answers provide anything useful in a practical sense?

So, even though it was the only game in town, and an incredibly jealous master, the answers that authority provided weren't particularly useful.  You have a very sick child -- then you were supposed to pray!  If the child died it's your fault for not praying hard enough!  If the child lived, praise your deity!  Sound familiar?  Even today when a disaster strikes, there are religious zealots who want to blame the lack of faith of the people affected.  Disagree?  Well then I guess you weren't watching the news about the some of the recent events like mass shooting and hurricanes.  I've mentioned the religious tendency to blame the victims a number of times, for example.

The reason I raise the question the way I have is because of another point Cliff misses.  Not the fact that science is replacing much of the religious dogma that has been taught for centuries, but why is science so successful at replacing religious answers?

It's funny, in the past when one set of religious dogma replaced another, it's stories and traditions simply replaced the old.  It wasn't that it was any better or more usable, just different.

Cliff makes it sound that such ecclesiastical authority was some monolithic structure, but the reality is it was different wherever and whenever you lived.  Every religion had their own set of stories, the only difference was the time and location -- Norse Gods, Roman Gods, Native American Spirits, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu . . . we could go on for days just listing them all.    How many different explanations for the Sun going across the sky existed?  Apollo's chariot (or Surya's chariot in Hindu mythology) or Sol, the Norse Goddess of the Sun are just two examples -- there were many others.  Even when the Sun was understood not to be a chariot, it was said to go around the Earth, because the Earth was the center of the Universe.  While they were different in specific detail, they all shared the same idea -- when you fail to understand something, slap a deity in front of it and start praying.

Science, on the other hand, isn't replacing one set of theistic explanations for the world we live in, but all of them.  Why is that, Cliff?

Cliff seems to be trying to equate one religion being replaced by another with the changes science has made in the landscape  . . . but he keeps forgetting one key feature.  The point Cliff is missing is 'Why', not why did this happen, after all belief sets have been coming and going for centuries.  The 'why' is more why did science manage to replace theology in addressing questions, and not just one set of theological, but all of them.

Think about it, right now, in modern times there are still hundreds of different religions, even if you look at the main branches, you are looking at tens of different ones -- all with their own set of religions stories.  Science isn't one religion replacing another, as people like Cliff would like you to believe.  But it's one set of answers replacing all the religious stories for a very simple reason, they works.

It works regardless of what religion might be prevalent in a region, it works regardless of national borders, it even works regardless of the opinions of pandering politicians.  Science works, Cliff.  That's the point you keep missing.  When you say things like:

"Newton’s formula (within limits), and modern science in general, worked so well, their predicative and technological successes so stunning, that today science wields oppressive power over most every intellectual endeavor. "

Cliff, you aren't recognizing the truth in your face.  Modern science, mainly scientific methodology, doesn't wield oppressive power the way religions did for centuries, but it does wield tremendous influence because it works!  Of course religious alternatives don't gain traction, not because of that influence, but because they don't work.

That's where the modern Intelligent Design Movement, and all the other religious concepts keep failing so many challenges.  I'll put the question to you, What's been the single biggest difference between the challenges put forth by yet another religion, and the one by science?  It's a pretty simple answer . . . which one works?  Which one meets the evidence, which one can be used to produce results, predictable and consistent results?

Yes, there is the point Cliff conveniently forgets to mention.  When science answers a question they offer support as in evidence, as in testable explanations, as in predictions that later discoveries confirm.  I'm being serious, can you point to a specific example of a deity taking action?  Be my guest, but in reality, you cannot.  If you are a theist the best you can do is identify something you think a deity may have done, but you cannot substantiate it in any way.  When pressed you drag out your religious tome as if that's evidence.  Even if your one example is in fact the actions of a deity, can it be applied consistently?  Can it be depended upon to work?  If so then the lottery would have millions of winners each week, wouldn't it!

We haven't found a single turtle holding up the Earth or pillars holding up the sky, nor found an angry deity causing an earthquake. Scientific theories have offered more and better explanations than any religious story I have every heard, and I would hazard a guess that science will continue to provide better explanations regardless of your religious beliefs.

Hopefully you can see the difference.  While religious explanations seem to touch something within some people, the reality is they don't offer much in the way of explanatory power.  Science, on the other hand, actually works.  That's the point Cliff seems to keep missing.

So what's a theist to do?  Well, the majority of them seem to have no issues with dealing with the world around them as it is as opposed to someone's claims a deity says it is.  Some small, yet vocal, minorities like to resort to all sorts of activities to try and protect what they perceive to be their 'turf'.  The problem is their explanations still do not work, not matter how many politicians pass laws 'protecting' them or their theistic 'pseudo-scientists' claim otherwise.

If you disagree I will ask once again, show me an actual scientific advance that how at it's core a religious concept?  I've had this conversation with different people over the years and at best they claim that a deity was the inspiration behind a scientific advance.  That's it!  They can't point to one scientific theory, or even part of a theory, and tell me anything specific.  They offer nothing but their own conjectures and lots and lots of wishful thinking.  But when it comes down to testable, measurable, and usable explanations, science leaves religion in the dust.

Is science perfect?  By no means!  But don't try and tell me perfection only applies to deities . . . if that was true, why do we need thousands of religions?  But when it comes to actually providing real answers, science, and the scientific methodology, is that only one that provides them.  Medicines cure disease, Materials science explains how structure we build remain standing, Geology explains earthquakes, Physics explains gravity, . . . -- all without invoking a single deity.  Do we know everything on every subject, no.  We will continue to learn and grow -- but working and workable answers will continue to leave out the deity, all of the deities!

And while we continue to advance on the scientific front, religions will continue to fight tooth and nail to protect their beliefs.  The tactics of mistakes they use will continue as long as they are donors willing to fund them.  People like kennie ham in Kentucky or those less than honest dealers in pseudoscience at the Discovery Institute will continue to both market their beliefs and fail to withstand any actual scrutiny, as long as their a people willing to fund them.  Science will continue, not because of a stranglehold of ideas, but because science simply works.

And There is Still Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design

I decided to quit numbering these, because there have been too many posts exploring the religious nature of the Discovery Institute (DI) and Intelligent Design (ID).  Instead of numbering, I am simply going to continue reminding folks about the those religious underpinnings.

This time around the DI is hawking someone else's book.  Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer wrote this post: "Scott Turner’s Purpose and Desire — An Important New Voice in the Evolution Debate".  Before getting into the post, I was wondering who Scott Turner is and whether or not he is actually a 'new voice' in the cultural debate between religion and science.

So, I hit my usual sources and found that while Scott might be new to klingy, he's not new to this debate. Like klingy, Wikipedia also mentioned Scott's last book "The Tinkerer's Accomplice, How Design Emerges from Life Itself" and the Harvard University Press Catalog says a few interesting things:

"Physiologist Scott Turner argues eloquently and convincingly that the apparent design we see in the living world only makes sense when we add to Darwin’s towering achievement the dimension that much modern molecular biology has left on the gene-splicing floor: the dynamic interaction between living organisms and their environment. Only when we add environmental physiology to natural selection can we begin to understand the beautiful fit between the form life takes and how life works."

It also mentioned something klingy seemed to ignore, Scott's last book was in 2010.  Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very new to me.  But that's only one issue with the above quote.  I have to ask, how did Darwin, and subsequent researchers, left 'the dynamic interaction between living organisms and their environment' on the cutting room floor?  Doesn't the very idea of Natural Selection get driven by how an allele affects the survival/reproductive opportunity within the environment?  How environmental changes affect evolution within a population?  The environment is, and always has been, a key factor in the study of evolution.

Here is where I start to suspect Scott's leanings.  By wording it this way, he seems to think there has to be a guide, a map, an . . . dare I say it . . . an intelligence, behind it all.  Instead of the environment causing natural selection, there is some sort of symbiosis between the environment and the population that drives evolution.  Ah, yes, from Scott's Wikipedia page we can see he is a proponent of the Gaia Hypothesis, something not very well supported by science.

OK, let see what klingy has to say.  He starts off with this little tarnished gem:

"The crisis of evolutionary biology is spoken of openly here and by scientists who are professed advocates of intelligent design."

'Crisis'? Really?  I understanding klingy wishing it was a crisis, but he's overstating things by a ton.  We don't have a crisis because within evolutionary biology, this barely a blip on the screen.  The debate is cultural, not scientific.  For years science pretty much ignored it until groups like the DI started threatening science education with their marketing and politicking.  If you remember the landmark lawsuits (Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, Selman v. Cobb County School District, Edwards v. Aguillard, McLean v. Arkansas, Lemon v. Kurtzman, Scopes Trial) were all focused on education, not science.  What does that tell you?  It tells me that we aren't talking about a crisis here.

OK, next up, klingy says:

"The latest biologist to come out swinging at Darwinism, Turner is not an ID proponent. He teaches at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry."

However, is Scott a biologist?  His own website says:

"I am a physiologist by training, but with a deep interest in the interface of physiology with evolution, ecology and adaptation." (SUNY: Bio)

I am not knocking Scott, I just wish klingy would stop mis-representing people. By referring to Scott as a biologist, you assume a much stronger background in biology.  Physiology is a branch of biology, but it's only a small part.  Here is the definition of Physiology:

"the branch of biology dealing with the functions and activities of living organisms and  their parts, including all physical and chemical processes." (dictionary.com)

Now contrast it with the definition of biology from the same source:

"the science of life or living matter in all its forms and phenomena, especially with reference to origin, growth, reproduction, structure,and behavior." (dictionary.com)

See some significant differences, don't you?  When you look at Scott's curricula vitae, you can call him Dr. Turner, he is a Doctor of Philosophy. not biology . . . but klingy calls him a biologist.  What I wish he would do is his homework and honestly represent folks!  This is a habit of the DI, do you remember some of the other times they mis-represented the facts:

• When they mis-represented a publication list to the Ohio State School Board as support for Intelligent Design -- which was not true.
• They collected signatures on a petition supposedly supporting ID as well, but they didn't list the current affiliations (as is the standard), but listed the signers most prestigious affiliation, even inflating a few to make them sound even better.  They also hid the affiliation of signers who worked for various religious organizations -- including those who worked for the DI itself.
• A couple of last things with the petition, they originally called all the signers 'PhDs', but that wasn't true.  Not all had their doctorates and also less than 25% were even working in biology
• When the DI announced a new member of the team, they mentioned her education, but conveniently forget to mention her religious background. (Heather Zeigler)
• Just like klingy here calling Scott a 'new voice', one of klingy buddies referred two commenters about his book as not previously known advocates of ID -- which was not true either. (Skell and Nevin)

So we know klingy is using one of the comment tactics of the DI -- the misrepresentation of the facts . . . or as I was taught to call it -- lying, even lying by omission is still lying.  Next klingy quotes the preface of Scott's book -- and it shows Scott is making the same mistake that the rest of the ID proponents do.  Here, read this:

"Instead of a frank acknowledgment of purposefulness, intentionality, intelligence, and design, we refer to “apparent” design, “apparent” intentionality, “apparent” intelligence."

Now, has anyone -- anywhere -- in the past 150+ years provided any actual scientific evidence for purposefulness, intentionality, intelligence, or design?  Without such evidence, all you have is the appearance of those things.  Science is all about accuracy and when all you have is the appearance, you do not make frank acknowledgements!

The whole modern intelligent design movement started with the assumption that the appearance of design was the same as the actuality of design.  This assumption is used to not only in an effort to tear down actual science, but to push a religious agenda that is not shared by the majority of the world.  But since that movement started, no one had offered anything other than conjecture and wishful thinking to support that assumption.  Scott appears to be making that same assumption.  That might work well for philosophy, but when it comes to hard sciences, like biology, assumptions do not cut it.

So, what do we have . . . is someone who is not new to the cultural debate, whose credentials are mis-represented by the DI and someone who shares the same assumption that the appearance is the same as the fact.  So nothing new at all, just another one who drank the kool-aid and ignored the lack of substance.  I may read his book, but only if it shows up in the religious section of the local library.  

Oh yea, did I forget to mention Scott's new book is being published by Harper-One -- which, as we have pointed out before, is the religious imprint of Harper-Collins.  So if I see the book, it will most likely be in the religious section of the library or bookstore.

Another Computer to Intelligent Design Analogy, as Effective as All the Others

For years the Discovery Institute has been using the analogy of DNA being like a computer code as one of their varied rationalizations for Intelligent Design.  Like any analogy, it only goes so far because DNA isn't a code, but a physical molecule whose structure we analogize (is that even a word?) to make it easier for us to explain and understand.  Today, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer took it a further step with his post: "Intelligent Design and the Computer Analogy".  I guess I should say Douglas Axe did it, and klingy is doing his usual parroting.  He starts off with this:

"Imagine if computer science allowed researchers to consider the physical components of computers but not the "ideas" that drive them, imparted by their designers. Douglas Axe, author of Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, poses that instructive question in a brief video conversation."

I'm not totally sure where he is going with this, because the physical design of computers has to be taken into account, by the people who designed the computers.  In fact the programmers who develop the programs rarely have to take the computer hardware into account, or else multiple languages wouldn't work across multiple types of computers.  On the computer I am using at the moment I have programmed BASIC, Visual BASIC, Java, C, C++, SQL, JavaScript, Cold Fusion, Pascal, to name a few.

Computer programs are all about the 'ideas' because very few people write code that directly interacts with the processors themselves.  Computer programs are written in languages that are understandable by humans, but not directly understood by a computer.  What a computer understands is something called binary, which . . . when you boil it down to the basics . . . represents voltages at various points withing the computer processor.  The processor is built in such a way that voltages set a certain way at a specific connection result other voltages set a certain way at other connection points.  The folks who designed the processor set that up so this voltage at this point does this.  Our programs are high-level extensions of that, the designers tells us what it is, and we . . . the programmers . . . assign meaning as we see fit.  So this is a pretty poor analogy to biology, no real surprise there.

If that sounds like a good analogy for the Christian God, oh I'm sorry, I mean the DI's intelligent designer, it misses me completely.  Little klingy's article continues:

"Most of evolutionary biology is limited by just such a stricture: consider the physical aspect of living creatures without probing the ideas -- the purposeful, immaterial design -- that we embody in physical form. In biology, you may not weigh the evidence for design, otherwise you're damned as a creationist!"

I think, as usual, klingy and Axe are putting the cart before the horse.  Where is the evidence for design?  Seriously, I am asking.  What has the DI presented that supports evidence for design?  So far nothing but conjecture and wishful thinking.  And yet the DI wants biologists to weigh the evidence for design?  How can they?  There is nothing to weigh, is there?  Until folks like Axe, klingy, and the entire DI get off their collective asses and do the work to support ID, there isn't anything for a biologist.

You might disagree, but take a look at what the DI purports as evidence.  Religious and philosophical articles and books without a lick of scientific evidence.  They are long on talk and short on work!  What they are doing is demanding biologists do the work they are supposed to be doing.  Suppose a scientist did that, what do you think would happen?  It's called unemployment, as least as a real scientist.  The DI might have an opening, after all several high profile ID'ers have departed in recent years.

It's not that evolutionary biologists get damned for probing design, it's that people like Axe and klingy have yet to support their contention of design.  Without such support, probing it is a waste of time and resources.  College professors who are supposed to be teaching science deserve to be held accountable if they decide to teach pseudoscience in it's place!  That's not being damned for probing design, it's being damned for not carrying out their responsibilities.  If a Math teacher decided to teach Numerology or an Astronomy taught Astrology , no one would question their being held responsible.  But because ID is a form a Creationism, are we supposed to give a special license to teachers who abdicate their responsibilities?  I, and many others, say no!

His final line:

"Yet this in a nutshell is the field of evolutionary biology."

What this is, folks, is a strawman.  Little davey tries to tell us that biology is flat and boring because design isn't part of the curriculum.  I will continue to say design doesn't belong in the curriculum until you folks [the DI] do the work to actually support it.  There is a methodology to performing science, and it doesn't include treating unsupported religious philosophies as if they are science just to justify your personal religious beliefs.

Just what is "Higher Meaning and Value" anyway?

A philosophy professor, Gary Cutting, has proposed a re-definition of Pascal's Wager in a New York Times opinion piece called: "Pascal’s Wager 2.0".  It's a fairly long piece, although since we are talking philosophy maybe this wouldn't be considered long.  It boiled down to Gary believing that everyone in the world cannot lose by wanting some level of "higher meaning and value" in their life that apparently can only come from belief in a "beneficent power beyond the natural world".

When I first read it I had trouble separating "beneficent power beyond the natural world" from a God, and I guess I still do.  What it looks like Gary has tried to do is water down the specifics of a deity until you reach a point where the concept is pretty much ubiquitous regardless of what religion you are talking about, but I think you are still talking religion.  But I guess calling is a 'Generic God' wouldn't sound so good.  Would he/she were a white robe with black block lettering?

I originally had a question, why does Gary insist on it being 'beneficent'?  It took me a minute to realize that he's not making an assumption, as I originally thought, he's simply moving the goals posts where he wants them.  Think about it, why should anyone want a relationship with an uncaring power, so assuming beneficent is a selling point.  At first I was a little confused, but once I realized that it was part of Gary changing the concept around, it made sense . . . well at least it was understandable, making sense . . . might have been too strong an expression.

So, now that I think I have a handle on it, I have to pare things back to the purpose.  Something I was taught a long time ago, always keep your purpose in front of you.  It was originally taught me as part of various communication courses.  For example if you are writing a speech, determine the purpose of the speech and keep it in front of you while you write the rest of the speech.  It tends to help you focus on what you are after and helps avoid meanderings into areas that don't serve the purpose.  Yes, there are many other aspects, but everything should be driven by the purpose.

My experience is that you can pretty well apply the idea of 'purpose' universally.  I find myself applying it to understanding the purposes of others.  It helps me place the things they do within context.  So when I read something like this, I like to try and determine their purpose, or at least examine their stated purpose and see how things mesh with my thinking.

Gary pretty well seemed clear on his purpose.  He sees no negative issues with a belief in a "beneficent power beyond the natural world" because he thinks it means even the most hardened atheist wants to have "higher meaning and value" in their life.  That's where things started moving out of true for me, I mean what the hell does 'higher' mean?

When you use such a categorical statement, you usually have to place it within some sort of context.  The ONLY context that seems to fit is a religious one.  What exactly is higher within Gary's context?  I can't get a handle on it, other than Gary thinks it's desirable.  Do I, and yes, I am speaking personally, do I need a higher meaning?  If you think the answer is yes, please tell me why?  I believe my life has meaning and value and I believe I created it through living my life and taking the actions that I took.  But where does 'higher' come into the picture?  Is supporting a charity higher?  If so, then I qualify.  If the ONLY definition of 'higher' involves the need to invoke one deity of another, I am missing the purpose!

Did I have a deity, or even a 'beneficent power beyond the natural world' holding my hand through it?  I haven't seen any evidence of it and while many offer their opinion, they offer no evidence to support it.  For example, I have often been told meeting my wife was a act of God, but in reality it took a trip to Mississippi.  When I say things like that they sorta recoil and come back with something like "But the timing, what is she wasn't there?"  My response, "Well then I guess we wouldn't have met." usually meets with a recoil now in horror.  "But you two were destined . . ."  and my usual response is either "Bullshit!" or "Prove it!" depending on whether I want the conversation to go on.  You see, there is an awful lot of opinion on the actions of this 'beneficent power beyond the natural world', but no evidence to support it, only conjecture.  If meeting my 'destined' spouse is an act of a deity, then that deity better get off his/her/their asses because damn few marriages go any distance any more. 

Like meaning, I believe my life has value, and I hope my family believes so or I won't be eating the meatloaf tonight (family inside joke)!  I also believe my life has meaning, but when it comes to both of those, 'higher' means exactly what?  There is one of my dilemmas.

'Higher' could mean anything!  Higher than myself, as in Society?  Does my life have meaning and value in the terms of Society?  I would hope so.  I work, earn a my living, operate within the economy, save for retirement, donate to charities, vote . . ..  Do I have value to Society?  I have to say yes, since I am a member of that society, I, and my actions, are part of it.  While I question, I try not to destroy.  I operate within societal norms, at least I think I do.  I don't claim sainthood, but I figure I am pretty  . . . hmmm, I hate using the word 'normal' here, but it seems to fit.  I usually say that 'Normal' is a setting on the dryer in my house, but in this case, I guess I am pretty much 'normal..

I'm sure you can see where I am going.  I do not agree that having a higher meaning and value in my life requires the acceptance of a beneficent power, generic or specific.  So, as a result, I don't feel the need to take up Pascal's Wager or Gary's supposed upgraded version.  I doubt too many people would be impressed because those who believe, don't want a generic deity, and those who do not aren't going to consider it seriously anyway.   Those who claim to be 'spiritual' rather than religious might appreciate the 'new' wager, but I doubt it.  I think I gave it more thought that it needed, but then I am silly that way.

Gary also made another statement:

"Denial of God means that I simply close the door on the hope that there is something beyond the natural world; "

I'm not sure I agree with that. Any denial I have is more the 'I really don't care' variety.  There may or may not be something beyond the natural world, but since no one has offered any supporting evidence, other than fanciful stories, I don't let that possibility drive my life.  I further believe people shouldn't let it drive their life, but that's my personal opinion.  I actively oppose people trying to use their beliefs to drive my life!  Freedom of Religion also means Freedom From Religion!

OK, enough on this topic.  If someone has some ideas of 'higher meaning and value' that does not involve to requirement to invoke one deity of another, I would be interesting in hearing it.  But for now, I will continue to live with the meaning and value my life currently has, irrespective of the involvement of a deity, no matter what stories anyone wants to believe.

Can it be stated any clearer: Intelligent Design is Creationism.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is at it, whining and complaining when someone says anything about Intelligent Design (ID) that might be critical, this time the target is the NY Times.  George Johnson wrote a piece for the NY Times Science section that briefly mentioned ID in "The Widening World of Hand-Picked Truths" and, of course, since it mentioned ID, the DI, in the guise of one of their rabid attack Chihuahuas--davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, had a typical knee jerk reaction to it.  Here's what George said:

"Like creationists with their “intelligent design,” the followers of these causes come armed with their own personal science, assembled through Internet searches that inevitably turn up the contortions of special interest groups. "

It's easy to see why klingy is upset, I mean how on-target do you have to be before you make him, and his masters, nervous.  How many times can they deny ID = Creationism?  How often does the DI claim to be doing science, yet show no evidence of actually doing it?  Sounds like a definition of 'personal science' to me.  And if the DI isn't an example of a Special Interest Group, I don't know what would be then, and list all their tactics, like 'Teach the Controversy', is a good example of their contortions!  "Is It "Delusional" to Think Darwinism Is on the Ropes?" is the post and Klingy has a lot to say, as usual, but I want to concentrate on this part of his comment:

"Now, as I've point out before, Johnson like many mainstream science journalists is woefully uninformed about ID -- as the confused conflation of intelligent design with creationism demonstrates."

Yes, he's stated over and over again that Intelligent Design is not Creationism.  Does anyone buy that?  Let's concentrate on the NY Times.  Their coverage of Modern Intelligent Design goes back to the mid-90's.  Let's take a look at what I think is the first article in the NY Times on the modern ID Movement:  "Christians and Scientists; New Light for Creationism".  Here's a few quotes, the underlining is mine:

"Since his [Phillip E. Johnson] conversion to evangelical Christianity at the age of 37, Mr. Johnson has written three books attacking evolution. He says he is aiming to challenge not merely the secularism of universities but of an entire culture that he says rests on the scientific assumption of ''naturalism'' -- the idea that the natural world has no supernatural supervision."

While it's easy to see Johnson hasn't changed his tune since then, but I still have one issue with comments like this.  Science doesn't make an assumption of naturalism, it's more of a constraint.  Think it through, how does one develop, test, and then put to use supernatural explanations?  While Johnson will never admit it, you cannot.  Therefore science focusing on natural explanations is the only direction it can go.  Science does not address the supernatural because it cannot.  Supernatural explanations are pretty much useless, whether you are talking about a deity, a ghost, or other para-psychological 'phenomena'.  Here's another quote from that article:

"Another ally of Mr. Johnson is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University who contends that the molecular machinery of cells is so complex and interdependent that this is proof of purposeful design. Mr. Behe's book, ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,'' was chosen as 1997 Book of the Year by the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. "

The NY Times has been covering Creationism and Intelligent Design for years and the two have been linked consistently, not by outsiders, but by ID proponents own words and actions.  It does go back much further than Johnson, the daddy rabbit of the DI.  Here's one from 1864:
"RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY, OR PROOFS OF GOD'S PLAN IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND ITS ELEMENTS." the last paragraph includes:

" . . .in which the scientific information is of the latest character, to the arguments from special adaptation, and the general plan, as furnishing unquestionable proof of intelligent design. With some cautionary remarks on the necessary limits of scientific and religious thought . . ."

So it seems no matter how far back you, the concept of ID is religious.  The modern movement of ID grew out of Creationism and never strayed far from its roots.  You really can't tell them apart, so much so that a simple cut and paste was used to change a Creationism text into an Intelligent Design text, or does klingy think we have forgotten 'cdesign proponentsists' and 'Of Pandas and People' so quickly.  What if the Evangelical audience that supports ID suddenly transferred their support elsewhere, you would be saying "What Discovery Institute?" 

Sorry klingy, your complaints don't add up.  As for the rest of your whine, is it delusional to think 'Darwinism' is on the ropes?  In a word, yes.

Aside from disagreeing to his pejorative use of the word 'Darwinism', what support does he have that the Theory of Evolution is on the ropes?  None.  Oh, he occasionally points to the DI's list of 700, although now I think they are over 800.  Gee, how long have been collecting signatures?  5 years, 10 years.  I have to check.  Oh, 2001, so 14 years, and they finally got passed 800 and only a small percentage of them actually work in biology-related fields (about 25% according to a 2001 NY Times article and as of 2007 the biology-related signatories represented .01% of working biologists, not 10%, or 1%, not even 1/10th of 1%, but 1/100th of 1%).  I wonder why klingy doesn't bring up the 6900+ signatures of scientists who support Evolution, over 65% are in biology-related fields.  In 2005 those signatures were collected over a 4-day period . . . 4 days!  I guess I can see why klingy tends to forget about that.

So what support does klingy offer that Evolution is endangered?  Do we suddenly see Evolution not being referenced in PubMed?  Ah, poor klingy, PubMed references Evolution only about 415,274 times.  Now I am sure many of those aren't addressing biological evolution, so I adjust the search parameter to 'biological evolution' and the number dropped all the way down to 64,801 for that specific phrase.  Just for fun, how does 'Intelligent Design' stack up?  Klingy might be impressed, 187 references, but it looks like many of those aren't saying nice things about it.  Sure, evolution is on the ropes, really?  Can't tell that from working scientists.

Do we find colleges no longer teaching Evolution?  Other than places like Falwell's Lament, aka Liberty University, only evangelical schools seem to teach Creationism/ID, and even most of those at least pay some lip service to evolution.  Why is that?  Search for yourself, they are in a significant minority.  So . . . if ID is not Creationism, why are only a very few non-secular schools teach it?  At most non-secular and secular schools, Creationism might be mentioned in a historical context, but when it comes to real science, it's barely a footnote.  So it doesn't look like it's on the ropes in higher education either, in spite of all the efforts of the DI to destroy science education.

Do we find any scientific arguments against evolution?  Nope, only philosophical ones, mainly motivated by religious beliefs.  Poor klingy! I mentioned once, but let me expand a bit, if ID is not Creationism, why are the only people who seem to take ID seriously are Evangelical Christians?  Yup, while there are a few exceptions, like klingy, the clear majority are Christians of the Evangelical variety.  So, scientifically, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with Evolution.

Another question, who hosts ID 'conferences'?  Universities?  Colleges?  Scientific organizations?  No.  It's Christian groups, churches, and school ministries.  Other than self publishing in their own journals and publishing groups, where do ID proponents publish?  Scientific journals?  Science Presses?  No, they publish mostly in the religious imprints or popular publishers whose requirement of support is damn near zero.   Where are ID books, like anything written by Stephen C. Meyer, found in libraries and bookstores?  The non-fiction or science section?  No, Christian Fiction is where I see them.  Does anyone other than the DI think Evolution is on the ropes?  I think 'delusional' is a pretty way to express it.  I'm sure there are others, but this one works for me.

OK, I know we'll be posting on this topic over and over again, since the number of times folks like klingy and little casey luskin claims the two are unrelated seems to be to closest we will ever get to infinity, I just don't want anyone to fall for their claims.  ID = Creationism, no matter what the ID marketing department says.

Teaching People to Mistrust Science

What a surprise, the Discovery Institute (DI), through one of their favorite mouthpieces little casey luskin, doesn't like how Intelligent Design (ID) is represented.  Except for their own publications, have they approved of anyone else's explanation of ID?  I don't recall any!  But this time I think it's a smokescreen whine, covering up a more serious issue, encouraging the mistrust of science.

The latest is a post by casey over on ENV is "The Danger of Capitulating to "Settled Science": Cambridge University Press Book Misrepresents ID".

First off, why does the article have to start with a blurb about a professor at a religious college that resigned over theological views on human origins?  After all, the DI keeps trying to claim there is nothing religious about ID.  Does anyone actually believe that?

So this article supposedly centers on a review by the departing professor on a book by Benjamin C. Jantzen, An Introduction to Design Arguments (Cambridge University Press). The majority of the article from little casey is the normal whines and complaints about how no one in the world seems to understand ID, except for those less-than-stalwart Fellows, and Senior Fellows, at the DI.  That' a problem for another post, I found two other themes I wanted to address.

The first is one I have commented on before, how the DI loves to complain if any biologist doesn't provide an complete end-to-end explanation of a potential evolutionary path from one structure to the next.  If not, they tend to immediately dismiss anything said, regardless of how compelling the concept.  Yet when they offer their own concepts and philosophies, they offer no corresponding level of completeness.  In fact when you ask for it, they seem to have any number of rationalizations why they don't really have a clue.  This is an example of raising the goal posts for everyone else, yet they don't even bother kicking the ball while claiming a score.  In other words biology must be absolute or it should be rejected, but the DI is allowed the treat supposition as absolute and demand time at the science classroom lectern.  Doesn't much wash for me!

The other theme is one I haven't examined before, and the more critical one. Little casey quoted Jantzen:

"The ID camp does a disservice to the predominantly conservative Christian community to which it appeals by conditioning that community to mistrust science. Its arguments depend on accepted, settled science getting things wrong. "

Here casey gets incredibly defensive, his defense is claiming that they [the DI] are not teaching people to mistrust science, but to think for themselves.  Sorry casey, that doesn't fly!  Here are a compile of examples (italicized comments are mine):

• Demanding 100 certainty from science for anything any scientists writes.  How can you possibly tell me that something like that doesn't leave a negative impression about science!
• Evolution is just a theory.  Let's drag all scientific theories down to the level of just being an idea, this way ID can be claimed to be equal to actual scientific theories.
• Teach strengths and weaknesses.  It's not about teaching weaknesses, it's about convincing people there are weaknesses, real or perceived.
• Teach all aspects because of academic freedom.  Yet actual academic freedom has nothing to do with teaching religion as if it were science.
• Equate real science with religion.  Darwinism, anyone?  It's not an 'ism', it's real and it works!  How often do they try and identify evolution as a religion?  Too many to count.
• Mis-quote and quote-mine real science and scientists.  Darwin and the eye, for example, Stephen J. Gould as well.
• Mis-characterize issues like Piltdown Man as bad science.  Even though scientists are the ones who uncovered the problems and never bought into it to begin with.
• Question science, scientists, science methodology without any actual complaints, just innuendo and mis-characterizations of science.  Kirk Durston's recent posts (here, here, and here)

Sure, this has nothing to do with people mistrusting science.  Nothing they have done could possibly have a negative impact on people's perception of science . . . yea right!.  Their tactics are more to bring down science instead of building up their own ideas.  Think about most everything you read from the DI, are they doing the work supporting their own ideas or are they spending more time tearing down science and science education?  It certainly seems to latter to me.

So, it looks like while they claim otherwise, what they are actually doing is trying to handicap science.  But for a moment let's look at their rationalization, teaching people to think for themselves.

While this sounds like a laudable idea, how real is it?  Do we teach people to treat their own diseases, build their own rocket ships, or even their own cars?  No!  We have experts to do these things and we accept the fact we are not all doctors, rocket scientists, or even car designers.  Yet the DI wants everyone to be able to pick and choose which science they want to accept?  Really?  Why would that be the case?  I think when your ideas cannot stand the light of science, sell rather than do any science.  Tell people you are only thinking of them, and then do your best to have real science, you know the stuff that actually works, shoved aside.  I have often called the DI a marketing organization but I am starting to re-think that.

I think the DI is more of a religious ministry.  Think about it, since when does a religious ministry really want you to think for yourself?  It's just another tactic!  Think about more open religious ministries and their message.  While they give voice to freedom of religion, what they are usually saying is 'my religious freedom, not yours'.  Isn't that what the DI is doing, their ideas rather than real science!

Yes, they claim not to be a religious organization, but isn't that wearing quite thin?  Here are some of their Wedge Strategy 5-year goals, those under the heading of Spiritual & cultural renewal:

• Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
• Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
• Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
• Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

How much of this sounds more like a religious ministry than an organization dedicated to science?   Read the whole wedge strategy and you get the impression science is nothing but a tactic, an afterthought.  And, again from the document itself, biology is only the first area to be addressed, other scientific disciplines, social sciences, and humanities are also in the target list.  I think the DI needs to change their tax status to a religious ministry.  At least is would be more honest!

That's it? An admission of failure?

OK, a few days ago little davey klinghoffer (klingy) made a pronouncement, he said the Discovery Institute (DI) was planning something special for the anniversary of the Scopes 1925 Trial.  The Scopes Trial is something they should celebrate, since their side [Creationism] won that trial and successfully prevented the removal of the law that outlawed the teaching of Evolution in Tennessee for 42 more years.  I had some hopes for what they were going to do, and as much as I hate to admit it, they exceeded my expectations.  I didn't expect much, but instead I got an admission that Stephen C. Meyer screwed up.

How else do you interpret writing a book called 'Debating Darwin's Doubt'?  This isn't just a new book, but a sequel!  A sequel?  I'm not the one labeling it as a sequel, the DI did that in the press release.  If it were a Director's Cut, for example. it could be defined as a clarification, but no, they called it a sequel.   Now, why do you typically create a sequel?  There are two reasons, a sequel is either a continuation of the story or a re-booting.  So the question is which?  According to the press release, this isn't a continuation but a response to criticisms.  In keeping with the Hollywood-esque theme, it's definitely a re-booting.

What they did was collect all of the critical reviews and comments about Darwin's Doubt, of which there are plenty, and this group is going to address them.  This group is all from the DI, or their pet lab -- The Biologic Institute.  I do have an issue with that, as I am sure anyone who peeked at the list of contributors might have the same question.  Here is the list:

• William Dembski - philosopher, mathematician, and theologian
• Douglas Axe - Director of the in-house lab, the Biologic Institute, background in molecular biology
• Ann Gauger - senior research scientist at Biologic Institute, PhD in Developmental Biology
• David Berlinski - philosophy, mathematics, and English
• Paul Nelson - Philosopher of Science
• Casey Luskin - Lawyer and Research Coordinator at the DI.  He does have a degree in Biology and Earth Sciences.
• David Klinghoffer - Senior Fellow at the DI, not sure what his academic background is.  Not even the DI mentions it.

Did you notice what was missing in that list?  Why no Paleontologists?  The original book was about the Cambrian Diversification, in other words, Paleontology.  The critical comments frequently cited issues with Meyer's understanding of the basic subject.  For example in "When Prior Belief Trumps Scholarship", by Charles R. Marshall, who is at the Department of Integrative Biology and Director of the Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley.  The final line in his review was:

"Darwin's Doubt is compromised by Meyer's lack of scientific knowledge, his “god of the gaps” approach, and selective scholarship that appears driven by his deep belief in an explicit role of an intelligent designer in the history of life."

If Meyer is so lacking in knowledge, wouldn't you include someone with a background in the subject to address shortcomings?  That to me sounds perfectly logical.  But instead, what we have is the usual gang of ID supporters, suspiciously minus Michael Behe.  I wonder why?  I haven't seen anything from him lately?  I wonder if he's become less enamored with the DI, sorta like Michael Denton.  I haven't seen anything from him at the DI site since about 2008 or 2009.  Hmmmm!

So, klingy is painting this as some sort of victory, what it means to me is the original was so flawed, they need to try again and don't have the intestinal fortitude to admit it.  This new book is about 350 pages, 2/3'rds the size of the original.  That sounds like a lot of spackling paste and patchwork to me.  Wouldn't it have been more effective to produce something that wasn't so fatally flawed it requires a re-boot? 

So for fun, I went back and looked back at the original.  I read it last year and my objections focused on several things.  First was Meyer's apparently overuse of the idea of an 'explosion', which is certainly not how the 'Cambrian Diversification' is looked at today by real Paleontologists.  He treated it like an actual explosion, where so many organisms appeared at once.  Since the Diversification took something like 80 million years, 'explosion' is not a good way to examine it.  My second objection was that Meyer apparently ignored 150 years of Paleontological science when 'researching' for this book.  My final objection was the publisher, Harper-One, which is the religious imprint of Harper-Collins, is not a scientific journal or press at all.  Why do you suppose he published there and not some place where the standard of support is greater than zero?  I really do encourage you to read reviews of the original book, particularly this one, by Donald R. Prothero -- who is something Meyer seemed to be pretending to be, an actual Paleontologist.  Prothero dismantles Meyer for failing to do his homework.

It would almost be interesting to see how Meyer, and his pals, manage to rationalize his first book in the face of such devastating criticism.  You will note that Prothero didn't seem to have to write a book in order to take down Darwin's Doubt.  He used 4 references and a single post on Skeptic.com.

What does get mentioned in the press release is "intense controversy sparked by Dr. Meyer's book", really?  While you might call some of the critiques intense, but controversial?  I don't think so.  Meyer takes a less than layman's understanding of the Cambrian Diversification, and fails to make a single valid and supportable scientific point.  He wanes and waxes philosophically, but his point is so full of mistakes and efforts to twist what little evidence he does recognize into his philosophy, that you cannot call it controversial, it's simply more of the same from the DI.

The critiques were not focused on his philosophy as much as it was on his errors stemming from the way he cherry-picked small pieces of support while ignoring larger details of actual science that would have contradicted his claims.


'Debating Darwin's Doubt' is not published by a religious imprint, but by the Discovery Institute Press.  So let's see, the author of the first book and a major contributor to the second book is the boss of the organization that happens to own its own publishing house.  Anyone see any potential conflicts there?  Plus, what level of support and proof does the Discovery Institute Press require?  Since they are not a scientific journal or press, what do you think?

Since the book hasn't been released yet, I was again curious about this 'intense controversy' that it mentioned.  I decided to again look it up on Amazon and sample the reviews.  There are nearly 700 reviews and nearly all the positive ones are from people who obviously are already a believer in Creationism/Intelligent Design.  The negative ones did have a share of people who certainly have not drank that particular kool-aid.  There were also a number of critical reviews that dismantled Meyer's claims in a very detailed manner.  What about the editorial reviews?

There are about 18 editorial reviews of 'Darwin's Doubt' and a few of the names jumped out at me.  [The regular text is how the reviewer was described on the review, the italicized comments are mine]

•  Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research.  Isn't he on the editorial board of 'Bio-Complexity', the DI in-house pro-ID journal.  He's written often for the DI and even been interviewed by casey luskin himself!  LOL!
• Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of 'The Emergence of Animals'.  And a long term critic of evolutionary theory.
• Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast.  We've spoken about him before.  Stephen C. Meyer once referred to a review by Nevin as not being from a known ID supporter, which turned out to be untrue.  Currently Nevin is President of the Centre for Intelligent Design in Scotland, sort of a low-rent version of the Discovery Institute.  I wrote about Nevin in "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!"
• Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of 'From Darwin to Hitler'.  Did he forget to put on his resume that he's a senior fellow at the DI?
• Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity.  Bio-Complexity is the in-house journal of the Biologic Institute, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DI, in other words their pet lab.
• George Gilder, Technologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling author.  Who is, among other things a founding member of the Discovery Institute, a Senior Fellow at the DI, and also cited 129 times in the article database.

Hope you see one of my points.  Shouldn't the people who write editorial reviews be honest and up-front about connections to the DI and the modern ID movement?  And was just the names I had seen before.  I wonder what I would find if I Googled the rest of the reviewers?

This is not the first time the DI has played such games.  Remember back in 2008 and the infamous list of 700?  The 'list' was a crowning achievement of the DI.  They claimed to have over 700 Doctoral Scientists who signed a petition called "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism".  The truth was that they seriously overstated many of the credentials of the signatories and also hid many of their connections to the DI and other Creationist organizations.  Once they were busted, the re-released their list with much more modest credentials listed. (Since the "700" keeps coming up . . .)

So while the press release quotes klingy with:

"We are making progress — in changing minds, yes, but also in deepening the argument for ID. Debating Darwin’s Doubt proves that, unequivocally. As the saying goes, ‘The dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on.’ Darwinist defenders may not realize it, but we are leaving them behind."

I don't have much of an expectation that we will see any actual progress.  I don't see a rebuttal of criticisms will do much to change people's minds, especially if they do not bother getting Paleontologist with the expertise to try and refute some of the criticism.  I also don't expect the see a 'deepening of the argument for ID.  I expect more of what the DI has given us in the past -- rhetoric, wishful thinking, and conjecture dressed up in a poor-fitting lab coat.  Lots of fluff, little to no meat, just like Meyer's last two books.

So what's next, once Meyer's rebuttals start getting critiqued, especially becuase of not having a Paleontologist.  I cannot believe there won't be another sequel? Darwin's Doubt --- Debating Darwin's Doubt --- Rebutting Debating Darwin's Doubt?  Maybe the DI could take a page out of the Hitchhikers Guide and have a 5 or 6 book 'trilogy'?  I guess that would depend on anticipated book sales. 

I do want to point out one last thing.  Why did I read about this book release in the "Religious News Service"?  If Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion, why was this a press release in the Religious News Service (RNS).?  You might think that RNS just happened to pick up the story, doubtful, this is a press release, which means it was submitted to RNS for publication.  Sent by whom, you might ask?  Well the Discovery Institute, I would have to assume, since this hit my mail before their own press release about the book.  Don't you just love the irony?

A severe lack of imagination and research skills

Wild Bill Dembski, who seems to think anything he utters are instantly gospel and no one in the known universe would think about disagreeing with him. So over on his website -- which I can't call a blog because he refuses to allow comments -- he's getting pretty lame. I mean he doesn't seem to have any imagination and he certainly doesn't exhibit the research skills expected of high school student, let alone a supposed educator.

So what is he up to this time? His target is ants: "Ants Solve Steiner Problem". Here is a large quote:

" . . .Colonies of ants, when they make tracks from one colony to another minimize path-length . . . In ID terms, there’s no problem — ants were designed with various capacities, and this either happens to be one of them or is one acquired through other programmed/designed capacities. On Darwinian evolutionary grounds, however, one would have to say something like the following: ants are the result of a Darwinian evolutionary process that programmed the ants with, presumably, a genetic algorithm that enables them, when put in separate colonies, to trace out paths . . . In other words, evolution, by some weird self-similarity, embedded an evolutionary program into the neurophysiology of the ants that enables them to solve the Steiner problem (which, presumably, gives these ants a selective advantage)." (italics added)

Now as I read this, all I could say is "BS". First off all his comment trying to explain this activity through ID is a joke. ID offers no explanatory power because no one has managed to produce anything remotely supporting ID. He makes stab at an explanation, but then, typically, offers nothing in the way of support. He compounds his error by building a straw-man of a supposed evolutionary explanation. First question to Wild Bill is why does he use the phrase "one would have to say something like". I don't know what you think when you read something like that, but my thought was "Why would evolution have to say something like that?" The only answer that strikes me is that one would have to say that because Dembski says so.

So Wild Bill, a philosopher and supposed mathematician, is claiming that evolutionary biologists would agree with his straw-man. See what I mean about a lack of imagination? It took less than 30 seconds to realize how utterly ridiculous is his little straw-man.

As for the complete lack of research skills. Doesn't Dembski know about Google? Enter something like 'Ant Navigation' and there are hundreds of returned links. The evolutionary explanations involve a number of areas -- ALL WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. Many ants use pheromones and the evolutionary explanations say quite a bit more than Dembski's little unsupported straw-man. In fact if you follow just one of the links you can even get an incredible example of natural selection concerning pheromones, pheromones fading over time, dessication and even death is dry climates.

In my 30 seconds of research I also came across the Myrmecos Blog who also took Dembski to task for his lack of research.

"As ants zing back and forth down trails, pheromone levels build up. Long trails take more time to travel, so long-trail ants makes fewer overall circuits, more pheromone dissipates between passes, and the trails end up poorly marked. Short trails enable ants to make more trips, less time elapses between passes, so these trails end up marked more strongly. The shortest trail emerges."

The comments there are also an interesting read. Apparently Jerry Coyne commented with

"I think you’re bending over too far backwards when you say, “In Dembski’s defense, his error is a common one.” If a guy makes a claim about biology on an Intelligent Design website, asserting that a trait couldn’t have evolved by natural selection, then it behooves him to do a bit of analysis and study before making his pronouncement. "

I can only agree. If Wild Bill is going to say things like this, he should do a tiny bit of research first. But as we have seen, he makes pronouncements -- research isn't one of Bill's strong suits.

Arguments XXVIII - Is Evolution Humanism?

A few of the frequent posters over on Topix tend to pick up arguments from each other and repeat them, as if saying the same thing over and over again adds to it's validity. One of the constant themes is trying to call Evolution a religion, more specifically part of the Humanism religion.

Rather than get into the whole 'is Humanism a religion?' debate, I'll set my thinking here and you can argue with me if you wish. Humanism is a philosophy, certainly, but since it rejects all form of supernatural, is not dependent on faith, or 'holy' texts for guidance, I am not sure how anyone can call it a religion. Let me be clearer, Humanism is a philosophy, as are all religions. Yet all philosophies are not religions.

Well in any event, is Evolution part of the Humanist philosophy?

In a word, No! While the study of science focuses on the natural world, it shares a venue with Humanism, but that is pretty much as far as it goes. Science, by its nature is Descriptive, philosophies are Prescriptive. The difference might be subtle, but look at it this way. Science describes what is occurring, philosophies state how things should be. Get the difference?

Science involves an examination of the evidence and determining explanations for the evidence. It can deliver both good and bad news, because to science it is just news. It doesn't matter whether you believe in it, or even understand it, the explanations remain the same. If you wish to overturn an explanation, just do the leg work and develop an explanation that is better supported by the evidence.

A philosophy, be it humanistic or religious, is a life choice. You choose to accept and support a set of prescriptions, or in the case of many religions - proscriptions, in defining your life and your actions. The rules are laid out in front of you and the other members of your philosophical group judge how well you live up to those prescriptions.

Now where things get muddled is when someone starts examining the 'philosophy of science' and tries to draw Humanistic relationships. One thing you will learn in any basic philosophy course is that all philosophies share many common characteristics. The includes the philosophies that drive many academic subjects. And while the philosophy of science deals with the metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science. This philosophy supports the basic methodology that drives scientific investigation. It does not drive the science itself! The philosophy of science, or mathematics, or even law and history (yes, every academic subject has philosophies) drives the approach and helps determine how the subject is investigated, documented, supported. It doesn't pre-determine the results. In fact is it a violation of the philosophy of science to twist your results to fit a predetermined answer.

So there are parallels, but Science is not a religion. Whether you believe in a scientific theory or not doesn't affect its outcome. You car doesn't start because you BELIEVE it will start. It starts because all the conditions (oil, gasoline, air, spark) are present in the right concentration to work as science predicted and engineering created. There in lies the difference. Evolution happened and is happening today regardless of any belief system. You can reject the philosophy of science, but that doesn't mean you can successfully reject the science. It works regardless of your belief and acceptance. Step off a ledge while loudly proclaiming you reject the philosophy of Gravity and test the results for yourself. I would start off with a curb before jumping off that cliff.

Now let's take this back on track, something I am guilty of not doing often enough. Should science class include the teaching of alternate philosophies? No! I think the only philosophy that belongs in science class is the philosophy of science. Teach the students what that philosophy is, how it drives scientific achievement, how and why it works! Introducing an alternative philosophy, such as a religious or even humanistic one, would simply confuse the issue before students actually understand it. This is why teaching Intelligent Design as science is a bad idea. It does not follow the philosophy that defines scientific methodology. The work has not been done, yet supporters want to be treated as if it had. It does not belong there, especially not a HS science class while students are still learning the basics of science!