Let us raise a standard to which the wise and
honest can repair; the rest is in the hands of God. --George Washington
It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless
minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men.
--Samuel Adams
"Blow a trumpet in Zion, sound the alarm on my holy mountain!" --Joel 2:1
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.
Or, is Mister Parker perhaps proposing the creation of a whole new realm of science based on non-natural phenomena? That may be [possible, as it would be necessary for his arguments to hold water. After all, ID does not meet any of the basic criteria for accepted science (long-standing criteria, not “currently defined”) its partisans are attempting to force a redefinition of those criteria to force ID and other Creationist superstitions into the definition. But if Mr. Parker is proposing a whole new form of non-naturalistic science, engaging non-natural phenomena - what phenomena did he have in mind? What system for evaluating and analyzing them?
ID is at best a political/cultural smokescreen for Christian religion, produced and promulgated by consciously dishonest advocates through consciously dishonest means. It attempts to force a “creation of life” supposition - religion-based - on a science which does not - despite the common misperception - attempt to explain the origins of life itself. The underlying reason for this campaign is the panic the Believers suffer from when their superstition-based explanations of life are challenged by a method - the scientific method, in this case - that engages only the material world and material analyses (and hence material explanation) of that world. Religion and its adherents have been waging this battle since the dawn of the Enlightenment - rarely (if ever) admitting that their real concern is a cultural one that has nothing to do with science (a human endeavor they essentially fear and hate). All of ID - ALL of it - is based on the simple proposition that what we do not know NOW can NEVER be explained and therefore MUST be the product of something supernatural. This is nothing more than taking the balloon of ignorance and blowing it up with God-gas. This is not science. This is voodoo.
The proponents ID - such as those who operate out of the infamous Discovery Institute, have not done one piece of original, fundamental research on their hypotheses (note, I do NOT say “theory”; ID does not by any measure rise to the level of a scientific theory; it is at best a speculative proposition, unenagageable by scientific method). They have conducted no research nor published any results on ID in legitimate peer-reviewed journals of the field (or in any related field). All they have done is argue, propagandize and campaign (as if scientific understanding were best achieved through referendum of the general population) - first about such as-yet undemonstrated aspects of the evolutionary process as they can pick out by gleaning the work of real scientists; second by false argumentation in public forums, relying for effect on popular misconceptions of science and the scientific process (such as the distinction between the meaning of “theory” in common usage and its meaning in the term-of-art “scientific theory”); and finally by maneuvering politically in such places as Dover, PA and Kansas to force ID positions on science curriculums.
ID is a cultural artifact, not a scientific theory - and a dishonest one at that. For a demonstration of that dishonesty, I suggest Mr. Parker (and all other interested parties) read the �Wedge Document� memo in which the Discovery institute laid out its essential strategy and purpose in campaigning for the placement if ID in the education system. They would then do well to read the Dover Case materials and decision. The first for a detailed breakdown of ID�s transmogrification out of the long-discredited �Creation Science� movement, the second for the presiding Judge�s observations regarding the defense�s patent dishonesty in arguing the origins and intent of the curriculum changes proposed in the school district.
Mr. Parker and his fellow Believers may hold whatever opinion they want on the origins of life. But science education in this country should not be made the pawn of their need for comforting superstitions, nor should public education be made their tool to force their �anti-naturalistic philosophy� on young students.
This comment can be found in context here. — Admin
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.
As to his contention that �the scientific hierarchy of today would never be caught dead publishing an opposing viewpoint�, he is simply wrong. The most casual scan through a random selection of scientific journals will show, not only in the articles but in the discussions areas, constant argument over widely-held theories, new theories, new work, new views contending vigorously with each other. Scientific journals are hotbeds of discussions, dissent and disputation. Mr. Hawkins assumption revels an astonishing ignorance of current scientific practice - the ignorance of one who chooses not to examine evidence, in fact. What a coincidence.
His attempts at sarcasm, clumsy as they are (�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!�), nonetheless reveal quite a bit about his essential mind set in this matter. Committed to the �revealed knowledge� and �mysteries� of religion, he can not grasp that other human endeavors do not necessarily follow the hierarchical models of churches and established religions. Hence his insistence on the concept of �scientific hierarchy�. Let us pose him this challenge: sketch out for us, if you will, Mr. Hawkins, the structure of this notorious hierarchy.
Religionists see their sacred structures as threatened by the advancement of our understanding of the world and the mechanisms by which it works - whether that understanding comes from biology, paleontology, physics, anthropology, archeology or behavioral sciences. And since Religionists see all in terms of belief systems contending for supremacy, they can only believe that anything that challenges their systems does so as part of a planned, deliberate attack. Further, constrained as they are in viewing all knowledge as part of belief systems (as opposed to knowledge having any neutral or objective component or value) - they treat any organized systems for developing knowledge as if it too were a religion. Hence the Holy War component of the anti-science movement Mr. Hawkins so nakedly (if not particularly ably) represents. And hence his glee at casting the practitioners of science in the role of priests and hierophants. After which, he casts them as conspirators, committed to the suppression of truth - somewhat on the level, I suppose, of the Trilateral Commission, the Masons and the Rosicrucians so beloved of conspiracy addicts.
Pressed for evidence, Mr. Hawkins offers up nothing irrelevant analogy; pressed for discussion, he offers nothing but distracting invective. In return let me offer him something of substance: for a functional dismissal of that sad, old �argument from design�, let Mr. Hawkins (and any other interested parties who might want something solid on the subject), read THE BLIND WATCHMAKER by Richard Dawkins. There they will not only find the AFD dealt with, but a thorough and energetic discussion of other alternate theories of (and against) evolution theory as held by disputants within the scientific community. If that is not enough to open Mr. Hawkins� eyes to the amount of debate, dissent, discussion and divergence of opinion among the supposed monolithic �scientific hierarchy� he fantasizes, allow me to suggest he read the arguments between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins - and discussions of their contending theories by other scientists. Where to find such discussions and debates? Let Mr. Hawkins try some of the scientific journals he seems to think are little more than religious tracts hewing to the prescribed doctrine of his phantasmagorical �scientific hierarchy�.
For others reading this column who might some well-constructed argument on the issues of evolution (as opposed to Mr. Hawkins� warmed-over debating tricks and second-hand rhetorical flourishes gleaned from the press releases of the Discovery Institute), I suggest a visit to the Royal Institute of Philosophy site (http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/index.php). There you can find a lively debate between Mr, Dawkins and Mary Midgley, the noted moral philosopher. If you need to read argument against Advanced Evolution Theory, you need to read competent argument. Try there. (Go to the ARTICLES link; �Issues in Darwinism� is the first category.)
And in Midgely�s work you will also discover the real well-spring of opposition to AET - the nagging fear that if the general population comes to understand the mechanisms of life and of evolution they will begin to question �divinely ordained� social order, and begin to look to themselves for definitions of the purpose of life. Shaw had the same problem (see his letter to Henry James with its sad lament �In the name of human vitality WHERE is the charm in that useless, dispiriting, discouraging fatalism which broke out so horribly in the eighteen-sixties at the word of Darwin, and persuaded people in spite of their own teeth and claws that Man is the will-less slave and victim of his environment?�) This fear has fueled all the arguments against Darwinism since ORIGIN was first published. It is not that the believers think that Darwinism MAY be wrong, but that it MUST be wrong - or all they hold dear will be finally be exposed as having no connection with observable, testable reality.
And hence the believers resistance - their natural resistance - to arguing by evidence, by experiment, and their retreat to analogy and semantics and Jesuitical logic-dances. If their position is tested it not only fails, it evaporates night-mists dissolving at dawn. Irreducible Complexity? Irreducible by who? Every example Dr. Behe oput forth in his original work HAS been reduced since. Test his hypothesis (not THEORY - at least not in the scientific sense) and it falls to pieces (cf, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER). I’m sorry Dr. Behe can’t wrap his mind around the concept of complex biological mechanisms evolving by small increments along multiple paths, but my sympathy is constrained by my understanding of the dishonest way in which he argues his positions in his books and his public utterances. (For a detailed breakdown of Dr. Behe�s work and its flaws in reasoning, gaps in support, misrepresentations if others� work and other failings, go to the talk.origins archive - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html.)
This is what happens every time the Believers bring their dog-and-pony show fully into the light. Brought into an open forum, ID fails to meet any accepted criteria of science. Then, stripped of the �scientific� glad-rags in which is has been clothed, it stands exposed as what iot rwally is - a stalking horse for Creationism. This is why the believers have such a penchant for attacking evolution not with evidence, but with such silly irrelevancies as arguing that scientists have a bad attitude, are arrogant (and, perhaps sometimes vote more often for Democrats?). As if that mattered to the world scientists observe and test.
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.
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:
=======================================
[from: THE WEDGE STRATEGY of The Center for The Renewal of Science and Culture]
THE WEDGE STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.
THE WEDGE STRATEGY
Phase I.
• Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
•
Phase II.
• Publicity & Opinion-making
•
Phase III.
• Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
•
THE WEDGE PROJECTS
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
• Individual Research Fellowship Program
•
• Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
•
• Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
•
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
• Book Publicity
•
• Opinion-Maker Conferences
•
• Apologetics Seminars
•
• Teacher Training Program
•
• Op-ed Fellow
•
• PBS (or other TV) Co-production
•
• Publicity Materials / Publications
•
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
• Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
•
• Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
•
• Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities
•
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See “Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities”).
Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication
Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal
Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.
Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being “merely academic.” Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence’s that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
GOALS
Governing Goals
• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
•
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
•
Five Year Goals
• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
•
• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
•
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
•
Twenty Year Goals
• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
•
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
•
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life. This comment can be found in context here. — Admin
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) …
For the second time, Mr. Hawkins takes care to NOT engage the issues (by reason of incapacity?). Instead he takes refuge in personalities and other obfuscating rhetoric. He may not know science, but he certainly seems well-versed in the discoveries and theories of Karl Rove. Certainly he’s mastered Rove’s First Law of Political Debate -“never argue the issue; always attack the messenger). Hell of a way to participate in a SCIENTIFIC debate, Mr. H.
But, on the unlikely possibility that Mr. Hawkins CAN engage an actual issue if he so chooses - here are a just three simple questions that he COULD try to answer (bets anyone?):
1. What explanation does Mr. Hawkins have regarding ID’s failure to develop testable hypothesis, to experiment, to collect evidence (other than argument), or to meet any basic criteria of legitimate science?
2. Has Mr. Hawkins read THE SELFISH GENE, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, or any of Dawkins’ work (or that of Stephen Jay Gould - or just “reviews” of their work on the Discovery institute site. If so can he comment on them or would he rather talk about Dawkins “running scared”?
3. Can Mr. Hawkins move the argument of “irreducible complexity” past the “can’t figure out how it developed, therefore it MUST be designed”
I could go on - Mr. Hawkins certainly packs an amazing amount of ignorance and misinformation into each his little soundbites - but what would be the point? Like a Junior High lunchroom debater he’ll just sidestep and go nyah nyah made you flinch and avoid addressing the questions raised.
As to the WEDGE DOCUMENT .. it’s there, it’s real and it lays out 5-year and 20-year goals for the ID movement. It also EXPLICITLY states the core commitment of the ID movement to religio-cultural goals in opposition to science. No amount of the Discovery Institute’s apologists dancing around flinging out rationalizing press-releases changes any of that. Check it out, people - you have the links.
Finally - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, is there anyone here on the ID side who can put up a real argument, take a real position, address the issues honestly? You’ve got to have something better than Mr. Hawkins (if not, you are in REAL trouble).
This comment can be found in context here. — Admin
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.
Or, is Mister Parker perhaps proposing the creation of a whole new realm of science based on non-natural phenomena? That may be [possible, as it would be necessary for his arguments to hold water. After all, ID does not meet any of the basic criteria for accepted science (long-standing criteria, not “currently defined”) its partisans are attempting to force a redefinition of those criteria to force ID and other Creationist superstitions into the definition. But if Mr. Parker is proposing a whole new form of non-naturalistic science, engaging non-natural phenomena - what phenomena did he have in mind? What system for evaluating and analyzing them?
ID is at best a political/cultural smokescreen for Christian religion, produced and promulgated by consciously dishonest advocates through consciously dishonest means. It attempts to force a “creation of life” supposition - religion-based - on a science which does not - despite the common misperception - attempt to explain the origins of life itself. The underlying reason for this campaign is the panic the Believers suffer from when their superstition-based explanations of life are challenged by a method - the scientific method, in this case - that engages only the material world and material analyses (and hence material explanation) of that world. Religion and its adherents have been waging this battle since the dawn of the Enlightenment - rarely (if ever) admitting that their real concern is a cultural one that has nothing to do with science (a human endeavor they essentially fear and hate). All of ID - ALL of it - is based on the simple proposition that what we do not know NOW can NEVER be explained and therefore MUST be the product of something supernatural. This is nothing more than taking the balloon of ignorance and blowing it up with God-gas. This is not science. This is voodoo.
The proponents ID - such as those who operate out of the infamous Discovery Institute, have not done one piece of original, fundamental research on their hypotheses (note, I do NOT say “theory”; ID does not by any measure rise to the level of a scientific theory; it is at best a speculative proposition, unenagageable by scientific method). They have conducted no research nor published any results on ID in legitimate peer-reviewed journals of the field (or in any related field). All they have done is argue, propagandize and campaign (as if scientific understanding were best achieved through referendum of the general population) - first about such as-yet undemonstrated aspects of the evolutionary process as they can pick out by gleaning the work of real scientists; second by false argumentation in public forums, relying for effect on popular misconceptions of science and the scientific process (such as the distinction between the meaning of “theory” in common usage and its meaning in the term-of-art “scientific theory”); and finally by maneuvering politically in such places as Dover, PA and Kansas to force ID positions on science curriculums.
ID is a cultural artifact, not a scientific theory - and a dishonest one at that. For a demonstration of that dishonesty, I suggest Mr. Parker (and all other interested parties) read the �Wedge Document� memo in which the Discovery institute laid out its essential strategy and purpose in campaigning for the placement if ID in the education system. They would then do well to read the Dover Case materials and decision. The first for a detailed breakdown of ID�s transmogrification out of the long-discredited �Creation Science� movement, the second for the presiding Judge�s observations regarding the defense�s patent dishonesty in arguing the origins and intent of the curriculum changes proposed in the school district.
Mr. Parker and his fellow Believers may hold whatever opinion they want on the origins of life. But science education in this country should not be made the pawn of their need for comforting superstitions, nor should public education be made their tool to force their �anti-naturalistic philosophy� on young students.
This comment can be found in context here. — Admin
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.
As to his contention that �the scientific hierarchy of today would never be caught dead publishing an opposing viewpoint�, he is simply wrong. The most casual scan through a random selection of scientific journals will show, not only in the articles but in the discussions areas, constant argument over widely-held theories, new theories, new work, new views contending vigorously with each other. Scientific journals are hotbeds of discussions, dissent and disputation. Mr. Hawkins assumption revels an astonishing ignorance of current scientific practice - the ignorance of one who chooses not to examine evidence, in fact. What a coincidence.
His attempts at sarcasm, clumsy as they are (�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!�), nonetheless reveal quite a bit about his essential mind set in this matter. Committed to the �revealed knowledge� and �mysteries� of religion, he can not grasp that other human endeavors do not necessarily follow the hierarchical models of churches and established religions. Hence his insistence on the concept of �scientific hierarchy�. Let us pose him this challenge: sketch out for us, if you will, Mr. Hawkins, the structure of this notorious hierarchy.
Religionists see their sacred structures as threatened by the advancement of our understanding of the world and the mechanisms by which it works - whether that understanding comes from biology, paleontology, physics, anthropology, archeology or behavioral sciences. And since Religionists see all in terms of belief systems contending for supremacy, they can only believe that anything that challenges their systems does so as part of a planned, deliberate attack. Further, constrained as they are in viewing all knowledge as part of belief systems (as opposed to knowledge having any neutral or objective component or value) - they treat any organized systems for developing knowledge as if it too were a religion. Hence the Holy War component of the anti-science movement Mr. Hawkins so nakedly (if not particularly ably) represents. And hence his glee at casting the practitioners of science in the role of priests and hierophants. After which, he casts them as conspirators, committed to the suppression of truth - somewhat on the level, I suppose, of the Trilateral Commission, the Masons and the Rosicrucians so beloved of conspiracy addicts.
Pressed for evidence, Mr. Hawkins offers up nothing irrelevant analogy; pressed for discussion, he offers nothing but distracting invective. In return let me offer him something of substance: for a functional dismissal of that sad, old �argument from design�, let Mr. Hawkins (and any other interested parties who might want something solid on the subject), read THE BLIND WATCHMAKER by Richard Dawkins. There they will not only find the AFD dealt with, but a thorough and energetic discussion of other alternate theories of (and against) evolution theory as held by disputants within the scientific community. If that is not enough to open Mr. Hawkins� eyes to the amount of debate, dissent, discussion and divergence of opinion among the supposed monolithic �scientific hierarchy� he fantasizes, allow me to suggest he read the arguments between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins - and discussions of their contending theories by other scientists. Where to find such discussions and debates? Let Mr. Hawkins try some of the scientific journals he seems to think are little more than religious tracts hewing to the prescribed doctrine of his phantasmagorical �scientific hierarchy�.
For others reading this column who might some well-constructed argument on the issues of evolution (as opposed to Mr. Hawkins� warmed-over debating tricks and second-hand rhetorical flourishes gleaned from the press releases of the Discovery Institute), I suggest a visit to the Royal Institute of Philosophy site (http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/index.php). There you can find a lively debate between Mr, Dawkins and Mary Midgley, the noted moral philosopher. If you need to read argument against Advanced Evolution Theory, you need to read competent argument. Try there. (Go to the ARTICLES link; �Issues in Darwinism� is the first category.)
And in Midgely�s work you will also discover the real well-spring of opposition to AET - the nagging fear that if the general population comes to understand the mechanisms of life and of evolution they will begin to question �divinely ordained� social order, and begin to look to themselves for definitions of the purpose of life. Shaw had the same problem (see his letter to Henry James with its sad lament �In the name of human vitality WHERE is the charm in that useless, dispiriting, discouraging fatalism which broke out so horribly in the eighteen-sixties at the word of Darwin, and persuaded people in spite of their own teeth and claws that Man is the will-less slave and victim of his environment?�) This fear has fueled all the arguments against Darwinism since ORIGIN was first published. It is not that the believers think that Darwinism MAY be wrong, but that it MUST be wrong - or all they hold dear will be finally be exposed as having no connection with observable, testable reality.
And hence the believers resistance - their natural resistance - to arguing by evidence, by experiment, and their retreat to analogy and semantics and Jesuitical logic-dances. If their position is tested it not only fails, it evaporates night-mists dissolving at dawn. Irreducible Complexity? Irreducible by who? Every example Dr. Behe oput forth in his original work HAS been reduced since. Test his hypothesis (not THEORY - at least not in the scientific sense) and it falls to pieces (cf, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER). I’m sorry Dr. Behe can’t wrap his mind around the concept of complex biological mechanisms evolving by small increments along multiple paths, but my sympathy is constrained by my understanding of the dishonest way in which he argues his positions in his books and his public utterances. (For a detailed breakdown of Dr. Behe�s work and its flaws in reasoning, gaps in support, misrepresentations if others� work and other failings, go to the talk.origins archive - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html.)
This is what happens every time the Believers bring their dog-and-pony show fully into the light. Brought into an open forum, ID fails to meet any accepted criteria of science. Then, stripped of the �scientific� glad-rags in which is has been clothed, it stands exposed as what iot rwally is - a stalking horse for Creationism. This is why the believers have such a penchant for attacking evolution not with evidence, but with such silly irrelevancies as arguing that scientists have a bad attitude, are arrogant (and, perhaps sometimes vote more often for Democrats?). As if that mattered to the world scientists observe and test.
This comment can be found in context here.
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:
=======================================
[from: THE WEDGE STRATEGY of The Center for The Renewal of Science and Culture]
THE WEDGE STRATEGY
INTRODUCTION
The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.
Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art
The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.
Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.
Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.
THE WEDGE STRATEGY
Phase I.
• Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity
•
Phase II.
• Publicity & Opinion-making
•
Phase III.
• Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
•
THE WEDGE PROJECTS
Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication
• Individual Research Fellowship Program
•
• Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)
•
• Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)
•
Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making
• Book Publicity
•
• Opinion-Maker Conferences
•
• Apologetics Seminars
•
• Teacher Training Program
•
• Op-ed Fellow
•
• PBS (or other TV) Co-production
•
• Publicity Materials / Publications
•
Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal
• Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences
•
• Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training
•
• Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities
•
FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY
The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a “wedge” that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the “thin edge of the wedge,” was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See “Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities”).
Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication
Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making
Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal
Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.
Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being “merely academic.” Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence’s that support the faith, as well as to “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.
Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.
GOALS
Governing Goals
• To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
•
• To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
•
Five Year Goals
• To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
•
• To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
•
• To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.
•
Twenty Year Goals
• To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
•
• To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
•
• To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
This comment can be found in context here. — Admin
April 13th, 2006 at 1:51 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) …
For the second time, Mr. Hawkins takes care to NOT engage the issues (by reason of incapacity?). Instead he takes refuge in personalities and other obfuscating rhetoric. He may not know science, but he certainly seems well-versed in the discoveries and theories of Karl Rove. Certainly he’s mastered Rove’s First Law of Political Debate -“never argue the issue; always attack the messenger). Hell of a way to participate in a SCIENTIFIC debate, Mr. H.
But, on the unlikely possibility that Mr. Hawkins CAN engage an actual issue if he so chooses - here are a just three simple questions that he COULD try to answer (bets anyone?):
1. What explanation does Mr. Hawkins have regarding ID’s failure to develop testable hypothesis, to experiment, to collect evidence (other than argument), or to meet any basic criteria of legitimate science?
2. Has Mr. Hawkins read THE SELFISH GENE, THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, or any of Dawkins’ work (or that of Stephen Jay Gould - or just “reviews” of their work on the Discovery institute site. If so can he comment on them or would he rather talk about Dawkins “running scared”?
3. Can Mr. Hawkins move the argument of “irreducible complexity” past the “can’t figure out how it developed, therefore it MUST be designed”
I could go on - Mr. Hawkins certainly packs an amazing amount of ignorance and misinformation into each his little soundbites - but what would be the point? Like a Junior High lunchroom debater he’ll just sidestep and go nyah nyah made you flinch and avoid addressing the questions raised.
As to the WEDGE DOCUMENT .. it’s there, it’s real and it lays out 5-year and 20-year goals for the ID movement. It also EXPLICITLY states the core commitment of the ID movement to religio-cultural goals in opposition to science. No amount of the Discovery Institute’s apologists dancing around flinging out rationalizing press-releases changes any of that. Check it out, people - you have the links.
Finally - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, is there anyone here on the ID side who can put up a real argument, take a real position, address the issues honestly? You’ve got to have something better than Mr. Hawkins (if not, you are in REAL trouble).
This comment can be found in context here. — Admin