The Design Paradigm has just posted another press release from Cornell’s IDEA club over a very interesting development on campus. Cornell University will offer it’s first class on Intelligent Design this summer.
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, April 9 The Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at Cornell would like to applaud Allen MacNeil, the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) Department, and Cornell University on this summer’s new course, BioEE 467: Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?
Five and a half months after President Rawlings� State of the University address condemning intelligent design, this course is Cornell�s first to focus on the theory from a historical and scientific perspective. Based on books such as Dembski and Ruse’s Debating Design and Behe’s peer-reviewed Darwin�s Black Box, the course purports to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.�
This four credit seminar course, taught by the EEB Senior Lecturer Allen MacNeil, will also take a broader look at the historical disputes surrounding evolution.
Although we have been on opposite sides of many debates, we have always appreciated MacNeil�s commitment to the ideal of the university as a ‘free market-place of ideas.’ We have found him always ready to go out of his way to encourage diversity of thought, and his former students speak highly of his fairness. We look forward to a course where careful examination of the issues and critical thinking is encouraged.
More on this can be found at Allen MacNeil’s own blog, EvolutionList.
Update: Over at Telic Thoughts there has been some very interesting discussion about this course with Allen MacNeil himself. Head over there to check it out.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Congraduations to a Liberal Ivy League University for allowing a course on Intelligent Design. A univerity is supposed to teach wide views even if the views are not popular with faculty. Even though I am a conservative, I feel that I owe you praise and congratulation for allowing conflicting views. In this way truth will win out in the end and I believe truth is the goal for any honest academic teacher.
Sincerely
Dr. Charles J. Coven, B.S., M.S., M.D.
April 10th, 2006 at 11:28 pm
The key issue with Intelligent design is whether the evidence for design is so compelling that it can break down the naturalistic definition of science - which is currently defined as a search constrained by ONLY “naturalistic” explanations of life’s origin. As science advances and the evidence continues to build for intelligent design - I predict evolutionists will be increasing seen as scientists confined within the box of natural philosophy. Will origins science someday allow for the possibility of a non-naturalistic explanation for the origin of life if the evidence becomes so overwhelming in support of this thesis? Or will origins science be forever confined to the philosophical assumption that life is only the “miraculous” product of a mindless, purposeless accident? And if the philosophical bias of Darwinian evolution can be stripped away, which is the more plausible and probable explanation for the origin of life - given the evidence?
This is all about an a priori commitment to Natural Philosophy by many scientists who refuse to consider the compelling evidence for design because of it’s implications. We read in the newspapers that Darwinian philosophers (evolutionary scientists) claim “Intelligent design is not science” and this is true but you must understand that their definition of origins science is a prejudiced philosophy constrained by only naturalistic explanations despite the emerging evidence to the contrary. Those who support the idea of intelligent design as a valid and real possibility are not constrained by naturalistic philosophy but are free to follow the weight of the evidence . . . . wherever it may lead!
April 11th, 2006 at 2:41 am
Mr. Parker says, “… origins science is a prejudiced philosophy constrained by only naturalistic explanations despite the emerging evidence to the contrary.”
Of what emerging EVIDENCE does Mr. Parker speak? What tests have been conducted on this so called evidence? What results have been published under peer review in legitimate scientific journals.
Mr. Parker further says, “… the naturalistic definition of science - which is currently defined as a search constrained by ONLY “naturalistic” explanations of life’s origin.”
And what science is NOT confined to natural evidence and naturalistic explanation? And what is Mr. Parker’s purpose in framing “naturalistic” with quotes; is it to covey an impression that the term naturalistic is a false term, an artificially constructed one? Of course. A cheap shot.
The rest of this comment has slipped into the memory hole. — Admin
April 11th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Cornell’s decision to hold this class bothers me on a few levels.
First, is this a Science class or a Sociology/Philosophy class? With a Bio class header I have to think it’s being presented to as a Biology class and that does disturb me. Design is not a scientific theory and doesn’t deserve a place on any podium with Evolution. It’s a theological viewpoint based on a belief system, not a scientific theory based on the scientific method.
This part really bothers me, because it looks like the standard ID misdirection. While the words say things like sorting out the issues and come to clarity, look at the two works cited. Dembski, Ruse, and Behe? Only one side of the ‘discussion’ is being presented here. Sure lets hold a class about clarity and only introduce books on Intelligent Design. That’s fair? Yea, right! A school distict in Tejon California tried this. They offered a class called the “Philosophy of Design” and said that it would discuss the controversy. Remember what happened there? The ‘teacher’, the wife of a fundamentalist christian minister, was going to present 25 videos, 24 on Intelligent Design and one on Catastrophism, and have 5 guest speakers. Three of the speakers were for ID and two were for Evolution. Interestingly enough of the two scheduled to speak for Evolution, one hadn’t even been asked and the other had DIED the year before. Sure, fair and balanced discussion on the issues? I see the same thing here. Tejon California wisely cancelled the class!
Sure, let’s once again focus in disputes with Evolution. Which, according to a Federal Judge in PA is the same thing as undermining the theory of evolution. I know this is what ID proponents want, but it undermines a great deal of other scientific studies as well.
ANd let us not forget the partiality of the group pushing this junk-science.
Anyone who wants to study biology better take Cornell off their list of potential schools because obviously they are pandering to a small group of christian fundamentalists and their very narrow point of view. Science takes a back-seat.
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 10:46 am
Mr. Gillick sounds like a medieval cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church …
“Cursed be Luther! What evidence does he have that our doctrines are in error? In which of our peer-reviewed publications has his work appeared?!”
(oh, by the way … forget about the tiny little detail that the Roman Catholic heirarchy, like the scientific hierarchy of today would never be caught dead publishing an opposing viewpoint … Good Heavens! Allow some upstart to challenge our precious Darwinian Doctrine? That would be heresy!)
April 11th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
That is the goal, but there is a time and especially a place. I have no heartburn with any university teaching Intelligent Design, but do it in the right forum. A science class is not, because ID is not science. A sociology, philosophy, even cultural anthropology makes more sense. Frame it properly and I will have no objections. But when you frame it as a science class, you are in the wrong — whether or not you want to admit it. If you can teach that as science then where are your courses on Astrology and Alchemy? Let’s not forget that the Earth is still flat, so geography class is now threatened. Oh yes, and dump Astronomy because obviously the Sun goes around the Earth.
Welcome back middle ages where anything can be expressed in scientific sounding terms and demand its ’share’ of teaching time.
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Of course scinece is constrained by a naturalist definition. You make that sound like a bad thing. You cannot hope to prove anything else but natural phenomena, hence the relationship between ID and the supernatural. If you cannot prove it, it ain’t science!
Oh I love that line. OK what evidence? I haven’t seen any of it yet. The only arguments I see are anti-evolution rather than support for ID. In fact each supposed piece of ID evidence I have heard about is either a denial of the evidence of evolution or an explanation with little to no supporting material. Even collegues of William Dembski says the math he uses to support his idea of Specific Complexity is loaded with errors and unsupported assumptions. Michael behe’s work has also been an interesting read. At the Dover Trial he was shown evolutionary evidence that his research ignored and he ignored it again during the trial. So back to the original question, what evidence? You certainly aren’t tipping your hand on anything that can be supported scientifically.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Another good one:
“Refusing to consider compelling evidence because of its implications.” Thank you for putting the argument against ID in such perfect terms. I know you meant it against evolution, but take a look in the mirror. Scientists deny ID because it has no scientific evidence to date. You deny evolution because of what it does to your core value and belief system. Who has more to lose? Not the scientist because if there was compelling evidence they would simply shift gears and incorporate a new theory into their explanations. If you cannot prove ID, what implications does that have for your self-image and beliefs?
Nice and black and white!
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Nice comeback, but let’s look at this logically. Darwinian speculation, um no! I don’t speculate, I leave that to the scientists who have proved time and time again that evolution happened and have provided many specific examples and prove that it does. The vast majority of evidence is for evolution, no matter how much you want to deny it. Fossil record, carbon dating, geology, climatology, astronemy, and other sciences have supported each other for decades.
As for the church, make sure of which one you mean. My first biology teacher’s name is Father Hart, a Catholic priest. He taught Evolution as the mechanism by which God formed and continues to form life. Let’s not forget the fact that over 10,000 Christian clergy signed an open letter that said:
That’s right over 10,000 Christian clery in the US and Canada. I also have documents published by two Popes that support evolution as a scientific theory about the formation of life. Pope John Paul II had the most interesting concept, he separated life from purpose and assigned a man’s soul to his purpose. Evolution may explain where life came from, but it is his believes that define a man’s soul. Gotta love that man!
There is a reason evolution is in the science classroom and it is the same reason gravity, light, the atom and other theories are there. They offer the best explanation for what we know about a given phenomena at a given time. Evolution happened, the evidence shows that change over time occurred. Evolutionary Theory is the best explanation for how and why it happened. You want to peddle your wares in the science classroom, they get out of the school board meetings and back into the lab and prove it. Once you have proven it, and that doesn’t mean relying on your personal beliefs, but actual proof, then come back to me and I will invite you into any biology classroom in the country. But don’t bring me anything that requires me to suspend rational thought, because that belongs in a philosophy class.
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Sorry, forgot to give you the link on the clergy letter. http://www.uwosh.edu/colleges/.....ration.htm
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Mr. Herrlich–
You forget that it was a religious hierarchy — the Roman Catholic Church who held to the Flat Earth idea and Geocentrism and other spurious theories. They got very irate when anyone challenged their theories. But history has shown that it was good that someone DID challenge their theories because many of them were wrong.
Today we have a new and quite religious establishment in our scientific community. Much of what they do is good science, but their Darwinian speculation about how life came to be is no more scientific than Alchemy and Astrology because it is not based on observation. True, there are many observed phenomena which make it tempting to believe that life evolved by chance–natural selection, mutations, a few fossils (a very few), but a closer look at the vast majority of the evidence points in the OPPOSITE direction of chance evolution over millions of years.
To vilify people for pointing this out is to do the same thing as the medieval church did to the dissenters of their day. Mr. Herrlich, YOU and your fellow Darwinians are the ones who should take your ideas to your church and try selling them there instead of in science classrooms … or at least be honest enough to admit that your evolutionary speculations are not science, but philosophy. If the Goo-to-You Philosophy can be expressed in science class, then why not the ID philosophy?
April 11th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Ted, you haven’t seen any evidence because your eyes are closed. The evidence for ID is so obvious that my 3rd grader can see it. It goes something like this … 1) We observe complex, purposeful machines in our world and we say “Hmmm … some Intelligent Designer must have made this.” 2) We observe complex, purposeful biological machines in our world and the HONEST scientist says, “Hmmm … I wonder if some Intelligent Designer made this?” It’s only the scientist with a pre-disposition against those “religious fanatics” who can’t bring himself to admit this … he then closes his eyes to the obvious evidence for ID and begins coming up with all manner of ridiculous theories such as the Big Bang, Apes-to-Man, Dinosaurs-to-Birds, ad nauseum. Oh … and don’t forget the “Whites are More Evolved Than Blacks” theories of Huxley … another unfortunate result of Darwinian speculation.
April 11th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
It goes something like this … 1) We observe complex, purposeful machines in our world and we say “Hmmm … some Intelligent Designer must have made this.” 2) We observe complex, purposeful biological machines in our world and the HONEST scientist says, “Hmmm … I wonder if some Intelligent Designer made this?”
That’s it? Your evidence for ID consists of a weak analogy? I think you’d be better off if you tried to meet the standards of science, not lower them. There were refutations of the ‘argument from design’ even before Darwin.
April 11th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Are you kidding me? The mousetrap analogy is the best you have?
Just so we are speaking of the same thing here is an exerpt by Michael Behe, a ID propoent who lays claim to the idea of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms:
http://www.actionbioscience.or.....nhmag.html
What Professor Behe is forgetting about is that each item in a mousetrap may serve other purposes in other parts of the total mechanism, thereby killing his whole argument. Even Darwin has said that if we find a biological mechanism that cannot be explained though evolution, his whole theory would fall apart. Well in 150 we haven’t found one. Professor Behe has also tried to use the human immune system and bacterial flagellum as biological mechanism’s that are irruducibly complex. What he forgot was that while he is pulling up examples, science is working with those same examples and found parts of each of those mechanisms present performing other uses. So what does he do when confronted with this evidence, he changes his tune and either denies the evidence, or pulls out another biological mechanism and makes the same argument.
Ken Miller disposes of the rest of the Mousetrap example with:
Personally, you need to re-work your definition. No one has ever said complex biological mechanisms give the appearance as being designed. Please note the word ‘appearance’, but as most people know appearances can be deceiving. Just because they look designed doesn’t make them designed. The HONEST scientist, to use your words, wouldn’t be blinded by his wish to believe one very narrowly defined point of view. He would be open to any possibility, as long it scientifically satisfied the observations. Only a BIASED scientist would assume an intelligent designer, because only one with a predisposition to want to believe that would ignore the rest of the evidence.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Getting back on topic a little, I read over the course description and it doesn’t seem to bother me too much…it’s labeled as “interdisciplinary”, meaning it also goes over the politics, history, philosophy, et al. of Intelligent Design. However, I’m not sure I trust the professor to give a balanced treatment of the issue.
Speaking of which, why exactly are Intelligent Design supporters clamoring to get ID into philosophy classes? ID and ID-ish concepts have been a part of philosophy classes for years. You can’t teach a big chunk of Western philosophy without it.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Palidor, the problem is they aren’t clamoring to get into Philosophy classes, but Science classes. They claim ID is a scientific theory on par with Evolutionary theory. In Dover PA a federal judge ruled that ID is not science because it doesn’t meet the requiremetns of being a theory (which is much more than just any idea or guess) and that it was a restatement of Creation Science, which the Supreme Court ruled could not be taught in science class.
Rather than prove ID is science, they are attempting to use public opinion to convince school boards that they deserve to be in the science class. I say until they prove it, keep it in philosophy, anthropology, or sociology classes. Just keep it out of science classes until it is proven as science.
Ted
April 11th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
COURSE LISTING: BioEE 467/B&Soc 447/Hist 415/S&TS 447 Seminar in History of Biology
SEMESTER: Cornell Six-Week Summer Session, 06/27/06 to 08/03/06
COURSE TITLE: Evolution and Design: Is There Purpose in Nature?
COURSE INSTRUCTOR: Allen MacNeill, Senior Lecturer in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University
COURSE DESCRIPTION: This seminar addresses, in historical perspective, controversies about the cultural, philosophical, and scientific implications of evolutionary biology. Discussions focus upon questions about gods, free will, foundations for ethics, meaning in life, and life after death. Readings range from Charles Darwin to the present (see reading list, below).
The current debate over “intelligent design theory” is only the latest phase in the perennial debate over the question of design in nature. Beginning with Aristotle’s “final cause,” this idea was the dominant explanation for biological adaptation in nature until the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Darwin’s work united the biological sciences with the other natural sciences by providing a non-teleological explanation for the origin of adaptation. However, Darwin’s theory has been repeatedly challenged by theories invoking design in nature.
The latest challenge to the neo-darwinian theory of evolution has come from the “intelligent design movement,” spearheaded by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. In this course, we will read extensively from authors on both sides of this debate, including Francisco Ayala, Michael Behe, Richard Dawkins, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Ernst Mayr, and Michael Ruse. Our intent will be to sort out the various issues at play, and to come to clarity on how those issues can be integrated into the perspective of the natural sciences as a whole.
In addition to in-class discussions, course participants will have the opportunity to participate in online debates and discussions via the instructor’s weblog. Students registered for the course will also have an opportunity to present their original research paper(s) to the class and to the general public via publication on the course weblog and via THE EVOLUTION LIST.
INTENDED AUDIENCE: This course is intended primarily for students in biology, history, philosophy, and science & technology studies. The approach will be interdisciplinary, and the format will consist of in-depth readings across the disciplines and discussion of the issues raised by such readings.
PREREQUISITES: None, although a knowledge of evolutionary theory and philosophy of biology would be helpful.
DAYS, TIMES, & PLACES: The course will meet on Tuesday and Thursday evenings from 6:00 to 9:00 PM in Mudd Hall Room 409 (The Whittaker Seminar Room), beginning on Tuesday 27 June 2006 and ending on Thursday 3 August 2006. We will also have an end-of-course picnic at a location TBA.
CREDIT & GRADES: The course will be offered for 4 hours of credit, regardless of which course listing students choose to register for. Unless otherwise noted, course credit in BioEE 467/B&Soc 447 can be used to fulfill biology/science distribution requirements and Hist 415/S&TS 447 can be used to fulfill humanities distribution requirements (check with your college registrar’s office for more information). Letter grades for this course will be based on the quality of written work on original research papers written by students, plus participation in class discussion.
COURSE ENROLLMENT & REGISTRATION: All participants must be registered in the Cornell Six-Week Summer Session to attend class meetings and receive credit for the course (click here for for more information and to enroll for this course). Registration will be limited to the first 18 students who enroll for credit. Auditors may also be allowed, space permitting (please contact the Summer Session office for permission to audit this course).
REQUIRED TEXTS (all texts will be available at The Cornell Store):
Behe, Michael (2006) Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
Paperback: 352 pages
Publisher: Free Press
ISBN: 0743290313
Dawkins, Richard (1996) The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design
Paperback: 400 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton (reissue edition)
ISBN: 0393315703
Dembski, William (2006) The Design Inference : Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities
Paperback: 272 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
ISBN: 0521678676
Johnson, Phillip E. (2002) The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism
Paperback: 192 pages
Publisher: InterVarsity Press
ISBN: 0830823956
Ruse, Michael (2006) Darwin and Design: Does Evolution Have a Purpose?
Paperback: 384 pages
Publisher: Harvard University Press
ISBN: 0674016319
OPTIONAL TEXTS (all texts will be available at The Cornell Store):
Darwin, Charles (E. O. Wilson, ed.) (2006) From So Simple a Beginning: Darwin’s Four Great Books
Hardcover: 1,706 pages
Publisher: W. W. Norton
ISBN: 0393061345
Dembski, William & Ruse, Michael (2004) Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
Hardcover: 422 pages
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (July 12,
ISBN: 0521829496
Forrest, Barbara & Gross, Paul R. (2004) Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design
Hardcover: 416 pages
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
ISBN: 0195157427
Graffin, Gregory W. (2004) Evolution, Monism, Atheism, and the Naturalist World-View
Paperback: 252 pages
Publisher: Polypterus Press (P.O. Box 4416, Ithaca, NY, 14852; can be purchased online at:
http://www.cornellevolutionproject.org/obtain.html)
ISBN: 0830823956
Perakh, Mark (2003) Unintelligent Design
Hardcover: 459 pages
Publisher: Prometheus Books
ISBN: 1591020840
April 12th, 2006 at 5:07 am
Mr. Hawkins seems to be as ignorant on matters of history as he is on matters of science. The Church of Rome NEVER challenged Luther to produce evidence of his charges of abuse. Luther proclaimed his charges publicly because the Church had refused to accept the evidence he attempted to present them formally. Duh. Read a book, Mr. Hawkins.
But the charge that I sound like “a medieval cardinal” is not even a side-issue, it is a non-issue, smoke and fog - an attempt by Mr. Hawkins attempt to bypass the content of my argument by addressing its style (or at least what he attempts to paint - rather dishonestly - as my style).
Let us first take note of how, when I raise the question “WHAT evidence”, Mr. Hawkins offers none in response, but resorts to personal attack. This technique reflects what has been and continues to be a standard tool of the ID-ists, the Creationists, the Believers fighting the holding action against the advance of scientific knowledge. When you can’t fight on the ground of facts, fight on the ground of personality issues and polemics. In common parlance the technique is often described as “When you can’t fight them with the facts, befuddle them with bullshit.” Mr. Hawkins hasn’t mastered the technique - his machinations are pitifully clumsy - but it is not for lack of trying.
The rest of this comment has slipped into the memory hole. — Admin
April 12th, 2006 at 9:19 am
Thank you Professor MacNeill for posting the entire course description about the class in question. I feel a little better about it now. The original news reports made it look like it was leaning in a serious ID direction. It still looks a bit lopsided :-), but not nearly as bad as it first looked.
It does mention that students will be posting original research in a BLOG. If that is a single location, I would be interested in the URL so I can read the research.
Thanks again and good luck with the class,
Ted
April 12th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Q:What is the science ID belongs?
A:It is the science no more than and no less than the Big Bang theory and no more than or no less than the SETI project
Q: How about the box
A: As such believe it or not ID is within the confindes of the box namely: the methodological naturalism. The problem of the box is that Darwinists subtly turnd the methodological naturalism into metaphysical naturalism (or in P Johnson’s words epistemical naturalism) to use this philosophy to deduce the certainty of Darwinism.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Thanks for the positive comments. Right now my blog is at http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/. However, if the volume of material from my summer courses is very high, I might start another one strictly for those courses. I’ll announce this on the blog listed above, so keep checking.
–Allen
P.S. My other summer course is Evolution for Non-Majors.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
In my opinion, at this time ID belongs in no science box at all. Philosophy, yes, Sociology, yes, anthropology, yes, and maybe a few more. But as biology, I fail to have seen any research supporting ID. I have seen plenty of research questioning evolution, but nothing supporting ID.
Let me explain what I mean by research. A recent example is a certain South Korean scientist who apparently falsified his research and his theories and even his job has suddenly disappeared. When a scientist is trying to validate a theory they publish. They publish their theory, their experimentation, their conclusions. They use this to build a logical and supportable argument to validate the theory. They publish for the purposes of getting peer review. Other scientists look at their methodology, attempt to repeat their experiments, review every aspect of their theory. This is part of the methodological approach to science. ID has failed to do this, so, again in my opinion, ID is not science.
Yes, ID has published books and articles. But these don’t contain the information required for peer review. I can publish stories all day long that there is no gravity, the Earth just sucks, but that doesn’t make it science. To date there are no published findings that can be peer reviewed, validated by other scientists. I have heard a few excuses about a built-in prejudice, or it might threaten my tenure, or (my favorite) other scientists aren’t smart enough to understand. But all that is a smokescreen. “If man was made to move at 30 miles per hour, horses would run at 30 miles per hour.” “If man was meant to fly, he would have been born with wings.” All smokescreens and thank God other scientists didn’t allow excuses from continuing their work. A recent excuse “ID is in its infancy” is another example.
Bottom line for me, if it is science, follow the methodology the rest of science uses to prove your theory. Once you do, then I would welcome it in any classroom. Until you do, go back to the lab and get out of the school boards and other public and legal forums and just get on with your work. Do not tell me it’s science and belongs in biology on par with Evolution on one hand and then tell me it’s just in its infancy when I press for details. Do not tell me Evolution is a theory in crisis when the only srisis seems to exist without your own brain because the rest of science has ignored it in the same way they ignore astrology and alchemy. Don’t tell me other scientists aren’t smart enough to understand — because if that is so then no one else is smart enough to teach it either. Just get off your soapbox and go back to the lab!
Ted
April 12th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Let me assure you that I am not “teaching intelligent design” at Cornell Univesity this summer. Rather, I am offering a seminar course in which the participants (including me) will attempt to come to some understanding vis-a-vis the following:
As Ernst Mayr pointed out in his 1974 paper (”Teleological and Teleonomic: A New Analysis.” In Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume XIV, pages 91 -117), it may be legitimate for evolutionary biologists to refer to adaptations as teleological. However, such adaptations have evolved by natural selection, which itself is NOT a purposeful process. Therefore, we have a fascinating paradox: purposefulness can evolve (as an emergent property) from non-purposeful matter (and energy, of course) via a process that is itself purposeless (as far as we can tell). This immediately suggests the following questions:
• Is there design or purpose anywhere in nature?
• If so, are there objective empirical means by which it can be detected and its existence explained?
• Can the foregoing questions be answered using methodological naturalism as an a priori assumption?
• What implications do the answers to these questions have for science in general and evolutionary biology in particular?
To answer these questions, we will read several books and a selection of articles on the subject of design and purpose in nature (I have pasted the course description below; it is also available from my blog at http://evolutionlist.blogspot......rpose.html). As you can see from the reading list, we will be looking at all sides of this very challenging issue. My own position is very strongly on the side of evolutionary biology (i.e. in the tradition of “methodological naturalism”). Consequently, I disagree very strongly with the positions of Michael Behe, William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, and other representatives of the Discovery Institute. I will therefore be attacking both their positions and the metaphysical assumptions upon which they are based with as much logic and vigor as I can muster. At the same time, I have invited members of the Cornell IDEA Club (see http://designparadigm.blogsome.com/) to participate in the course and to explain and defend their beliefs and positions. From my previous interactions with them, I expect that they will make an equally forceful and well-argued case for their position. The students taking the course will be expected to follow the arguments, participate in them, and come to their own conclusions, which they will then be required to defend to the rest of us. Regardless of whether they agree with me or with my opponents, their work will be judged on the basis of logical coherence and marshalling of references in support of their arguments.
As to the question of whether “intelligent design theory” is worthy of study, I have several reasons to believe that it is.
First, by clearly drawing a distinction between the traditional scientific approach (i.e. “methodological naturalism”) and the “supernaturalist” approach, we can clarify just what science is capable of (and what it isn’t). Like Ernst Mayr, I believe that the question of the existence of design or purpose in nature can ultimately be answered without resort to supernatural explanations. Indeed, as an evolutionary psychologist, I believe that we do have the ability to recognize design and purpose in nature (and to act purposefully ourselves), and that this ability is the result of natural selection. That is, both of these abilities have adaptive value in a world in which some phenomena are not designed and/or purposeful and others are (the latter having potentially fatal consequences if unrecognized).
Secondly, by studying what I believe to be a flawed attempt at identifying and quantifying design or purpose in nature, we may be able to do a better job of it. Clearly, there are purposeful entities capable of “intelligent design” in the universe: I am one and I infer that you are another. There are also objects and processes that clearly are not: the air we are both currently breathing clearly fall into this class. As a scientist committed to naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena, it is clear to me that there must be some way of discerning between these two classes of objects and processes, as both of them are clearly “natural.” Therefore, we will use several approaches to the identification and explanation of design and purpose to do so.
Thirdly, the recent resurrection of “intelligent design theory” has historical and political, as well as scientific roots. By studying these, we can learn better how science proceeds, how scientific hypotheses are tested, and how scientific theories are validated (and invalidated). In my opinion, “intelligent design theory” as it is currently promulgated falls far short of the criteria for natural science, but is very useful at demonstrating how to distinguish between science and not-quite-science.
Finally, the question of design and purpose in nature is one that goes back to the foundation of western philosophy. The Ionian philosophers - Thales, Anaximander, Democritus, Epicurus, and their Roman descendant Lucretius - were the first people in recorded history to assert that nature can be explained without reference to supernatural causes. Their ideas were overshadowed by the academy of Plato and his student, Aristotle, who proposed that supernatural and teleological causes were primary. Darwin revolutionized western science because he completed the subversion of the Platonic/Aristotelian world view, replacing it with a naturalistic one much more like that of the Ionians. It is this tradition we will investigate, and which I hope we can in some way emulate this summer.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:41 pm
Allan
My compliments on having the guts to hold your upcoming
It is good to see serious examination of the presuppositions of evolution and Intelligent Design.
May I refer you to the ISCID Brainstorm:
“Reverse Engineering Assumptions for an Open Science Intelligent Design Theory”
Begun 19. December 2005
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultim.....595#000000
To get beyond bombastic rhetoric and try to get to serious communication, I have tried to formally lay out presuppositions to a general theory of Intelligent Design. As a mechanical engineer working with intellectual property, I have tried to lay out these presuppositions so that they apply to current identification of evidence of Intelligent Design (e.g., forensics, reverse engineering, cryptology etc.) I believe these pressuppositions can be extrapolated to Intelligent Design as an origins theory. I would welcome further critique on these from you and/or your students and readers.
You may wish to take these and form a complementary formalization on the presuppositions of general evolution. It would be helpful to further clarify such presuppositions into those for microevolution and macroevolution. I.e., variations within species that are non-controversial and generally accepted by evolutionists/NeoDarwinists and Intelligent Designers, vs macro changes from one species to another where the major disagreements between these approaches emerge.
I would hope that these will be logical complements to the ID presuppositions.
It would be good to formally explore and hopefully agree on such complementary presuppositions in from respective origin theories to help clear the air and provide bases to seriously address consequent issues.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
Allan
May I further refer you to a second ISCID Brainstorm:
Criteria to compare ID vs Evolution
Begun 22. November 2005
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultim.....590#000000
Here I have tried to lay out major:
“Factors by which to compare Evolution & Intelligent Design Theories”
I.e., what are some major categories of biotic data that need to be addressed by origin theories. These can then be used as objective bases by which to evaluate how well the different origin theories compare on describing existing information and how good they are at being able to predict or be quantitatively useful to practitioners.
April 12th, 2006 at 5:50 pm
A quick question for Professor MacNeill:
in the discussion of “the recent resurrection of ‘intelligent design theory’” and its “historical and political, as well as scientific roots”, will the class be reading and working with the notorious “Wedge Docuument” of The Discovery Institute?
For those interested in the intellectual and political provenance of the current ID movement and arguments, this is a critical resource for analysis.
For a PDF scan of the Original go to:
HTTP://SCIENCEBLOGS.COM/PHARYN...../WEDGE.PDF
For A TEXT VERSION”
HTTP://WWW.ANTIEVOLUTION.ORG/FEATURES/WEDGE.HTML
And, to give some of idea of the essential thrust of the document - and of the ID m movement’s underlying strategy and goals, here is a very small selection:
The rest of this comment has slipped into the memory hole. — Admin
April 12th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
J.T. Gillick,
Evolution supporters just make themselves look silly bringing up the Wedge document all the time. The Discovery Institute responds to the urban legend of the Wedge document here.
As the Discovery Institute explains in their The Wedge Document, so what?, the Institute has always been a secular institution whose fellows and staff have include Jews, Catholics, Agnostics, and Protestant Christians. The institute has always supported the separation of church and state.
April 12th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
Wow! I hit a nerve with Mr. Gillick. A full 36 inches of vertical space devoted to showing what a nincompoop and villain I am! I feel honored, Mr. Gillick! This illustrates nicely how much Darwinists are running scared … and well they should … they’ve had a monopoly on student’s minds for over a century now, but the giant of public opinion is finally waking up and realizing they’ve been sold a bill of goods!
Thank you, Prof. MacNeill for “turning on the light” by requiring students to read one of the most refreshing texts of the 20th Century — Darwin’s Black Box — may this be the start of many such classes in major universities!
I do have a request of our Moderator … would it be possible to establish a Memory Hole (like on Telic Thoughts) so we can trim down the size of extremely long rants … they get rather tiresome.
Another request … can you send me some info on how I might help financially in getting other IDEA Clubs started on other major campuses? You guys are doing a great job!
April 12th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
A memory hole sounds like a good idea, Dave! I looked up how Telic Thoughts and Panda’s Thumb did it, and I’ll have something setup asap.
About your second question. . . I’ll talk to some of the IDEA members, and get back to you by email.
Update: I’ve added a memory hole, and put three of the longer rants in there as a start. I think you’ll find I’ve linked them nicely, so that if any reader wants to read the whole comment they can.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:44 am
Hmmm … a “memory hole” just for little old me. I wonder what nerve I managed to strike there. Aside from Mr. Hawkins’, that is. So, to keep it short enough to fit within Mr. Hawkins’s apparently severely limited attention span (and to get it by his on-site pet censors) …
The rest of this comment has slipped into the memory hole. Please stay on topic, J. T. It takes a lot of work to transfer your comment to the memory hole.
— Admin
April 13th, 2006 at 2:04 am
“As the Discovery Institute explains in their The Wedge Document, so what?, the Institute has always been a secular institution whose fellows and staff have include Jews, Catholics, Agnostics, and Protestant Christians. The institute has always supported the separation of church and state.”
Niaive at best, a lie at worst.
Do you know how he DI is funded? Might want to check it out….
Wedgie:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc....._of_t.html
Its about putting gold old fashioned (dark ages) Christain values back into society.
Always has been.
“but some of us are atheists”….. yeah, right.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/arc.....istor.html
April 13th, 2006 at 2:18 am
As I understand it, the topic is the course on the ID/Evolution theory debate(s), and, I presume, methods by which it is conductedTheory debate, Mr Hawkins may indulge in peresonalities, and request that you censor postings … but I cannot deconstruct his position? You seem to have committed yourselves - and the siter - to censoring along lines desired by your special freind Mr. Hawkins. why is that?
If at any point you wish to get back to honest and open discussion, let me know. In tghe meantime consider the dis-service you do your readers by becoming basically a venue for propaganda from one side.
April 13th, 2006 at 4:33 am
J.T. Gillick; please don’t be offended. We’d like to have honest discussion from both sides; but some comments (yours, yes) were getting too long to make that possible. Your “36 inches of space” dedicated to the wedge document was a bit over the top. Do you think we care that much; and did you consider how distracting it was too other commentators just to have to scroll through that?
If you can write cutting remarks without a) decending into insults and b) taking page after page to say what you need to say, we’d love to have your perspective on this blog. Otherwise…. well, we’ll miss you, but not that much.
As a side note; we tried other “fixes” before a memory hole, like using “more” tags such as are used on regular blogposts. Unfortunately they don’t work on comments. The memory hole seemeed the best fix, and you’ll note that everyone interested in hearing the tail end of a long comment is fully capable of clicking on the link and finding out the rest of what was said.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:38 am
haenlt noticded you doing much policing of Mr. Hawkins’ descent into personality issues. why is that? A bit of home-team officiating?
We avoided policing as long as possible, and only began now, with the most egregiously obvious one (yours). Sorry; but I don’t expect we’ll get around to doing major housecleaning on past comments. -Admin
April 13th, 2006 at 8:16 am
Participants will be receiving a very long annotated bibliography for the course, but will not necessarily be required to read all of the documents included therein. Both the “wedge” document and Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller vs Dover will be in the course bibliography, along with papers by Francisco Ayala, Ernst Mayr, Colin Pittendigh, William Wimsatt, among many others.
April 13th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Some analysis of Prof. MacNeill’s comments for readers whose minds are truly open and searching …
Prof. MacNeill appears to be attempting to elevate Methodological Naturalism as superior to the Supernaturalist Approach, by calling it the “traditional scientific approach.” May I point out, sir, that the Supernatural Approach is actually more “traditional” that the Naturalist approach if we measure by length of years and numbers of people holding the view. Also noteworthy is that most of the great modern scientists were Supernaturalists, Isaac Newton being a prime example.
I do not see the difficulty in identifying purpose in nature. It is clear to me that legs have the purpose of walking, eyes have the purpose of seeing, brains have the purpose of thinking or computing, mouths have the purpose of eating, Behe’s blood clotting mechanism has the purpose of preventing the death of the organism by stopping the bleeding, etc. etc. Students, don’t let Darwinists make this issue out to be more complicated than it is.
It has always struck me as an arrogant position to be committed to naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena … to be sure, many natural phenomena can be explained naturalistically … this is the bread and butter of engineers like myself … but to rule out a priori the possibility of an Intelligence outside of nature who may have Caused the phenomena in nature seems arrogant. Were you there to see firsthand how the natural phenomena came to be? No, you weren’t. And since you were not there, it seems unwise to rule out the possibility of the Supernatural. To me, this would be similar to young ants born inside an anthill, having never ventured outside, saying “We are committed to the proposition that there is no such thing as humans!”
And finally …
Remember, students, that just because the Naturalistic Religion is old, doesn’t mean it is correct, or beneficial to humanity. (And it is a religious belief, not a fact of science) Prostitution, they say, is the oldest profession, but that does not mean it is a good idea to practice it. The fact of the matter is that with the continued advance of science, Naturalism is proving itself to be bankrupt as Denton and Behe make clear in such an engaging manner.
I don’t know how good your class will be, Professor, but I’m glad you are requiring students to read one of the great books of the 20th Century, Darwin’s Black Box. This will truly enlighten many minds.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Ha! So the document that incriminates the Discovery Institute as a religously-motivated organization is a fraud! I know this because the Discovery Institute told me!
April 13th, 2006 at 10:35 pm
Yeah, it’s a fraud, Palodor. But let’s just imagine it isn’t for a minute … who cares if it was a real DI document and DI admitted so … Oh, my gosh! DI is conspiring to bring religion back into science classrooms AND government! Oh no! The sky will surely fall if that happens! Everyone knows how dastardly those religious people are! Yes, I know they build hospitals and orphanages and feed the poor and house widows, but they are really EVIL! Yes, I know religious people founded this country and DeTocqueville observed that America is great because it is religious and good, but never mind all that! Religious people are really EVIL down deep inside and they want to enslave us all and make us all go to church on Sunday and abolish alcohol and all of that!
If I had to choose between “conspiracies”, I’d choose the Religious one over the Atheist, Darwinian one any day. Look at what a disaster the Atheist one has been so far! Read the DI Wedge rebuttal and you’ll see what I mean.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:11 am
Dave Hawkins, that’s one awesome straw man you’ve created there.
Charitable giving: If you conform to what we endorse.
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/363359.html
April 14th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Dave Hawkins, can I play with your straw man?
‘To me, this would be similar to young ants born inside an anthill, having never ventured outside, saying “We are committed to the proposition that there is no such thing as humans!”’
Red flag #1: analogy.
Don’t the basic laws of physics / existance ALLOW them to venture outside of their anthill?
So they could find out, they wouldn’t have to create some bogus ‘design inference’ that’s nebulous untested unused rubbish…
I have no problem with superbatural ‘things’ - but I accept they’re outside of science. So let’s not try and squeeze them in to meet some religious agenda, eh?
April 14th, 2006 at 7:15 am
It’s an analogy, Rich, not an identical situation.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Rich:
“Red flag #1: analogy.”
April 14th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Yeah, it’s a fraud, Palodor. But let’s just imagine it isn’t for a minute - who cares if it was a real DI document and DI admitted so ? Oh, my gosh! DI is conspiring to bring religion back into science classrooms AND government! Oh no! The sky will surely fall if that happens! Everyone knows how dastardly those religious people are!
Fraud is clearly the wrong word. Since the DI acknowledges that the Wedge Document is genuine, then how could it be a fraud?
As for what it reveals about the religious purposes of its backers, there is no reason to get into whether religion is good or evil. It is only necessary to point out that we have laws separating church and state, and legal precedents interpreting that as excluding religious advocacy from the public schools.
But speaking of fraud, it is relevant to point out that ID backers insist up and down, six ways from Sunday, that ID is not about religion (except when they are speaking to a religious audience and saying things like “Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.”), so the revelation that they are driven by religious motivation is significant.
April 14th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
I can agree to a different word than “fraud” … maybe false rumor, false attribution, etc.
Ivy Privy is correct that there is something bigger here - separation of church and state is a huge issue - but popular interpretation of this concept since the 1962 Engele v. Vitale case has been a complete reversal of the previous 340 years of legal precedent. Contrary to all previous tradition, this court did not cite a single precedent in throwing out school prayer and by doing so opened the door to all manner of “de-religion-ifying” moves by lower and higher courts. (David Barton, “The Myth of Separation”, Wallbuilder Press, 1992, p. 147) So the original constitutional intent was to prevent the government from establishing a state church. The founders repeatedly emphasized the importance of religion and morality and practiced open prayer to God, used the Bible as a textbook in public education, etc., etc. This has now been well established by David Barton (www.wallbuilders.com) and others. Just as we saw the demise of Communism, just as we are seeing the demise of Darwinism today, I believe we will also see the demise of the Myth of Separation in the coming years.
As for your last paragraph, I guess I don’t understand why you are so alarmed at religious motivation. Secularists are also religiously motivated … it is just a different religion … variously called Atheism, Naturalism, etc. A religion is essentially a system of determining ultimate truth … Naturalists say they determine this without reference to the Supernatural, but I disagree. They may not talk about an Eternal Yahweh or God, but they invoke many supernatural concepts which have never been observed in the same way we Christians talk about a supernatural concept which we have never seen (God). Who has observed a dinosaur becoming a bird, or an “ape-like ancestor” becoming a man? No one. Who has ever seen any organism INCREASE in information on its own with no outside intelligent input? No one. Who observed the Grand Canyon being formed over thousands (or is it millions?) of years? Not me. Did you? Friend, this is supernaturalism every bit as much as the Christian talk about God. I for one have no problem with Secularists and Naturlists expressing their religion in class … I just want to be able to express mine too!
April 14th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
Try again, Dave. Every post I’ve seen you make on here is based on a set of highly flawed assumptions:
1. Science is indistinguishable from religion.
2. One cannot reconcile the theory of evolution with religion. (Anyone who believes this does not understand either evolution or their own religion. The presence of many scientists who practice a religion, as well as the presence of many clergy members that accept evolution as a useful scientific theory shoot this one full of holes.)
3. These “religious” scientists are members of a worldwide cabal that are “circling the wagons” around the “theories” they have developed so that they may promote the rejection of God. (Believing this is usually the sign of a crackpot; logically thinking, there is a much greater possibility that there is something seriously wrong with your ideas than the existence of a worldwide conspiracy to discredit you.)
Look, I know what you’re thinking because your talking points are pulled straight out of the right-wing playbook. If you don’t get what you want out of the scientific community or the justice system, you call them names, question their faith, and drag their reputations through the mud. Look at Pennsylvania’s John Jones, a churchgoing Republican judge who has been repeatedly branded an “activist judge” despite the fact that his ruling on Intelligent Design was the exact opposite of an “activist” decision.
Bottom line is, you and your creationist ilk, particularly the Discovery Institute, owe every “Darwinist” in the world a heartfelt apology.
April 14th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Those are not my assumptions. Let me say what they really are very slowly so you don’t miss them again …
1) Science is QUITE different from religion. Science makes all kinds of great observations about the world around us, performs repeatable experiments, and makes new laws based on these observations, i.e. Laws of Motion, etc. I AM a scientist who has used my science in business to become quite wealthy. Believe me, I know the difference.
2) Religion kicks in when Creationists/IDers make leaps of faith about HOW this stuff came to be, i.e God. OK? I admit it. But Darwinists make even larger leaps of faith when they talk about pre-biotic soup yielding single-celled organisms, which turn into worms, then squids (or whatever), etc., etc. until you get to humans over millions of years. That’s a religion, friend. And it’s not much more of an intelligent sounding religion to me than the native tribe in Brazil that claims we all came from a big turtle, OK? And I know you may mix your Darwinian religion with some other religion also. I’m fully aware that many religions now accomodate Darwin … doesn’t mean it’s correct, though.
3) I have no illusions of a sort of cabal of Darwinists. I do, however, know how universities work and how tenure works. By and large, the leadership of modern universities do not approve of non-Darwinist science professors. Many have lost opportunities and even their jobs because they were not Darwinists. Michael Behe relates that he would not have dared to write his famous book before he was tenured. And there is an informal, loose hierarchy among universities. MIT ranks above many others in status, for example. Oxford is very prestigious and Dawkins wields great influence. It’s actually quite similar to the “right-wingers” as you call me. Dr. James Dobson is very influential, as is D. James Kennedy, Rick Warren, Chuck Swindoll and John MacArthur. Are they good friends? Maybe, I don’t know. Are they “conspiring” to take over the world? Of course not, and I know Darwinists are not either. But Darwinists have managed to obtain a virtual monopoly on schools and universities, but I will never say that it was obtained through some sort of sinister action. The fact is, Cthey worked harder and the Creationists and ID people were simply asleep at the wheel and let them take over. But now they are waking up!
April 15th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
To be honest , the darwinian hypothesis is based on genetic, fossil and geological evidence. There is no evidence for ANY theistic hypothesis. So it doesn’t take more faith, if you understand what faith means.
Oh, and if Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour.
April 15th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
No, the theistic hypothesis is also based on this same evidence, but on what I consider to be a more honest interpretation of this evidence.
Atheism is a religion with various “gods” … in the USSR it was The Party. Possibly for a man like Richard Dawkins it is something like pursuit of science itself. The “god” of many atheists is pleasure or money or power or family or some combination.
Both in my religion and in atheism, the respective “gods” are held in high esteem and are purported to give great happiness to the practitioners for proper actions. Both can also be quite harsh for improper actions.
April 15th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
This discussion of religion, like most others like it, suffers from a servere case of “definition by convenience.” I would strongly recommend that partisans on both sides take a look at Pascal Boyer’s (2001) book, Religion Explained: the Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465006965/sr=8-1/qid=1145138369/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-6496270-2592158?%5Fencoding=UTF8). Boyer uses a cross-cultural (i.e. anthropological) analysis to define such things as gods, demons, and relgious beliefs in general. While it is true that in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany the party or the state “stood in” for god (and probably co-opted some of the same neurological wiring), the same is almost certainly not the case for scientific belief.
The difference between Boyer’s argument and that of many people who assert that science is equivalent to religion is that Boyer actually uses extensive data, derived from anthropological field work, to back up his analyses. Here’s what I wrote about Boyer’s work in my most recent paper on the evolution of religion (see “The Capacity for Religious Experience is an Evolutionary Adaptation to Warfare,” at: http://evolutionlist.blogspot......ce-is.html):
“Before turning to the crux of the argument, it is necessary to consider in more detail what the capacity for religious experience consists of. Recent work on the evolutionary dynamics of religion have converged on a “standard model” in which religions are treated as epiphenomena of human cognitive processes dealing with the detection of and reaction to, agents, especially human agents, under conditions of stress anxiety, and perceived threat. Boyer has proposed a comprehensive theory of the evolution of religion based on an underlying cognitive process whereby “Our minds are prepared [to give] us particular mental predispositions.” (Boyer, 2001, p. 3) In particular, “…evolution by natural selection gave us a particular kind of mind so that only particular kinds of religious notions can be acquired.” (p. 4)”
“Boyer begins by asserting that “[r]eligion is about the existence and causal powers of nonobservable entities and agencies.” (p. 7) He then proceeds to show that the common explanations for the origin of religion – explanations of puzzling physical and mental phenomena, explanations of evil and suffering, provision of comfort in times of adversity, and provision of the moral basis for social order – cannot be reduced to nor included in an explanation of the evolutionary origin of the capacity for religious experience. (pp. 5 – 12) Boyer then points out that “…there is only a limited catalogue of possible supernatural beliefs.” (p. 29) This is because “…[t]he religious concepts we observe are relatively successful ones selected among many other variants.” (p. 32) Therefore, “…religion emerges…in the selection of concepts and the selection of memories.” (p. 33)”
Gods, therefore, are abstract (i.e. supernatural) concepts that fulfill the citeria Boyer outlines above. If science is to be considered to be a religion (or, even more radically, a “god”), it should be possible to substitute it into the definitions above without changing their meaning. As this seems impossible, I must conclude that this assertion is without foundation.
April 15th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
I don’t believe I have ever said that science is a religion. I practice science and apply it in my business. I also practice what most people call religion (Christian … surprised aren’t you!) and I do know the difference. I think I said that Atheism and Naturalism are very much like religions (practically indistinguishable to me) because they go BEYOND science and it’s limitations and make assertions such as “We know it’s hard to believe that life began by chance from pond scum, but we KNOW it’s true because there were millions and millions of years for it to take place” and other such notions which violate all known scientific observation. Of course it is true that Theists like me ALSO make some pretty unbelievable assertions about an invisible, all-powerful God and angels and demons, etc, etc. The point is that BOTH make leaps outside of science and I for one will be quite content if Darwinists will treat my leaps (call them religion if you like) the same as their leaps. Let the students judge for themselves which leaps are bigger. And by equal treatment, I mean equal respect, equal tax funding, equal access to students, etc. You, professor, appear to be trying to do this with your class and I am thrilled! Hopefully, you will inspire others to follow your lead!
April 15th, 2006 at 7:13 pm
One more thing … I’m not sure it’s possible to escape “definition by convenience” because you and I, for example, would probably not agree on who is a proper authority to define religion. You appeal to Boyer … I would appeal to someone else.
April 15th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Rather than call “naturalism” a religion, I prefer to refer to it as a metaphysical assumption. As I have pointed out elsewhere, methodological naturalism is simply “normal science” as practiced by virtually every empirical scientist around the world. According to the rules first laid down in axiomatic form by Newton in the beginning of the Principia (yes, I know he was both a Christian and an alchemist, but he kept all of this out of his published scientific works), natural scientists (i.e. biologists, chemists, physicists, etc.) formulate explanations for the phenomena they observe with reference to natural causes only. And, according to Occum’s Razor (see my article on this subject at http://evolutionlist.blogspot......m-and.html ), such explanations should not include any reference to either non-observable or extraneous entites or processes (i.e. anything not absolutely necessary for such an explanation is therefore excluded, including reference to supernatural causes).
However, methodological naturalism is fundamentally different from ontological naturalism, which is the logical inference that, since reference to supernatural entities or causes is not necessary for scientific explanations of natural phenomena (and as far as we have ever been able to tell, it isn’t), such supernatural entities or causes do not exist. While it seems logical, this inference is entirely without empirical foundation. Indeed, empirical proof of such an assertion is quite literally impossible, as the two statements are subsumed under fundamentally different logical categories (as explained by Gregory Bateson, among others). This is why T. H. Huxley coined the term “agnosticism,” and defined himself as an agnostic (and why I completely agree with both his definition and his position). Agnosticism is not the refusal to take a position on the question of the existance of the supernatural, as many people on both sides of the issue assert. On the contrary, agnosticism is a logically argued position that states that deciding this issue using empirical means is, by definition, impossible.
April 15th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
I actually am fine with labeling naturalism a “metaphysical assumption” as long as my beliefs about God are labeled the same. The truth is that I don’t really view my belief in God as a religion … it’s really a relationship to me, but that takes some explaining, so it’s easier sometimes to just let people label me a religionist.
My problem with most Darwinists (maybe not you) today is 1) that they do not practice what they preach and stick to methodological naturalism — they make the huge leaps of of faith referred to above in their science classrooms and in their writings, and 2) they cry foul when people with different metaphysical assumptions–typically theists–also make leaps, but the leaps are off of different “cliffs”. Most Darwinists only allow “flying leaps” off “cliffs” approved by them.
As for your agnosticism, I have never been able to fathom the position, though I’ve encountered it many times. Though I have obviously never seen God, I’m pretty darn sure He’s there because of alot of factors. The Law of Causality is a big factor for me … I am a contingent effect and I have intelligence, so there must be an ultimate Cause of me which is far more intelligent than me. Same with love, hate, beauty, determination, power … all these intangibles which don’t make sense to me to explain by random chance. This is not even to get into all the things Behe gets into of design with purpose. There are actually many things in my life which I never have seen but I have firm conviction that they exist … my brain for instance … never seen it, but I’m pretty sure it’s there (some on this blog would argue that). Why can I be sure it’s there? Because I have methods of determining the truth about invisible things like my brain other than seeing it. Air, germs, electricity and people of history like George Washington also fall into this category. Well, just as there are pretty powerful means of determining the truth about these things, I think there are also powerful means of determining truth about a First Cause. And I don’t mean just reading a religious book and believing it or having some woozy experience. No, I was much more like C.S. Lewis in my discovery of God. Although I was not agnostic as Lewis was, I was skeptical of all the Bible teaching I received as a child. I did not fully believe any of it until I had fully investigated it and tried to poke holes in it. Now, like Lewis became, I am thoroughly convinced of the existence of a personal Creator God with whom I can have a relationship. My future is secure and life (and particularly science) is fun for me. The more I study, the more I am in constant amazement at the creative ingenuity of the Creator. And as a beggar who has found bread wants to share the source with others, I also want others to find the satisfaction that I have found. This nonsense about evangelicals wanting to control the world is just that-nonsense. We don’t want to control the world … we just want everyone to share in the happiness that we have.
Have a good rest of the weekend!
April 16th, 2006 at 3:59 am
No Dave, I must disagree. Darwinism is born from MN and comes with no baggage - it looked at the world and tried its best to explian in using hard evidence and natural processes. ID starts with religion and tries to fit the world to it. Its just the next generation of apologetics - scientifically vacuous but popular with religious types.
If the world doesn’t conform to your favoured creation myth, please don’t blame science.
April 16th, 2006 at 4:01 am
Also folks - if you can please read up on the differences between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism (MN and PM) then I think the debate can be advanced.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:20 am
Darwinists keep insisting that they ONLY use hard evidence and natural processes to explain the world, but this is a myth of GIGANTIC proportions … so large in fact, that many students say, “Darwinists MUST be right because no one could possibly make THAT big an error!” And yet there it is and I think no one has pointed out the myth more professionally than Michael Denton in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” and Michael Behe in “Darwin’s Black Box.” To be sure, Darwinists START with hard evidence and natural processes, but then they jump off into what amounts to religious mythology and call it science. It is also absurd to say that ID “starts with religion”. ID and Creationism start with hard evidence and natural processes (as Darwinists admittedly do also) but we have the happy distinction of making LOGICAL flying leaps when the evidence can carry us no further. The Darwinists make illogical flying leaps.
As for Rich’s second paragraph, while there are many myths in various cultures, the evidence (if that’s what you’re really looking for) supports the theory that the Biblical Genesis account is no myth. Rather, it is more likely a detailed account written down by ante-diluvian patriarchs and passed down IN WRITING eventually to the great lawgiver, Moses, who then merged these accounts into his own accounts of the beginnings of the Hebrew nation. The “Documentary Hypothesis” which was the first major attempt to write Genesis off as a myth has now been thoroughly discredited. Read “The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict” by Josh McDowell. Also, we do NOT try to conform the world to pre-conceived ideas and we don’t blame science for anything … we USE science in productive ways and we have a theory of origins which is much more likely to be true logically, fits the evidence much better, and is much more intellectually satisfying than Darwinism. I think another quote from Michael Denton’s book, “Nature’s Destiny” (p. 389), would be appropriate here.
All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition of traditional natural theology–that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality, from the size of galaxies to the thermal capacity of water, have their meaning and explanation in this central fact. Four centuries after the scientific revolution apparently destroyed irretrievably man’s special place in the universe, banished Aristotle, and rendered teleological speculation obsolete, the relentless stream of discovery has turned dramatically in favor of teleology and design, and the doctrine of the microcosm is reborn. As I hope the evidence presented in this book has shown, science, which has been for centuries the great ally of atheism and skepticism, has become at last, in these final days of the second millenium, what Newton and many of its early advocates had so fervently wished–the “defender of the anthropocentric faith.”
This is not from a “religious nut” like me … he’s a first rate molecular biologist who has some rare intellectual honesty.
April 17th, 2006 at 11:16 am
So the myths are supported by other myths IN WRITING. OH MY GOSH! I’ve been such a fool.
Gensis - falt, 6000 year old earth (wiped out once by great flood) that is orbited by the sun.
Denton needs to get his head around the anthropic principle.
It’s a bit like a puddle musing “I can’t belive this hole fits me so well, it must have been designed for me”
Seriously - you’ve offered no science.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Don’t be so harsh on yourself. I wouldn’t call you a fool … you’ve probably just been propagandized by our one-sided government subsidized educational monopoly over many years. I totally understand your viewpoint, given your situation. The Communist Party in the USSR–like Darwinists in this country–had this luxury for propagating their viewpoints as well … for a while.
April 17th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Gotcha Dave, Onec again I’m erm, overwhelmed by the logic and facts supporting your case. Our one sided government that’s >90% Christian had got to me, no doubt.
Still waitig for scientific content, but IDers aren’t so good at that. OP Eds, though…..
April 17th, 2006 at 12:41 pm
My purpose on this blog is not detailed scientific content, in case you haven’t noticed … not enough space. Read the books I’ve mentioned if you want that. Go look at www.icr.org and www.answersingenesis.org … no doubt you are already familiar? Maybe you have already written them off? Well, hopefully other, more open-minded readers will go there and learn.
April 17th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Answersingenesis has been completely and exhaustively debunked by minds sharper than my own.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Dave, you should be against ID. Not naming god as the designer / trying to hise his identity isn’t very Christain?
Open minded….
“Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” –Proverbs 3:5
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.” –Proverbs 16:25
“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ…” –2 Corinthians 10:5
April 17th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
It has been explained to me that denying the ‘designer’ in ID is a tactic. It is justified because of the undo criticism ID proponents have faced when they try and popularize their ideas.
There are a number of tactics, such as this “Teach the Controversy” where there isn’t one. “Present both sides so students can figure it out for themselves.” Presenting a list of 35 or so documents to the Ohio State School Board listing them as supporting ID and when investigated finds that the documents do nothing of the kind. Supporting a Philosophy course on Intelligent Design and telling the Tejon CA school board it was an philosophical examination of both evolution and ID and then stacking the deck with 24 films supporting ID, 1 supporting Biblical Catastrophisms, plus 3 guest speakers on ID and none on Evolution (Actually there were 2 scheduled but one was never asked and the other was dead). The Dover PA school Board members who tried for years for a return of Creationalism, who stated in many public forums their support for Creationalism and ID — who then got on the stand, put their hand on a Bible and then proceeded to forget all their words.
Tactics sure, but they consist of lying, misdirection, and denial of the Christian God. Sure makes me want to join up
In an ethics class years ago I was forced to debate the position that “The Ends Justifies the Means” and I did such a good job that I won the debate. In my opinion I won because the other side simply failed to properly prepare themselves. During my own preparation I found that I never could properly justify it to myself. There are things I could never bring myself to do, no matter what the outcome. Does that put me at a disadvantage in today’s society? Maybe. I have found that I am a poor salesman and an even worse politician. I have seen positions go to people wholly unqualified for them. I have watched friends date people who took ruthless advantage of them. What it taught me is that life may not be fair, but when I look in the mirror I am generally satisfied with who I have become. I am not a saint, nor am I looking to become one. But I cannot find it in myself to deliberately mislead, lie, or deny my beliefs. To do so is a level of dishonesty I cannot live with. (Note: And remember the purpose of a debate — it is not to with your stated subject, but to present it to the best of your ability. So debating this topic wasn’t against my principles!)
To those supporters of ID who do lie, misdirect and deny, one day I do believe you will receive your just desserts. To those who truely believe ID is a theory worth pursuing, I welcome your discussion and ideas. I would prefer to see more support for ID and less trying to tear down Evolution, but you need to make your arguments the best way you know how. The debates have been interesting and fun.
Ted
April 17th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Darwinists keep insisting that they ONLY use hard evidence and natural processes to explain the world, but this is a myth of GIGANTIC proportions … so large in fact, that many students say, “Darwinists MUST be right because no one could possibly make THAT big an error!” And yet there it is and I think no one has pointed out the myth more professionally than Michael Denton in “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis”…
Professionally? Let me take a look at my copy. This from the back cover: “What will be the most embarrassing to the neo-Darwinians,… will be Denton’s revelation that the evidence from his specialty, molecular biology, lends them no support.”
So he’s a specialist in molecular biology? Then how is that every single one of his sequence comparisons in chapter 12 is improperly analyzed? Every single one! I have heard that Denton has recanted some of the arguments of Evolution: A Theory in Crisis in his latest book, but I haven’t read that one.
April 17th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
OK. So Ivy says Denton is no good. Rich says AIG is no good. Ted says the ID folks are liars and cheaters. I don’t believe what talkorigins.org has to say, so I guess we won’t get too far arguing back and forth on that. I have an idea for a simple, fun exercise. I’m an Electrical Engineer and business man and I used to fly AF jets. I like simple, uncomplicated arguments and I like people to cut to the chase … fast. Let’s say I was undecided about where life on earth came from or how it began. I hear the YECs and the ID people saying it came from an Intelligent Agent/God or whatever. I hear the Darwinists saying it happened by chance evolution. I would love to hear from each of you … Prof MacNeill, Ted, Ivy, Rich, JT, everybody in YOUR OWN WORDS, not referring to a single outside source what YOUR theory is and WHY you believe it in 5 simple statements, i.e. the top 5 reasons for your belief. I would be glad to do the same for my belief if anyone cares.
April 17th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Nice Try Dave.
You’re hoping that people will advance unsuported positions?
Its all just hadwaving if thats the case - which is what you want -
No facts support a design position so you would strip us of the
facts that support ours? VERY ID.
Either its science or faith - faith needs no facts.
Having said that, first cause and occam’s razor rule out a designer for me.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:07 pm
No, I realize that if I’m asking you to give a brief defense, you don’t have space to give support, but I would understand that you have some someplace. I’ve just never had a Darwinist ever explain his position succinctly in his own words. They all just refer me to TalkOrigins or someplace.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:32 pm
well, abiogenesis is probably the hard part: life from no life (which strictly speaking isn’t evolution).
If you’ve ever looked at recursice auto adaptive mechanisms, then RM = NS provides no problems for me.
Plus, all life is infact remarkably simiilar and the fossil record shows life being ‘created’ in teh right order - there are no early goat fossils that predate early fish fossils, for example.
For me, making up supernatural agency is just lazy, even if we can feel free from death with the myth that comes with it. As science advances the bible becomes less literal - a trend that’s been going on for a while.
But for me, christianity fails basic morality. The loving God is not played out by his actions.
April 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Please read the whole post. There are proponents of ID who use reprehensible tactics to push their agenda. I never said all are liars and cheats. I did say that to date even ID supporters like Dembski claim that ID is in its infancy. Complain about evolution all you wish, you still haven’t made any case for the science behind ID. Now I don’t hold that personally against anyone who wants to believe, but I do think you need to take it beyond its infancy and the only way to do that is in the lab, not in the court of public opinion.
What getting out of the public opinion arena will also prevent the liars and cheats from taking advantage for whatever purpose they have. They don’t seem interested in really proving ID works, just bashing anyone who doesn’t buy their singular point of view.
Ted
April 17th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
Interesting. Thanks for the insight.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I decide I would try and do myself what I asked my Darwinist friends to do and I found that I needed 7 points instead of just 5 …
I hear alot of people on this blog saying that evidence for a Designer is not scientific. I would agree with this in the sense that you can demonstrate it in the lab. The reasons I believe there is one are more like the reasons I believe George Washington existed.
I also think that ID is useless by itself because it stops short of identifying a designer. I am a creationist which means I believe I can identify the designer as the God of the Bible. This is incredibly useful if you believe as I do that this God wants a relationship with the humans he created and will someday make a new world. Of course, to arrive at all these conclusions requires much evidence from several disciplines … science only goes so far. But contrary to the mudslingers, there is excellent evidence available … I would never just say something non-sensical like “You just have to have faith”. Many organized religions have done a disservice to lots of people by making statements like this.
A basic outline of my line of reasoning is this (keep in mind I have an Electrical Engineering degree, so I think like an engineer) …
1) I see highly sophisticated, biological machines at every level in nature, macro to micro.
2) I know from my engineering experience that sophisticated, non-biological machines that actually work require enormous amounts of intelligence (not to mention effort) to get them designed well enough to where they will work and continue working for a long time. I have no reason to believe that biological machines would be otherwise–they are made of the same stuff–it all comes from the same periodic table.
3) Knowing this, it makes sense to me that there COULD be a designer somewhere–space alien, God, supercomputer in some galaxy–apparently Francis Crick went for the Space Alien/Panspermia idea, so I guess I’m not totally crazy with this idea.
4) Next, I look at the fossil record with the zillions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth, and I conclude that there must have been a massive, global flood which buried all those fossils.
5) Now I pick up a Bible and I find a book that claims that (a) a Designer created life on earth and (b) there was a global flood which buried all these critters I find in the rock layers … interesting
6) I’m skeptical of the Bible at first because everyone says “that’s just a religious book full of myths”, but on closer inspection, I find it to be accurate in every historical detail which is possible to be verified by archaeology. I read it from cover to cover to give it a fair analysis and I am struck by the accuracy with which it describes human behaviour. I’m also fascinated with the apparent fulfilled prophecies which involve the rise and fall of major nations and also this incredibly influential person–Jesus of Nazareth. To be sure, there are things I don’t understand, but I’m not so arrogant as to write them off without evidence for doing so. I know from history that multitudes of people have blindly accepted statements like “that book is just a myth” only to be proven wrong by some guy willing to work hard enough to really examine the evidence. Of course, many DO turn out to be myths, but I have done my own thorough examination of the Bible, and I have not found it to be a myth.
7) I put this (and some other factors … admittedly, this is abbreviated) all together and in my mind and it all adds up to me to make a pretty good case that the Bible is literally true–complete with a real God, the Creation, the Flood, Moses, Jesus … the whole deal.
I think you will find that there are many folks out there who followed similar lines of reasoning and wound up with the same conclusion. C.S. Lewis is one prominent individual who was a skeptic for many years, but eventually became a loud proclaimer of Christian tenets. Lee Stoebel, author of Case for Faith and Case for Christ is another agnostic-turned-Christian.
Now I t