>>RW>I have no objection to informing children that a tiny minority of
>>>scientists hold dissenting views. If that was all the anti-evolutionists
wanted,
>>>there would probably be no problem. But you're wrong. They're
demanding much
>>>more than that. Indeed, the Kansas school board removed references to
evolution
>>>and the age of the Earth from the state education standards. And IDers
are
>>>trying to have ID taught in public schools.
SJ
> There is AFAIK no plans by IDErs to have ID taught in public schools.
> ID's main objective is to have the philosophical assumptions of
evolution and
> its problems taught in public schools.
>
> Having said that, there is no reason why ID should not be taught in public
> schools. ID is a scientific position not a religion. It has as much
right to be
> taught in public schools as materialistic-naturalism which is now taught in
> public schools.
Chris
If it's a *scientific* theory, then there must be testable empirical
implications.
Name *ONE.*
Further, if it's a scientific theory that's supposed to be superior to NET
(Naturalistic Evolutionary Theory), then there must be at least one empirical
implication that can be tested and that is not implied by NET.
For example, if it's a *scientific* theory, it might predict that there
would be
long-term and continuous reappearances of fish living (and rapidly dying, of
course) in the middle of deserts without any visible normal means of getting
there (since the alleged intelligent designer could simply keep creating
fish as
fast as they died). But, this is something that would *not* be predicted on
the basis of NET (in fact, NET would predict that fish would not continue to
live and reproduce while flopping around in the hot, dry sand).
Thus, if ID theory *could* logically predict such a fact, and *if* it were
found to be the case, then it would be a strong point in favor of *some* kind
of minimalist ID theory (i.e., aliens producing fish and depositing them in the
desert, perhaps). Of course, this would not be non-naturalist design of the
type that you want so desperately and pathetically to be true, but at least it
would be design of sorts.
Until some such testable logical implication of ID theory is found, all of your
claims about ID being a *scientific* theory are just the usual mindless
creationist blather, with no more excuse or justification than the Bible's
"theory" of creation.
>>RW>It seems to me you're seriously understating the aims of IDers. I find
it
>>>hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s] teaching children orthodox
>>>Darwinism"!
SJ
> That Richard finds it "hard to believe that Phillip Johnson "favor[s]
teaching
> children orthodox Darwinism" only shows that Richard knows very little
> about Johnson. Johnson has consistently said over the years that he does not
> favor banning evolution. What he favors is teaching *more* about evolution,
> not less. Here is an example on the NCSE site which dates back to *1993*.
> And I have several more like that :
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://natcenscied.org/johnson.htm
NCSE SPECIAL:
Interview with Phillip E. Johnson
California Committees of Correspondence Newsletter, Third Quarter, 1993
[...]
PJ: There's been a lot of bad teaching for a lot of reasons and I'm in favor
good teaching, if we want to teach these kids more about evolution I'm in
favor of that, but what I think is really going on is
indoctrination...indoctrination in a naturalistic, philosophical outlook.
Chris
Since Johnson himself has consistently either refused to learn about evolution
or is simply outright *lying* about it, it's hard to believe that he would want
school children do learn about it. If he *did* want school children to learn
about it, wouldn't he be willing either to learn about it himself or at
least not
lie about what evolutionary theory *is* and implies and is based on?
[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>BV>Hi Richard. Labeling ID a religious view seems like an attempt to
prevent
>>>it being mentioned in schools. ID is the belief that the diversity of life
and
>>the universe is too complex to have occurred by chance. That is
compatible
>>with most religious views, but ID itself makes no religious statement,
>>except to claim the complexity of life is the result of intelligence. If
enough
>>people hold this view, I see no harm in school children being aware of it.
RW>Again, you're understating the aims of IDers. They don't just want
children
>to be "aware" of ID. They want to *teach* ID in schools.
SJ
> See above. Since ID is a *scientific* theory, there would be nothing wrong
> with it being taught in schools. But I am not aware of anyone in the ID
> movement who is pushing for ID to be taught in schools.
Chris
I have some doubt that your ignorance of any such activity is good evidence
against it. Also, since creationism is a form of intelligent design theory
(even
stupider than your own), and since even you must know that there *are*
efforts to get creationism taught in the public schools, your claim of
ignorance in this regard seems just a tad disingenuous.
SJ
> But anti-ID is taught as science in public schools. A particularly clear
> example of this is my university Biology textbook which has an interview
> with Dawkins in which he argues against ID and for Darwinism's "apparent
> design":
>
> "One of your books, The Blind Watchmaker, argues the case for the
> cumulative power of natural selection in the adaptation of organisms.
Tell us
> about the metaphorical title of that book.
>
> The "watchmaker" comes from William Paley, the eighteenth-and early
> nineteenth-century theologian who was one of the most famous exponents of
> the argument of design. Paley the eighteenth- and early nineteenth- century
> theologian who was one of the most famous exponents of the argument of
> design. Paley famously said that if you are wandering along and stumble
> upon a watch and you pick it up and open it, you realize that the internal
> mechanism-the way in which it's all meshed together-is detailed perfection.
> Add this to the fact that the watch mechanism has a purpose- namely, telling
> the time-then this compels you to conclude that the watch had to have a
> designer. Paley then went on throughout his book giving example after
> example of detailed structure of living organisms-eyes, heart, bowels,
joints,
> and everything about animals-showing how beautifully designed they
> apparently are, how well they work, how intricately the parts mesh together,
> just like the cog wheels of a watch. And if the watch had to have a
> watchmaker, then of course these biological structures also had to have a
> designer. My reason for beginning The Blind Watchmaker was Paley. He
> really saw the magnitude of the problem of adaptation when most people just
> didn't see how elegant, how beautiful, apparent design in life is. Paley saw
> that, and Darwin saw that. And Darwin was introduced to it at least partly
> by Paley. All undergraduates at Cambridge had to read William Paley. He at
> least put the question right. So the only thing Paley got wrong, which
is quite
> a big thing, was the answer to the question. And nobody got the right answer
> until Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century."
>
> (Dawkins R., "Interview," in Campbell N.A., Reece J.B. & Mitchell L.G.,
> "Biology," 1999, p.412).
>
> If Darwinism is allowed to be taught in schools and universities as a theory
> which explains design (as apparent), then ID should also be taught in
schools
> as an alternative theory which also explains design (as real).
Chris
Not in *science* classes, because the entire *type* of "explanation" offered
by such a theory is a purely *NON-scientific* explanation (all it does is
*account* for empirical facts; it fails to *imply* empirical facts). It is
a "Just
So" type of explanation, without testable empirical implications, except for
the fact that virtually *every* organism, when studied closely, loses its
appearance of intelligent design, which should not be the case if Paley's
kind of intelligent design were true (though, obviously, ID theory can
*account* for any even remotely imaginable empirical facts, whether they are
the result of intelligent design or not -- and this is one of it's major
weaknesses). Further, if the instances of apparent design failure are explained
away, then so also is the appearance of design itself, on similar grounds.
That is, for example, if the grotesque kludge of the human wrist is explained
as merely an instance of an *apparent* design flaw (which, if we but could read
the mind of God, would make perfect design sense), then all instances of
*apparent* design *also* can be explained away on the same kind of
reasoning (i.e., ignorance of the blind workings of a Godless Nature).
When Johnson can come up with a *testable* empirical intelligent design
theory that predicts that fish will not be found to be living in deserts
(without
special support provided by humans, etc.), or some such prediction, then he'll
have at least a *start* on a truly explanatory theory (of course, he also
has to
make his theory consistent with literally millions of other scientific
facts, and he
must also make his theory more parsimonious than alternative theories at hand,
etc.). Until then, *his* claims, like yours, are just so much intellectually
dishonest blather (dishonest, because you continue to make these claims even
when you have not provided any rational basis for them and in spite of the fact
that the abject and essentially *total* failure of ID theory to provide a
*scientific* (rather than *merely* a "Just So" type of explanation)
>BV>The Scopes trial was a fight to allow evolution to be discussed in
school.
>>Today the fights are to prevent any criticism of "random mutation and
>>natural selection" from being discussed in school. As for Johnson, I give
>>you his own words ...
>>Here is what I wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education: "Evolution is
an
>>important topic, and students certainly should learn the theory and the
>>reasons why so many scientists think it is true. It is also a controversial
>>topic, and students should learn why."
RW>I know Johnson says that. But do you really think he would have the
theory
>of evolution taught in schools if he had the choice?
SJ
> This is a fallacious argument. How would Johnson *ever* have the choice
> over whether or not evolution is taught in schools?
Chris
Since Johnson either doesn't know what evolutionary theory *is* (except in
the most incredibly shallow school-child sense) or is lying about what it
is, it
doesn't really matter what he says, does it? Whether he is merely dedicatedly,
devotedly *ignorant* or deliberately misrepresenting evolutionary theory (and
naturalism as well), he obviously cannot be trusted when he makes such
claims. Further, since it's *Johnson* making the claims, he effectively grants
that it is a legitimate topic of speculation and supposition -- and suspicion
that he doesn't really mean it but is merely pretending to be unbiased.
I say "pretending to be unbiased" because he never seems to acknowledge
that non-naturalism (which he equates with theism) has a *special* burden
of proof that naturalism does not have. He consistently treats naturalism
and non-naturalism as if they were on the same metaphysical and
epistemological level, with the same *kinds* of evidence and argument
available to both. But, the very nature of theism is that it claims the
existence of a *non-natural* God, and a concomitant non-naturalistic level
of reality. We *live* in the "natural" world (whether it's truly natural or
not), so no special proof of its existence is necessary or even logically
possible (since a proof would have to rest on the acceptance of the
"natural" existence of the person claiming to have a proof). The existence
of the natural world (in a broad sense of "natural world") is thus
*logically* axiomatic (a "proof" of it would have to be circular or
*assume* something outside of it, and any denial of it is contradicted in
the very act of stating it).
But a *non-natural* world or being requires a *radical* kind of proof,
because it is not self-evident in *any* rational sense and because such a
world is not contained *in* the natural world. Johnson has, in effect, made
his *career* in anti-naturalism on the basis of refusing to accept or
honestly acknowledge this absolutely basic distinction between the
fundamental *types* of facts claimed in naturalism and non-naturalism. His
knowledge of law makes this monstrous lapse utterly inexcusable and an
almost sure sign (if not absolutely final logical *proof*) of his
dishonesty (as if any such additional proof were needed beyond his
decade-long (at least) attempt to defeat "Darwinism" by misrepresentation).
Again, this means that he *cannot* be trusted to mean *anything* that he
says that sounds even remotely open minded and rational.
RW>Remember his strategy
>is called the "Wedge Strategy"--start off with relatively modest demands,
>and work up to your real goals.
SJ
> Again, so what? That is the *proper* way to go about promoting one's
> viewpoint in a democratic society. How far ID's "Wedge Strategy" will get
> will depend how sound its arguments are. In the end it is up to the general
> public to have the information presented it can make an informed choice
> between apparent design (Darwinism) and real design (ID). The Darwinists
> want the public to believe in apparent design without being able to hear the
> evidence for real design.
Chris
Oh no, they don't. We're just waiting for some real evidence of real design
to be found.
Further, at least some of us believe that "Intelligent Design" theory
*should* be taught, in depth, detail, and at length, and even in *science*
classes, as a real-world major example of what science and scientific
reasoning are *not*, as a major example of *anti-*science, as an example of
a major attempt at substituting blind faith for reason, and incredible
shallow pseudo-reason (of the type you use extensively in your posts) for
actual logic and cognitivity.
The massive epistemological errors, the presumptiveness, the non-predictive
nature of "real" design theory should be spelled out and proved by example
after example from "intelligent design" literature. Virtually no one could
go through a truly *scientific* look at "design theory" and still find it
plausible, except for those who are so devoted to such an approach for
*psychological* reasons (such as Johnson, etc.) that the facts that
invalidate it are simply irrelevant or are consistently distorted or
explained away.
RW>The Wedge Strategy's goal is: "To replace
>materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and
>hurnan beings are created by God". Note: "replace" not "supplement".
SJ
> Again, so what? If ID thinks that its view is true and that its opposite
> materialism-naturalism is false, it will of course have a *long-term*
goal to
> replace materialism, just like materialism has the same goal to replace
> theism.
>
> The difference is that the methods ID wants to do it by are reasoned
> arguments and an *open* discussion of real vs apparent design, not by the
> use of power and the marginalisation of rivals that Darwinism uses.
Chris
This is an example of Johnsonian disingenuousness in the extreme (Steve,
you have learned well at the feet of your master). As long as Johnson and
the rest deny the special burden of proof for non-naturalism, as long as
they pretend that "Just So" explanation is relevantly and importantly the
same as *scientific* explanation, as long as they equate non-predictive
theory with empirically testable theory, *open* discussion of the two
approaches is the *last* thing ID theorists can possibly want. Open (and
*honest*!) discussion is almost completely and absolutely incompatible with
such an epistemological basis. The whole idea of such claims is to *thwart*
open discussion. Anyone who does not believe this is urged to read some of
Johnson's books, to observe how he: a) Misstates facts and theories with
almost wild abandon (for an especially laughable example, see Johnson's
remarks on information and information theory in "Defeating Darwinism by
Opening Minds").
Steve's argument here could equally well be applied to numerology,
astrology, or any other crazy theory without a shred of supporting evidence
or testable implications. Should we teach the theory that the Earth rests
on the back of a giant tortoise as well as the theory that it simply exists
on its own, not actually resting on anything? Should we teach children that
the Earth is flat, as well as the theory that it's essentially round?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 00:24:51 EDT