next »

[resipsa]

Why do so many discussions of evangelicals in academia include at least a mention of intelligent design creationism?

Prof. Lindsay seems to regard the fact that "the debate surrounding intelligent design has forced many biologists to engage religious topics in the classroom" as a good thing. I disagree. Intelligent Design is pernicious nonsense, bad science and worse religion. It has no place in the science curriculum.

I'm just curious what you mean by "intelligent design". 

Intelligent Design, aka ID, is the new term for creationism, which was developed as a marketing tool by creationists, along with the attempt to rehab creationism, to circumvent the objection of scientists that it does not qualify as science and therefore has no place in the science classroom/curriculum.

Is there more than that to intelligent design?  Is it just a matter of evangelicals and intellectual neanderthals trying to slip the first chapter of Genesis into the science classroom?

If you caricature your opposition, you tend to underestimate them; this leads to predictable results. 

It is creationism.  If you have an alternative definition, tell us what it is, rather than simply dismissing my definition.

I want you to tell me what this ID really is, I don't want a perfunctory response. 

[husqvarna]

I understand what you're trying to say, !a, but I think that the impulse to "dismiss ID as just a bunch of hokum" without explaining why unfairly lumps ID with other ideas that truly should be simply dismissed without comment.

The fact that we have discussions like this one about ID in academic circles spports the idea that it would not be a bad subject of academic discourse.  It is not science, so discussing it in a science classroom does not make sense.  It might be an interesting topic in a Public Policy course.

It attempts a scientific explanation, I think, and that's why it's worth discussing in a science class, even if only to explain why it doesn't rise to the occasion in the end.  The argument about complexity is more than what !a describes it as... it's not just a head scratch and a "Gee, things look complicated!" 

The way I look at it is this... I believe in a God who created everything, so personally I believe in "intelligent design".  Set that aside.  Some ID proponents not only believe in "intelligent design" of the universe, but think that such can be demonstrated scientifically.  I'm not convinced that they've been able to do this successfully, but-

1) this doesn't discredit the idea of intelligent design itself, only the claim that such can be demonstrated scientifically... in the same way, a non-theistic alternative theory of origins isn't science per se, but an assumption or belief one holds that frames the knowledge that we can empirically verify.

2) ID has still attempted a scientific demonstration of intelligent design, even if it has failed to do so successfully.  Now, to be sure, there are plenty of people who have *tried* to say some pretty wacky things scientifically, and the fact that there is an attempt doesn't warrant inclusion in a science curriculum- especially if that attempt has been refuted.  I only assert that it may be wise to address ID in the science room because of the place that it holds in public thought about the scientific enterprise.  It only makes sense to educate our students about something like this that is so large in societal consciousness.  This isn't meant to grant ID any kind of respect or recognition- the theory must do that for itself and by its own merits.  But a recognition of its importance as a scientific theory through classroom refutation is, I think, the best way to overcome the polarity of current public and academic sentiment and really reach an understanding of what we're talking about.  I agree that it would be helpful to address ID in a public policy course as well.  But while it's not necessary to a science curriculum, I don't see why anyone would want to disinclude it... it's simply too important an idea to ignore and let fester in the margins amongst those who have a chip on their shoulder and resources to voice their thoughts, but not the willingness to engage openly in collaborative scientific work.  That just seems dangerous to me, and something that could be avoided by some patience and careful teaching of ID's refutation.


ablewasi,

-Sorry to have misunderstood alien abduction theory... I wasn't sure whether it was equivalent to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whether it was an actual theory that is argued by some (granted, eccentric) scientists.  In this case, I would say that, yes, ID and AAT should be given the opportunity of a refutation rather than simple dismissal, but that at some point one has to decide what can plausibly fit in a limited science curriculum... As I've said above, I think there's more reason to include ID than AAT, simply because of its current significance.  But the consideration of ID and not AAT shouldn't be read as me saying that ID deserves a refutation whereas AAT doesn't.

-If you wish to deny ID the name "theory", then that's fine, I suppose.  I would only insist that this doesn't allow the... um... idea?  model?  proposal?... to slip away from scientific consideration and refutation "because it's not a theory."  I suppose what I mean is- as long as we recognize that the status of theory is not necessary for something to be worthy of scientific consideration.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

The fact that we have discussions like this one about ID in academic circles spports the idea that it would not be a bad subject of academic discourse.  It is not science, so discussing it in a science classroom does not make sense.  It might be an interesting topic in a Public Policy course.

Why?  Because it doesn't fit in a "hard" science field it therefore must be fodder for one of those "soft" sciences since they only deal with opinions anyway?

No, what I mean is that it is interesting as an example of how framing (in this case, draping a metaphysical position in the language of science) can be used to make an end-run around established policy.  This political aspect is the only really interesting thing about ID.  I'm not advocating that a social science class actually waste time examining the "theory" in ID except to the minimal level necessary to understand why it is not science. - DvF

[the_honey_badger]

I'm still trying to understand what fundamental scientific principle underlies "ID"---being at a big campus where there is a constant push to incorporate this into science courses the only argument I ever hear is "its too perfect and complicated for natural processes, there *must* be an intelligent creator behind it!"   That sounds like faith not logic.  It also sounds like the way in which my childhood religious school framed evolution as a matter of fact: "Evolution is the way God set up life to develop on earth."

But, despite the number of lectures I've attended here by everyone from PhD'd engineers to philosophers advocating ID be taught as "equal to evolution as a theory" in our classrooms, I've yet to hear one fall back on anything but...the "must be" basis for ID.  I've also yet to have one of these sometimes published in ID literature scholars answer the question I ask about why my childhood religion's attitude toward evolution as "God's plan" isn't a valid way of reconciling the two.

[resipsa]

Do those forming the opposition to ID ever revert to "must be"?

[the_honey_badger]

Do those forming the opposition to ID ever revert to "must be"?

Not that I've ever heard here in a hotbed state of contention over it. They concentrate on fossil records and the like.  I wait for the "must be" formula because its so prevalent in the ID speakers---whose presentations I've gone to since they were still presenting it as "Creationism" locally.  But here, ID and Creation Science are the new terms.  As a rhetorical strategy (which I have an interest in from my own work) its pretty smart.

[husqvarna]

yankeedan,

-My understanding is that ID is something like the explanation you received in childhood... I don't think it denies evolution.  I know lots of non-evolutionists out there (and I'm talking soccer moms, not scientists) may argue that ID be taught in classrooms, but I think people like Behe are fine with the idea of evolution, and simply argue what you mention from your childhood teaching- God set it up. 

-And the only thing unique about ID, I think, is that it's trying to claim this scientifically, rather than as a matter of faith.  From my theological perspective, I might call it an attempted "natural theology".  It is an attempted scientific explanation because of its natural, rather than revelational basis.  I think the idea that it "must be" is indeed the point... and that's fair enough, as long as one can demonstrated the necessity.  The point is that the necessity is based on natural, observable complexity and a theoretical consideration of how this complexity could and could not arise.

-As I understand it, ID fails as "science" because its demonstration isn't convincing.  I don't see it as the religious wolf in scientific sheep's clothing... scientific (think wissenschaftliche) and natural theology are valid avenues of academic inquiry with an established history, so it's not as if the religious or metaphysical implications of ID are what make it unscientific.  It's simply the fact that it doesn't succeed in what it attempts.  I think this is more of a danger with models like ID- that lean heavily on the philosophical/theoretical aspects of scientific thought and so tend to be more of an all-or-nothing deal rather than something that can be tweaked by empirical analysis over time.  But it's my personal opinion that, frankly, that's what they're asking for when they try to argue for something as weighty as "necessity".  I think science can bear the philosophical weight of this as a matter of method, so I don't think that's where ID should be criticized.  But, as you say, what's presented in the end often simply isn't that impressive.

[resipsa]

Not that I've ever heard here in a hotbed state of contention over it. They concentrate on fossil records and the like.  I wait for the "must be" formula because its so prevalent in the ID speakers---whose presentations I've gone to since they were still presenting it as "Creationism" locally.  But here, ID and Creation Science are the new terms.  As a rhetorical strategy (which I have an interest in from my own work) its pretty smart.

I'm not sure the want of a "hotbed state of contention" is sufficient to settle it for me.  I'm not sure that it should.  I'm curious if scientists ever say things like: "In spite of XYZ, which seems to cast a doubt on our theories that all is explainable by reference to purely naturalistic processes, we know that it just 'must be' the case that XYZ will be unravelled eventually by sole reference to those natural processes".  Or are you claiming there are no XYZs?

[hmaria1609]

While attending library/grad school in a rural area, which was a state university, there were a few Christian groups on campus. With the exception of Newman Assoc (Catholic campus ministry organization) the other groups might as well have blown a trumpet about their presence on campus.
I remember one of the Christian groups stood outside of the student center and stopped passerby to conduct a survey on a Sunday afternoon. Good probability they never got permission to do so.

[lotsoquestions]

ID is as much about critiquing Darwinism as it is about putting forth an alternative theory.  
For example, many Creationists might start with the standpoint of Popper's notion that in order to ultimately "prove" that A causes B, you have to prove that nothing ELSE could ever have caused b, or that B absolutely positively could not be caused by anything except A. So they would probably ask you how Darwinism proves that Creationism couldn't possibly work as an alternative explanation.
Also, they'd mention that there are a number of holes in the DArwinian idea -- perhaps as many as in the creationist model.

I'm not really an expert, but I do know that Specific points that creationists frequently cite are:  
1.  A good theory has to be replicable.  If the Big Bang is actually a valid explanation, then how come everytime we have an electrical storm in my neighborhood, I don't come out to find puddles freshly teeming with newly created life -- as the result of the electrical conductivity coming into contact with some kind of organic soup?  If the big bang is correct, then why can't we reproduce it in a laboratory?
2.  something about an 'explosion' of new life forms in the preCambrian period indicated by fossil evidence.  It seems to go against the gradual evolution posited by Darwin, suggesting that something strange happened at at least one point.
3.  something about how we wouldn't have vestigial organs if everything happened according to Darwinism
4.  The persistence of certain kinds of altruism found in the animal kingdom -- for example, animals fostering other species' young in lab experimeents, animal socieites that seem to share and look after weak and injured members, etc..  If sociobiology theories about a survival instinct are correct, then they'd kill these members, wouldn't they?

Finally, I was reading something recently by a literary theorist talking about "there is nothing but the text" and all that -- and she had done an analysis looking at various drafts of Darwin's work.  She basically argued that it was impossible to convey the nuances of this brand new set of ideas without resorting to metaphor and that to some degree many of the words he chose were the 'least worst words' but that they didn't necessarily convey the flavor of his ideas.  She thinks, for example, that the survival metaphor has been overemphasized by later readers of his work.  I've never heard of a creationist assault on Darwinism from the viewpoint of literary theory, but you never know . . .    

[barcrossliar]

1.  The big bang does not involve biological evolution.  Life began well after it.  Good experiments are replicable.  That doesn't mean one can't explain past events without replicating them. 

2.  There have been several "explosions" of new species.  They happened "quickly" in the geological sense, but not as if they'd suddendly popped into being.  Darwin was a gradualist.  The theory of evolution has been refined since the 1800's, however.

3. Vestigial organs are evidence that we have leftovers from our evolutionary past (whales have pelvises, we have an appendix, etc.).  A creator would presumably not have stuck extra parts on us just to make us scratch our heads.  S. J. Gould's The Panda's Thumb is a good read.

4.  Altruism is easily explained with simple genetics and mathematics.  Basically, the more closely related you are to someone, the more you benefit (genetically) by helping them.  That is, the odds of a helping gene being passed along increase if kin are altruistic.  This is probably hard to understand because people confuse "social Darwinism" with natural selection.  Fitness in a biological sense mean leaving proportionately more offspring, which can happen by being nurturing, cooperative, resistant to disease, etc.

[resipsa]

While attending library/grad school in a rural area, which was a state university, there were a few Christian groups on campus. With the exception of Newman Assoc (Catholic campus ministry organization) the other groups might as well have blown a trumpet about their presence on campus.
I remember one of the Christian groups stood outside of the student center and stopped passerby to conduct a survey on a Sunday afternoon. Good probability they never got permission to do so.

You have to have permission to conduct surveys at state universities?

[ablewasi]

ablewasi,

...As I've said above, I think there's more reason to include ID than AAT, simply because of its current significance.  But the consideration of ID and not AAT shouldn't be read as me saying that ID deserves a refutation whereas AAT doesn't.

Well, personally, I think AAT is more important than ID, but, hey that's just me.  If "current significance" is the standard we want to use for academic consideration, then let's include a discussion of whether really hot chicks or really hot guys make better crime scene investigators in our criminology courses.

-If you wish to deny ID the name "theory", then that's fine, I suppose.  I would only insist that this doesn't allow the... um... idea?  model?  proposal?... to slip away from scientific consideration and refutation "because it's not a theory."  I suppose what I mean is- as long as we recognize that the status of theory is not necessary for something to be worthy of scientific consideration.

ID is not a theory. At least not a scientific theory as such is defined.  A proposal? Sure.  An Idea? No problem.  A model? Well, probably not, in as much as there is no implied cause and effect that doesn't presuppose the conclusion.

-As I understand it, ID fails as "science" because its demonstration isn't convincing.

ID fails as science because it isn't science.  Similar to the way that "That was a really good book" fails as literary criticism because it isn't literary criticism.

ID is as much about critiquing Darwinism as it is about putting forth an alternative theory. 
For example, many Creationists might start with the standpoint of Popper's notion that in order to ultimately "prove" that A causes B, you have to prove that nothing ELSE could ever have caused b, or that B absolutely positively could not be caused by anything except A.

If you want to keep your science creds you tend to steer away from the idea of "proof".  A better phrasing is A and B seem, after thorough examination, to be related in a way and to a degeree that I'm willing accept that I can make certain predictions about the likelihood that C will occur.  IOW, I believe my understanding of motion and gravitation are such that I'm willing to risk $20B sending a probe to Mars.

...So they would probably ask you how Darwinism proves that Creationism couldn't possibly work as an alternative explanation.

This is just silly.  "Darwinism" has nothing to do with proving or disproving Creationism.

I'm not really an expert, but I do know that Specific points that creationists frequently cite are: 
1.  A good theory has to be replicable.  If the Big Bang is actually a valid explanation, then how come everytime we have an electrical storm in my neighborhood, I don't come out to find puddles freshly teeming with newly created life -- as the result of the electrical conductivity coming into contact with some kind of organic soup?  If the big bang is correct, then why can't we reproduce it in a laboratory?
2.  something about an 'explosion' of new life forms in the preCambrian period indicated by fossil evidence.  It seems to go against the gradual evolution posited by Darwin, suggesting that something strange happened at at least one point.
3.  something about how we wouldn't have vestigial organs if everything happened according to Darwinism
4.  The persistence of certain kinds of altruism found in the animal kingdom -- for example, animals fostering other species' young in lab experimeents, animal socieites that seem to share and look after weak and injured members, etc..  If sociobiology theories about a survival instinct are correct, then they'd kill these members, wouldn't they?

You're right; you're not an expert.  Not criticizing;just agreeing.  I'm not an expert either, but the examples you chose reflect a very superficial understanding Darwin and evolution through mutation and natural selection.


!a

[the_honey_badger]

Not that I've ever heard here in a hotbed state of contention over it. They concentrate on fossil records and the like.  I wait for the "must be" formula because its so prevalent in the ID speakers---whose presentations I've gone to since they were still presenting it as "Creationism" locally.  But here, ID and Creation Science are the new terms.  As a rhetorical strategy (which I have an interest in from my own work) its pretty smart.

I'm not sure the want of a "hotbed state of contention" is sufficient to settle it for me.  I'm not sure that it should.  I'm curious if scientists ever say things like: "In spite of XYZ, which seems to cast a doubt on our theories that all is explainable by reference to purely naturalistic processes, we know that it just 'must be' the case that XYZ will be unravelled eventually by sole reference to those natural processes".  Or are you claiming there are no XYZs?

I'm not trying to "settle it" I'm not even interested in the debate except as a cultural phenomenon and the rhetorical strategies involved so my location means I hear a lot of these lectures from those who are deeply involved.  It referred to frequency of lectures by proponents from on and off campus.

But, "must be" isn't used as you frame it in anything I've heard---its inevitably "there must be a divine hand" or "there must be an intelligent designer"  which is a religious statement and meant to be.  The essential argument is that its too complicated so therefore God must have done it. I find Stephen Jay Gould's "The Panda's Thumb" more convincing than any of these appeals to the great "must be."  That's all.

[resipsa]

But, "must be" isn't used as you frame it in anything I've heard

No opponent of intelligent design ever says "must be", not even Gould or Dawkins?  They never look (or looked in the former case) at something and just assume, on the basis of faith--"must be"--that it'll eventually turn out according to their theses? 

Look, I'm not talking about someone pointing a scanning electron microscope at this or that and saying: "Observe the operation of blah blah"--that's science.  What I'm talking about is the ways in which non-ID, non-science (call it the philosophy of science, for want of a better term) creeps into the classroom or public pronouncements of those who claim that they only operate within the sphere of science.  Surely you can cite examples, I shouldn't have to do this for you.