Richard Wein wrote:[8/15/00]
> From: Susan Brassfield <susanb@telepath.com>[8/14/00]
>
> >Below is an article that I found on another list by a biologist at Baylor
> >University. For Bertvan's edification, the author not only defines the word
> >"propaganda" but also "theory." Stephen should note that the author is a
> >Christian.
> >
> >-----------------------
> >Cliff Hamrick <cliff_hamrick@BAYLOR.EDU> April 11, 2000
> >10:52:49 AM EDT
> >reiterations@META-LIST.ORG
> >
> >Dr. Dembski's last submission to Metaviews has sparked in me the need to
> >respond to all the Creationist propaganda that I have been reading. First,
> >let me say that I do not use the words 'Creationist propaganda' lightly.
>
> Since I have myself referred to ID material as propaganda, I'd like to
> comment on Cliff Hamrick's article. I disagree with him on some minor
> points, but I'd also like to reinforce his argument on other points.
Here I commend Wein for reading the definition of "propaganda" provided
carefully enough to detect its inappropriate application in this discourse ...
others (Hamrick, Brassfield) appear to simply assume the criteria stated are
somehow 'bad' (propaganda) when linked with non-evolutionary positions ... but
'good' (perfectly valid) when used in support of the concept. (Another example
of how careless semantics makes understanding, and potentially resolving
particular points, unnecessarily difficult.)
> >According to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, the definition
> >of propaganda is 'doctrines, ideas, arguments, facts, or allegations spread
> >by deliberate effort through any medium of communication in order to
> >further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause'.
>
> Unfortunately, this definition is of little help, since it could apply to
> almost any argument. Valid scientific arguments could be described as
> propaganda, if one's cause is the advancement of science.
>
> I think that when we use the word "propaganda", we generally mean it in a
> more pejorative sense, implying that the material so described is in some
> way misleading, even deceptive. Well, that's what I mean anyway. I think
> that the material produced by the ID movement achieves its goals to a large
> degree through deception. I make no comment, however, as to the extent to
> which this deception is practised consciously by ID proponents. I suspect
> they are often unaware of how deceptive they are being. My own experience
> suggests that ID proponents, like others who espouse crank theories, are
> blinded to facts and logic by the strength of their beliefs. Nevertheless,
> sometimes the deception is so blatant that this charitable interpretation is
> difficult to maintain.
To which I add that the very same concerns (misleading, deceptive presentations;
evolutionary proponents seemingly "blinded to facts and logic by the strength of
their beliefs", etc.) are also equally troublesome to non-evolutionists. Such
problems are invariably compounded by fuzzy or ambiguous definitions for terms
used by both sides. Indeed, I again repeat that the great majority of ALL
disagreement encountered within this newsgroup is reflective of, or at least
significantly exacerbated by carelessly (possibly selective) imprecise
semantics.
> >In Dr. Dembski's
> >article, 'Disbelieving Darwin and Feeling No Shame', he quoted Michael Ruse
> >out of context to bolster the opinion of the dogmatism of Darwinists,
> >misrepresented the ideas of Mickey Rowe (later writing a half apology) to
> >paint the picture of Darwinists as monsters, and only wrote half the truth
> >about Darwin's presentation of his Theory of Natural Selection (the truth
> >is that during Darwin's time there were few if any specialized scientific
> >journals, that Newton, Kepler, and Galileo also published books for the
> >public, and that Darwin and Wallace copresented the Theory of Natural
> >Selection to a group of fellow scientists). Given these facts, the lack of
> >any scientific data, philosophical or theological arguments, and his close
> >association with the Discovery Center, a think tank with a definite
> >socio-political agenda, I can only determine it's purpose to be to further
> >Dr. Dembski's cause and to damage an opposing cause, mainly Darwinism.
>
> I think this supports my point above. The objection to these assertions by
> Dembski is not that their purpose is to advance his cause (there's nothing
> wrong with that); it's that they do so by deceiving the reader.
>
> By the way, I myself pointed out in this forum another case of
> out-of-context quoting by Dembski, in which he misrepresented the views of
> Daniel Dennett. ID supporters in this forum would not accept that this was a
> misrepresentation, but Dembski subsequently issued an equivocal retraction.
>
> [...]
> >Science is based on the principle of testable, falsifiable hypotheses. I
> >will give the proponents of intelligent design credit for having a
> >well-thought out, perfectly logical hypothesis that the universe and the
> >living things in it are too specifically complex to have arisen by random
> >chance alone. I agree with the premise of this hypothesis and that has
> >bolstered my faith in a divine power. However, it is not scientific until
> >some means of testing that hypothesis can be shown. I have never seen,
> >though Dembski and cohorts profess to possess, any viable means of testing
> >this hypothesis. Dembski makes claims of a mathematical model based on
> >probability statistics that can sort out designed objects from undesigned
> >ones. However, I have never seen any articles that enumerate and explain
> >this model so that scientists can review it for it's scientific merit.
>
> Dembski has published a monograph, "The Design Inference", in which he lays
> out a purported method for identifying designed objects. I've already
> critiqued the book in this forum. It is vague, equivocal, misguided and
> buries a very simple idea beneath layers of unnecessary obfuscation.
>
> However, the most damning criticism of Dembski's work is that he claims to
> have detected design in nature despite the fact that he has never (to my
> knowledge) applied the method described in his book to any natural
> phenomenon. I have asked many ID supporters to cite an example in which he
> has applied his method, or approved the application of his method by anyone
> else, but no example has been forthcoming. It seems he is able to get away
> with this amazing omission thanks to the equivocation, obfuscation and
> innuendo which seem to be the hallmarks of ID arguments.
Without condemning Richard's use of emotion-laden terms as "vague, equivocal,
misguided" and obfuscation" to describe Dembski's initial efforts to describe ID
(Intelligent Design) ... let me point out these are the very same terms we're
often tempted to apply to each other's uncompelling definition for much older,
and more basic terms as "science", "evolution", etc.
Evolutionists and non-evolutionists appear to have widely (and significantly)
different meanings for any number of key terms. In many instances these are
selective definitions adopted because they fit one's philosophical goals, rather
than to provide clearcut, unambiguous meaning to key terms.
More dogmatic (or trustingly misguided) evolutionists define "evolution", for
instance, as simply being change in gene frequencies over time. But there are
many different ways in which gene frequencies can change. Some are
scientifically demonstrable ... as those leading to extinction, or those induced
by artificial selection (breeding experiments) or even the everyday mixing and
shuffling of genetic code pre-existing in a gene pool (more precisely termed
"variation"). But the particular changes in gene frequencies necessary in
biological macroevolution are not similarly verifiable... a fact invariably
overlooked (deceptively ignored?) when evolutionists piggy-back on the above and
make the grand statement that evolution is "scientific".
Much the same problem exists in defining "science". Here however, as
participants regularly cite the criteria of empirical "science" when describing
what they accept by the term ... and specifically require non-evolutionary
interpretations of the evidence to meet these standards if they seek to be
considered "science" ... the evolutionists seldom, if ever, apply these criteria
to their own favored evolutionary explanations.
Richard, just as you mention above your inability to get a specific example from
IDers demonstrating successful fulfillment of their proposed confirmatory
(scientific) method, I have had the identical experience with evolutionists.
The need for such fulfillment of method is here well stated in a widely used
biology text.
"A good hypothesis must undergo testing. Only if there is a test can the
scientist be certain his hypothesis is correct. Experimentation is a singular
aspect of science. Make certain that students understand the need for and
importance of this crucial part of the scientist's work."
"To be of value or promise, a hypothesis must be subject to experimentation. A
hypothesis which cannot be tested is of no significance." BIOLOGY: LIVING
SYSTEMS, by Omar, Hummer & Smoot, Teachers Edition, Pg. 26, 1926
And here I request of you, will you (can you) provide me with even a single
example of evidence establishing biological macroevolution (hypothesis or
theory) that has met this widely publicized and accepted standard? Lacking such
example, by what other (non-experimental) criteria do evolutionists qualify
macroevolution as "science"?
[skip to end]
> Richard Wein (Tich)
David Bradbury
dabradbury@mediaone.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 16 2000 - 15:38:52 EDT