next »

[anthroid]

re: stapler's comment... I'm not really interested in the argument itself, I'm not trying to set a benchmark.  As we are commenting on Dawkins' review, however, I found this particular point not very convincing in itself.  This says nothing about the wider conversation of ID v. non-theistic evolution.  Whether or not there is an enormous range of types in dog breeds, I'm not the one trying to set the bar high... I think Dawkins sets it high by making a very strong argument and then doesn't reach it in the example he gives.  That's all.  Not that there aren't examples out there necessarily, I just don't find this one, or the review as a whole, very enlightening.

re: grupt's comment.  I do struggle with the genre of all this.  I'm not very familiar with ID (or any other corner of the discussion, for that matter), but as I understand it ID's contribution is more to the philosophy of science than empirical scientific work itself.  This is why I find Dawkins' suggestion that Behe publish in the peer-reviewed literature not entirely to the point... whatever empirical work that Behe does, his point is to consider how we view the philosophical framework of evolution, is it not?  Dawkins does the same thing when he insists upon a non-theistic basis in science and elsewhere.  Dawkins also follows the same publication patterns with The God Delusion and The Blind Watchmaker, doesn't he?  And this is fine- Dawkins is: "Professor of the Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford.  I don't think a popular press or an argument based upon philosophical principles needs to be excluded from a scientific discussion... in fact it's dangerous to stop listening to these viewpoints, because the evidence can always be twisted to fit the model and it's important to keep the underlying assumptions on the table, in plain view, and in dialogue.

Well, hvernon, there we diverge.  Your reference to "non-theistic evolution" just doesn't work, since there is no such thing.  Evolution is by its nature non-theistic.  That's the point.  Evolution happened, and happens.  It is approaching scientific law.  It is as sensible to refer to "non-theistic evolution" as it is to refer to "non-theistic gravity."  This is not about philosophy but about empirical and established scientific fact.  Dawkins is an experienced scientist who may have moved out of the lab, but whose credentials really are there.  Behe is shunned by his Lehigh and other scientific colleagues, having moved from science into religion.

[qrypt]

I'm not sure we as Americans can justify not allowing the publication of a book simply because it's wrong.  Isn't the whole point of the First Amendment to allow for all kinds of speech, including that which is patently offensive or just plain old dumb?  Behe has as much right to have his views aired as does Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.  Just because Behe is completely off base, and a pariah to boot, does not mean he ought to be censored.

Or am I misinterpreting grupt's post?

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting censorship, not at all.  Essentially I am simply asking, what should a responsible publisher do? 

I have always thought of the Free Press as a highly respectable commercial publisher.  But in this instance I'm thinking that "commercial" has trumped "respectable". 

[anthroid]

I'm not sure we as Americans can justify not allowing the publication of a book simply because it's wrong.  Isn't the whole point of the First Amendment to allow for all kinds of speech, including that which is patently offensive or just plain old dumb?  Behe has as much right to have his views aired as does Ann Coulter or Michael Moore.  Just because Behe is completely off base, and a pariah to boot, does not mean he ought to be censored.

Or am I misinterpreting grupt's post?

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting censorship, not at all.  Essentially I am simply asking, what should a responsible publisher do? 

I have always thought of the Free Press as a highly respectable commercial publisher.  But in this instance I'm thinking that "commercial" has trumped "respectable". 

Gotcha.  I do have to wonder, along with you, about what Free Press was thinking.  Some other major press--McGraw Hill?  someone, anyway--is big into publishing ID stuff so we can "teach the controversy."  No thanks.  There is no controversy.

[husqvarna]

Well, hvernon, there we diverge.  Your reference to "non-theistic evolution" just doesn't work, since there is no such thing.  Evolution is by its nature non-theistic.  That's the point.  Evolution happened, and happens.  It is approaching scientific law.  It is as sensible to refer to "non-theistic evolution" as it is to refer to "non-theistic gravity."  This is not about philosophy but about empirical and established scientific fact.  Dawkins is an experienced scientist who may have moved out of the lab, but whose credentials really are there.  Behe is shunned by his Lehigh and other scientific colleagues, having moved from science into religion.

Do you hear yourself talking?  I just don't see why anyone bothers to post on a thread like this with such a point of view.  The discussion is happening among two scientists.  You or I may not like that, but if you want to wish away the whole affair then don't bother jumping into it... you might as well close your eyes and pretend it's not there.  The debate surrounding the ideas pretty well personified by Dawkins and Behe is not empirical science on either front.  This does not mean that their views are not important to the work of scientific inquiry.  They are both discussing the terms upon which science interprets its empirical work.  For you to say that because gravity is a scientific law it is by nature non-theistic is simply wrong.  Scientific law or any other conclusion of scientific inquiry says nothing for or against any supernatural existence.  This does not mean that discussion of these issues isn't important to science.  That's why Dawkins finds it necessary to do his work, and why Behe feels the same motive. 

[abu_fletcher]

I have to say I agree with Anthroid on this.  Evolution as a long established scientific theory (the basic tenets of which can now be taken as "law") stands on one side of a divide and those attempts to somehow includes some degree of theistic control (whether slight or omnipotent) over evolution stand on the other end.  One side of the divide is science, the other is religion. 

While theologians may wish to spend their time coming up with religious perspectives that are 100% compatible with what scientists observe (and theorize), there is no room (or need) for "science" that includes supernatural powers as an explanatory mechanism in theorizing.  And in this sense there simple is no "theistic evolution" as a scientifically viable brand of evolution.

[mythbuster]

Let me add my 2cents as a relatively theistic biologist. First remember that Dawkins is a atheist. Not just an atheist, but an atheist of fundamentalist level fervor. So between him and Behe you have the two absolute extremes. As with anything, the majority falls somewhere in the middle. Now Behe is attempting to put forward ID by essentially shooting down the theory of evolution and trying to do it in a scientific manner, looking and molecular mechanisms and accumulating data. These means that all the scientists can come out and do what they do with any scientific finding- critique it, the methods, assumptions etc., to death. But then he publishes these findings not in a journal (as any other scientist would), but as a book. This book was not peer reviewed, is not from a scientific publisher, and will be sold on Amazon.com. So he's writing like a scientist, but for the public. This is where all the scientists get really up in arms, as he is confusing the public. Most scientists I know (not that I know them all) agree that God is a supernatural topic and so cannot be explained by science, which deals strictly with the natural world. Does Behe explain this distinction? No. Does he even give it credence? Probably not. Neither would Dawkins, since he doesn't believe in God. So your discussions of science vs. scientific philosophy are all well and good for this fora, but Behe is aiming to deliberately confuse this issue. Dawkins doesn't help as he strikes those middle of the road theistic folks as overly zealous in the opposite direction. The voices in the middle, (theistically) seem to just get drowned out.

[helpful]

What is wrong with saying that The Big Bang was caused by 'a god' or some sort of non-human being and that the rest was evolution? Isn't that a middle position that reconciles both religion and science?

[husqvarna]

I have to say I agree with Anthroid on this.  Evolution as a long established scientific theory (the basic tenets of which can now be taken as "law") stands on one side of a divide and those attempts to somehow includes some degree of theistic control (whether slight or omnipotent) over evolution stand on the other end.  One side of the divide is science, the other is religion. 

While theologians may wish to spend their time coming up with religious perspectives that are 100% compatible with what scientists observe (and theorize), there is no room (or need) for "science" that includes supernatural powers as an explanatory mechanism in theorizing.  And in this sense there simple is no "theistic evolution" as a scientifically viable brand of evolution.

But Behe's point, as I understand it, is simply that non-theistic evolution (and this is certainly not a redundant claim) does not explain evolution as well as theistic evolution explains evolution.  He is not doing anything in an attempt to topple science, and his attempt to present "supernatural powers as an explanatory mechanism in theorizing" is no different than Dawkins' atheistic insistences.  Science should be agnostic.  Questions that surround scientific inquiry, which can still have everything to do with the scientific theory being empirically examined, need not be.  This is where Dawkins and Behe both do there work (at least the work that is currently being discussed)

[mythbuster]

Personally, I have no problem with this. I also have no problem with saying that the ability to mutate, change, and evolve is a divinely given trait. It's those folks who really don't want to hear that we are related to apes, tiger, lions, bears oh my  that have issues, Something about that line about is being made in God's image. I say if the Catholic church can find away to be ok with evolution, we all can.

It will be interesting to see how this intersects with the growing movement for evangelicals to support environmentalism as we are "stewards of the earth". I say we can only be good stewards if we acknowledge our connections to all creatures, which leads me directly to evolution.

 But then, I never was a good church goer.

[husqvarna]

While theologians may wish to spend their time coming up with religious perspectives that are 100% compatible with what scientists observe (and theorize), there is no room (or need) for "science" that includes supernatural powers as an explanatory mechanism in theorizing.  And in this sense there simple is no "theistic evolution" as a scientifically viable brand of evolution.

By the way, to which theologians are you referring?

[anthroid]

Well, hvernon, there we diverge.  Your reference to "non-theistic evolution" just doesn't work, since there is no such thing.  Evolution is by its nature non-theistic.  That's the point.  Evolution happened, and happens.  It is approaching scientific law.  It is as sensible to refer to "non-theistic evolution" as it is to refer to "non-theistic gravity."  This is not about philosophy but about empirical and established scientific fact.  Dawkins is an experienced scientist who may have moved out of the lab, but whose credentials really are there.  Behe is shunned by his Lehigh and other scientific colleagues, having moved from science into religion.

Do you hear yourself talking?  I just don't see why anyone bothers to post on a thread like this with such a point of view.  The discussion is happening among two scientists.  ...

No, my friend, it is not.  Not according to scientists.  Behe has in essence been kicked out of the academy.  He certainly is persona non grata at Lehigh and he is persona non grata in the real science world.  While I may not agree with Dawkins' views on religion--its universality doesn't seem to be reflective of his claims of its uselessness--he is an established scientist.  Behe is not.  My point of view is what mainstream scientists would say, but I am saying it more nicely.

[anthroid]

What is wrong with saying that The Big Bang was caused by 'a god' or some sort of non-human being and that the rest was evolution? Isn't that a middle position that reconciles both religion and science?

Not really.  There is no evidence that a god did this.  If you have some evidence establishing this, okay then.

I will say that in my first-year biology class in college, I asked a similar question of the professor.  We had been talking about the "chemical soup" which is connected with the Big Bang, and I asked where the chemical soup came from.  My professor didn't answer, and I persisted.  He continued to evade the question.  All I wanted for him to say was that we don't know (I certainly didn't, and don't, think it was from God--at least, not yet!).  Now I feel free to say we don't know but I can live with that uncertainty.

[chemchick]

Just to add to the discussion about "non-theistic" evolution....I would say it's misleading and redundant.  One of the basic premises about science is that it is naturalistic.  It is naturalistic for a very good reason--you can't expect to learn anything by formulating hypotheses and testing them if a god can come in and mess around with things.  A scientific question that asks if god exists does not make sense and cannot be answered.  Similarly, a "theory" that includes the presence of a god doesn't make any sense either.  Actually at this point it ceases to BE science.  And just to toss something else disparaging about "Intelligent Design"--name me one testable hypothesis that ID has.  As far as I know it doesn't and it can't....if you believe in a god that can alter events.

Helpful--about the "god caused the Big Bang" idea.  It's a very popular idea but you have to be careful about attributing things that are not known now to a supernatural force.  I'm sure at some point people thought the reason why the planets revolved around the sun was because "god made it so".  Then Newton came along and started talking about gravity, and this pushed god out of this realm.  I have read that eventually there will be a physical/chemical rational for personality (it certainly makes sense), and when this happens there will be all sorts of upset since this is the last thing that makes each of us different from one another (and then somehow related to the soul).

[husqvarna]

No, my friend, it is not.  Not according to scientists.  Behe has in essence been kicked out of the academy.  He certainly is persona non grata at Lehigh and he is persona non grata in the real science world.  While I may not agree with Dawkins' views on religion--its universality doesn't seem to be reflective of his claims of its uselessness--he is an established scientist.  Behe is not.  My point of view is what mainstream scientists would say, but I am saying it more nicely.

This kind of rhetoric completely clouds the issue.  Behe is a professor of biochemistry at an institution of higher education.  I'm assuming that he's tenured, since he hasn't actually been fired yet.  Whether or not anyone respects him has nothing to do with his status as a scientist.  While much of his publication work is done for popular venues, this is no different from Dawkin's focus, as I've brought up before.  

Frankly, for a university department to post a disclaimer about one of its professors strikes me as rather unprofessional.  If they don't have reason enough to fire him, then they shouldn't go around ostracizing him as they do.  They should just get on with their work.  If Behe is simply not doing scientific work then he's not doing his job, and I think firing him would be perfectly appropriate.  To write sensational disclaimers, however, says more about institutional insecurity than anything else.

Anthroid, you can do better than this lame sort of response.  I've been shocked at how much this is resorted to on the forum.  And as I try to constantly say (because I imagine people misinterpret my defense) I'm not trying to argue that ID is right... I really am not very interested in that.  I'm trying to argue that the vast majority of dismissals of ID are simply ignorant.  When you have to resort to saying that someone "isn't a real scientist", you've stopped looking at their work and started focusing on the person.

[husqvarna]

One of the basic premises about science is that it is naturalistic.  It is naturalistic for a very good reason--you can't expect to learn anything by formulating hypotheses and testing them if a god can come in and mess around with things. 

But naturalistic in what sense?  Naturalistic in the sense that you can't cue God to answer the tough questions just because they're tough, but certainly not naturalistic as a matter of conclusive ontology.  Science has no credentials to speak on this one way or the other.  This is what confuses the matter more than anything... to say that science is naturalistic means nothing more than that it brackets out the God question for its particular inquiry.  This does not mean that it must be naturalistic in anything more than a penultimate sense.

Helpful--about the "god caused the Big Bang" idea.  It's a very popular idea but you have to be careful about attributing things that are not known now to a supernatural force.  I'm sure at some point people thought the reason why the planets revolved around the sun was because "god made it so".  Then Newton came along and started talking about gravity, and this pushed god out of this realm.  I have read that eventually there will be a physical/chemical rational for personality (it certainly makes sense), and when this happens there will be all sorts of upset since this is the last thing that makes each of us different from one another (and then somehow related to the soul).

What many people misunderstand is that just because gravity is a scientific law does not mean that there is no place for God as creator or sustainer of a creation that is defined by such laws.  I don't think finding a "scientific explanation" for something in any way competes with a religious explanation.  The problem comes when one tries to replace the other.