« Killing with Relevance | Main | Pick Up and Read! »
November 13, 2007
Nova Tonight, Johnson's Interview
PBS's Nova, a program I have often enjoyed, is covering the intelligent design controversy apparently by focusing on the recent Dover court trial: "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial." Phillip E. Johnson was interviewed for the program. He is not sure how much of the interview will be used, or which portions, but in case you are interested to know what was left out, PBS has provided a full transcript of the Johnson interview for NOVA here.
In the words of PBS:
In this interview, hear why [Johnson] feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen.
I would replace the first two "feels" with "thinks," for Johnson's thought is what I've always encountered in his writings and in personal conversation, not his feelings.
Now "thought" in the last sentence perhaps could also be replaced--with "feared."
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 10:34 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54f956efd8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Nova Tonight, Johnson's Interview:
Comments
Bad link...
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Nov 13, 2007 10:56:50 AM
Link here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/defense-id.html
Posted by: JRM | Nov 13, 2007 11:09:31 AM
I fixed that link. Thanks.
Posted by: Jerry | Nov 13, 2007 1:16:49 PM
The Dover case was a big mistake by ID proponents. The effort to teach ID in high school was premature and an overreach. Patience is the key for ID proponents. As I have said before, if there is something to their theory, they will, with time, develop the scientific evidence to support it; if not, the theory will die. If the former turns out to be the case, when such evidence is developed, that will be the time to begin the effort to teach ID to high schoolers. Until then, they should concentrate their efforts on developing the evidence.
Posted by: GL | Nov 13, 2007 2:04:49 PM
GL,
They have.
Posted by: labrialumn | Nov 13, 2007 2:37:48 PM
As a sympathetic biological scientist that pays attention to such things, it's my opinion that they have not.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 13, 2007 2:44:10 PM
It would seem to me, as I have asserted over and over again, that the dogmatic Darwinists and ID proponents are both engaged in an effort to prove the unprovable.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 13, 2007 2:47:08 PM
OK, many of you have written some Very Good responses in past comments on ID etc. It will take me some time to digest all of them. In the meantime, rather than start to go over the pros and cons again, I would be interested in comments about the NOVA program after it airs and its presentation of the case at Dover. My impression is that these scientific, metaphysical, and philosophical issues were brought into the political realm where anything can happen, including train wrecks. It's more of a sociological angle I'm looking at. But I have to watch the program tonight, though, truth be told, I am not eager to do so. One can only take so much information in highly charged situations, and fishing from a small boat on a quiet lake might be more productive, even without a catch.
Posted by: Jim Kushiner | Nov 13, 2007 4:12:43 PM
Well, Phillip Johnson should have seen the train wreck coming, he was driving the train. ID wintesses were almost unimaginably bad at trial. The plaintiffs were able to establish their case from the ID winesses own testimony.
ID had to establish two simple things:
1. It was not creationism in disguise.
2. It was real science.
Here the testimony extract from Jon Buell, of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. FTE published Of Pandas and People, the ID textbook. Note how he pretty much conclusively established that ID is disguised creationism:
[Direct examination]
THE WITNESS: My name is Jon Buell, Jon A. Buell, J-O-N, B-U-E-L-L.
Q And by whom are you currently employed?
A I am employed by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics.
Q And what is your position there?
A My position is as president.
Q And prior to working there where did you work?
A I worked at Probe Ministries prior to the Foundation.
................
Q Okay. What is the Foundation for Thought and Ethics?
A The Foundation for Thought and Ethics is organized to promote freedom of choice for young people in the classroom, especially as it pertains to matters of world view and philosophy and character and the like.
........
Q And where does the Foundation for Thought receive its support from?
A Well, we sell our books, market our books to the schools.
................
Q Okay. Is the Foundation for Thought and Ethics a religious organization?
A No, it's not.
Q What kind of organization is it?
A Well, it's an educational organization.
Q And does it seek to provide any -- promote any Christian message in that education?
A No, it does not.
Q Any religious message at all?
A No, none at all. [DENIED THREE TIMES]
[end direct examination]
........................
[cross-examination]
Q Now, you testified today that the Foundation does not have a religious agenda or motive, correct?
A That's right.
.......
Q Mr. Buell, do you recognize the document I've given you, which is the second exhibit today, a Form 990, Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax for 2003 to be a document filed by the Foundation?
A Yes, I do.
............
Q And the explanation that the Foundation provides to the IRS is that its primary exempt purpose is promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective, isn't that right?
A That's what it says.
Q Okay. And Pandas is one of those publications, isn't it?
A No, Pandas doesn't fit this because this is not an accurate statement.
Q Okay. This --
A This statement was -- we had a new CP A do our 990 and audit we had never used before. He wasn't even from the state of Texas. He was not familiar with us. You know, I neither saw that statement, nobody gave him that information, and I didn't -- I certainly didn't approve it.
Q Okay. So -- and so this statement that's filed with the IRS so that the Foundation can be exempt from paying income tax is false; is that what you're saying?
A Well, I'm saying that I didn't see that statement.
Q And just if you could turn to the preceding page of the document, those are your initials on the page, aren't they, towards the bottom of the page?
A Yes.
Q Now, your counsel brought up your articles of incorporation and I'd like to show those to you as well.
These are the articles of incorporation that the Foundation filed with the state of Texas.
......................
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And on the second page of the document there's a signature space with your signature on it?
A On the second page of the document? Yes, uh-huh, I see it.
Q If you go to the third page of the document, it identifies the purposes for the -- for which the corporation was formed?
A Right.
Q And what it states is that the primary purpose is both religious and educational, and then it talks about making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible?
A Yes.
Q Is it your testimony that that's also an inaccurate submission?
A It was boilerplate that the attorney that was helping us become established used. I felt that it was inappropriate. He said we need to be clear in identifying yourself as having a genuine nonprofit purpose, and so the language that originated with me is the phrase, "but is not limited to."
Q And everything else was the attorney's?
A Yes, most of it, I think nearly all of it, possibly all of it.
Q So the accountant got it wrong and the attorney got it wrong?
A It's true.
.....................................
Q Mr. Buell, this document is something that was pulled off the Internet, but you recognize it as a purpose statement for the Foundation that used to be distributed?
A Yes. I don't actually -- I don't actually remember this statement, but it's obviously an FTE statement.
Q And in this statement it says, "The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has been established to introduce Biblical perspective into the mainstream of America's humanistic society, confronting the secular thought of modern man with the truth of God's word."
A Yes, that's right.
Q And then it talks about how there would be a public -- a textbook published which will present the scientific evidence for creation side by side with evolution.
.....................................................
[cross examination on creationist language in early editions of Pandas]
Q If you look in the second paragraph, about half way down it says, "Evolution is the theory that natural causes are adequate to account for everything in the natural world, including life itself. Creation is the theory that certain phenomena must be explained by intelligent causes. In this book we counterpose these two theories about life's origin."
A Yes.
....................
Q And then if you could turn back to page 22, you explain that "Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands."
That's how you defined creation, correct?
A Yes.
Q All right. And I would like to take -- you to take a look at an excerpt from Pandas and People. Turn to page 99 in the excerpt I gave you.
A All right.
Q Says, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera."
Do you see that?
A I see it.
Q So that's pretty much the exact same sentence substituting creation for intelligent design, isn't that right?
A The reason that you find the similarity in the two passages is because this obviously was at a time when we were developing the manuscript. We had not chosen the term "intelligent design" at that point. We were trying to -- this was just a place holder term until we came to grips with which of the plausible two or three terms that are in scientific literature we would settle on. And that was the last thing we did before the book was revise -- I mean was sent to the publisher.
Q It was creation, creation, creation until the end and then it was intelligent design.
[Attorney vainly attempts to halt the slaughter.]
MR. BOYLE: Your Honor, I'm going to object to this line of questioning based upon relevance.
No othe pro-ID witness was any better.
Other testimony demonstrated that "Intelligent Design was "word search and replaced" for Creationism and its cognates in the Pandas book with no other substantive revisions. There was even an embarrassing "transitional intermediate fossil" in the Panda's language as it evolved from "creationism" to "intelligent design."
Here's the text from the two drafts of Pandas:
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view. (Pandas 1987 creationist version)
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign propoentsists accept the latter view. (Pandas 1987 "Intelligent design version")
Based on the patently non-credible testimony presented in favor of ID, the Judge's ruling was perhaps a foregone conclusion
Posted by: JRM | Nov 13, 2007 6:24:56 PM
It seems to me that the people most associated with promoting ID in an intelligent fashion (those at the Discovery Institute) got a hard rap in the fallout from this case before the former liquor-board judge. They did not want ID to be aggressively promoted in schools; their position is that that is the sin of neo-Darwinists. Of course, you have to accept the premise that there isn't sufficient evidence to justify the place occupied by ND in school curricula. I do, for one.
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 13, 2007 6:26:14 PM
"Based on the patently non-credible testimony presented in favor of ID, the Judge's ruling was perhaps a foregone conclusion."
Absolutely right. Leaving aside the merits of the case for the moment, this testimony shows unbelievably bad trial preparation by the ID side.
Posted by: Bill R | Nov 13, 2007 6:51:04 PM
What is a science? What is scientific? What is unscientific? How exactly is Darwinism deemed to be "scientific"? What objective criteria does it meet? I stopped believing in it when I started seeing real holes in this area.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Nov 13, 2007 7:43:22 PM
How exactly is Darwinism deemed to be "scientific"?
Because it suited scientists' prior naturalist philosophical convictions, how else?
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 13, 2007 8:12:01 PM
Speaking of your media watching habits, Mr. Kushiner, I wonder if you ever did have a chance to see Into Great Silence? The DVD just came out. My wife and I saw it last week and I reflected on that and silence in general here.
Posted by: Wonders for Oyarsa | Nov 13, 2007 9:51:35 PM
Leaving aside the merits of the case for the moment, this testimony shows unbelievably bad trial preparation by the ID side.
That is being generous. I would call it malpractice. When you are a trial lawyer, you had better know what questions opposing counsel will ask and be prepared to effectively address them. If you can't do that, then don't call the witness. And if Mr. Buell was a client of the attorney who put him on the stand, then that attorney just exposed his client to an IRS audit.
Posted by: GL | Nov 13, 2007 10:13:50 PM
I watched the program and came away with this:
1) The whole tone and tact of the presentation was the classical "rational science" vs. "irrational faith". Everything from the recreation of the trial, the noble fight of the various teachers and scientists, to the presentation of ND itself, was very heavily skewed towards this paradigm.
2) Johnson got through only to those who understand the underlying philosophical premises of the whole ND argument. While he came across well, with the rest of the presentation so heavily stacked against him his message had no way of being heard sympathetically.
3) If you want to watch it for the education of how the modern mind can not really critique it's faith in philosophical naturalism (in the show for example they say that they "believe" in ND with not apparent irony) then watch the show, otherwise don't bother - it's the usual story...
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 14, 2007 3:13:03 AM
A couple of questions.
What is the proven, historical pattern for believers persuading nonbelievers of their need for a crucified God?
Does this project look like a series of metaphysical debates, or does it look the the proclamation of the shed blood of God almighty for the world?
Why?
What is particularly "conservative" about this issue? What is even "Touchstonian" about it?
If this is "pre-evangelism", what use does it serve if a crucified God is not offered at the end of the presentation? If he is not offered, is there a good chance that this project is actually vainglorious and damaging?
I wonder sometimes.
Posted by: Mairnéalach | Nov 14, 2007 10:56:25 AM
WEDG, so you have evaluated all of Dembski's arguments about information and language, and all of Behe's arguments about irreducible complexity and have concluded that all of those are wrong, and that mere random chance plus matter plus nothing is sufficient and can explain everything (and that mere random chance plus matter can even deal with the concept of explanation?)
Jim, I believe we need to get national and State politics out of the schools by eliminating the departments of education and devolving things back to the local school boards, and eliminating credentialism. FWIW.
JRM, there are other analyses of the Dover decision, including pointing out that the judge's decision was a copy of the claim by the atheists. Nor were the atheists required to defend that their view was somehow not religion.
Now, to you, sir. If the universe came about by random chance plus matter plus nothing, why are you a Christian?
As to Dover, even though ID isn't creationism, so what if it was? How is creationism categorically different from evolutionism?
Posted by: labrialumn | Nov 14, 2007 11:01:28 AM
M, it is about truth. Christianity has a strong positive bias towards truth and against lie. We the people, in this country, -are- the government, delegating express powers to various representatives and civil servants. These in turn take our earnings to use in the public schools. If those schools then teach a religion which we do not believe,indeed, one that is simply false,likewise with the science, we have a right and a duty to protect the children.
Posted by: labrialumn | Nov 14, 2007 11:05:21 AM
Labrialumn,
I am sympathetic to your position. I too believe in the Creator of the Christian creeds and reject neo-Darwinism. Yet, if the ID proponents have strong scientific evidence for ID, why didn't they present it at trial. The transcript section from above demonstrates desperation on the part of the trial attorney, along with incompetence. And, if your position is accurate, how do you explain the following from Professor Johnson's interview:
Q: So what does intelligent design say about how life was created and how we ended up with the diversity of life we see today?Johnson: Well, the alternative is not well developed, so I would prefer to say that, as far as I'm concerned, the alternative is we don't really know what happened.
Posted by: GL | Nov 14, 2007 11:23:55 AM
"Here the testimony extract from Jon Buell, of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. FTE published Of Pandas and People, the ID textbook. Note how he pretty much conclusively established that ID is disguised creationism."
The anti-ID crowd, here and elsewhere, ever and anon, always brings up this textbook issue as if it proves something. All it proves is that in this instance, those folks responsible for this textbook were incredibly inept. The logic certainly doesn't follow like they say it does however:
a) a textbook exists which posits creation.
b) in a certain version of this book, the word "creation" was replaced by "intelligent design."
Therefore:
c) creationism = intelligent design.
While it may reflect poorly on the producers of the book, and would weigh heavily, IMO, against using the book in the classroom, anyone with one iota of critical thinking skill should be able to see that this is no evidence at all against ID theory per se.
Posted by: Rob G | Nov 14, 2007 11:35:19 AM
GL,
That's exactly the point: neo-Darwinism claims something it does not have. To say we really don't know (but here are the competing working theories) would be the most "scientific" approach.
If you watch the show, it is clear the Judge had decided (the show admits this and spends much of the time explaining how the judge was going to render the forgone conclusion) in favor of the whole "science vs. faith" paradigm (and we know who "wins" that contest).
The ID side did make some basic mistakes, and the show makes it clear that the school board members were not the most clear thinkers, and were not prepared for the rigorousness of the neo-Darwinist side and position.
The point is not "strong scientific evidence" for ID, but rather the problematic claims of ND - which the brush off as an assault by religion, the usual story line (which the show follows perfectly - not a complement).
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 14, 2007 11:40:28 AM
Christopher,
Johnson argument appears to be, neo-Darwinists (NDs) claims that life originated from matter without any intelligent agent intervening, but lacks the evidence to prove this. So far, I agree with him. He then repeats the mistake of the neo-Darwinists by asserting that this lack of evidence fails to falsify ID and so provides proof for ID. The problem with this is that the same can be said the other way around. The NDs could say that IDs claim life came into existence through an intelligent agent, but have failed to produce evidence to sustain this claim. Their failure to do so fails to falsify ND and so provides proof for ID.
Johnson comes closest to the truth when he admits that "we don't really know what happened." I assume that he means "we don't really know what happened" if we rely strictly on scientific methods to derive an answer. He and I both believe in a Creator (and Intelligent Designer), but we can no more prove than scientifically than the NDs can prove there was not one. Stuart is correct, at least based on the current state of science, that both sides are attempting the prove the unprovable. The Creator, of course, will someday remove the obstacles that make such proof impossible today, at which time the debate will be moot.
Posted by: GL | Nov 14, 2007 11:48:31 AM
GL, as I understand it, all that ID proposes is that there are objects in nature which are irreducibly complex, and there is language written on the DNA and RNA templates. As far as we know, only intelligence can make those things.
ID is true, as the many man-made artifacts near me show. The specific examples used by, for example Behe, could perhaps be used as a doctoral thesis for some ABD. If he proves that example has a plausible random-chance path to existence, then perhaps that point will fall as proof for ID.
ID makes no claim as to what intelligence might be involved.
People who hold to ID do often use it as part of the argument for the existence of God, but that is not what ID -is-.
Mathematics and logic are also used by theists, but that does not mean that they too, should be banned.
The judge is basically trying to establish philosophical materialism as the official State religion of Pennsylvania.
Posted by: labrialumn | Nov 14, 2007 12:24:38 PM
The specific examples used by, for example Behe, could perhaps be used as a doctoral thesis for some ABD.
I like Behe and I'm glad he's written what he's written, but this is beyond what any person can profitably investigate in a dissertation (or even a dozen dissertations). The answers probably lie only in the evolutionary history of organisms that are long extinct. Some folks recently proposed how the bacterial flagellum developed in a paper, but it wasn't (at all) a convincing piece of work. To show how it was impossible to develop would be a very hard nut to crack, indeed.
That said, I do think it possible that there are irreducibly complex systems in nature--it's just proving that they are irreducibly complex is a horribly complex problem.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 14, 2007 12:52:50 PM
I agree with Labrialumn - the ID I have read does not claim a strong "proof" of ID, rather the "soft proof" of irreducible complexity.
Another thought about the show: Early on it is following a group of scientists trying to find a missing link fossil between fish and legged land animals. The story is such a cliché: The tireless "rational" scientists working in the harsh conditions of northern Canada on a shoe string budget about to run out. In their last year of efforts "walla", the missing link is found. As one of the scientists says, ND is a theory on par with gravity! The whole show, and most of the characters (e.g. the judge), is one big cliché...
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 14, 2007 12:53:23 PM
I agree with Labrialumn - the ID I have read does not claim a strong "proof" of ID, rather the "soft proof" of irreducible complexity.
And that "soft proof" does not rise to the level of sufficiency to justify declaring that the IDs have developed the scientific evidence necessary to support their theory. All irreducible complexity does is identify an *apparent* fact demanding an explanation; it does not provide *evidence* for the explanations offered by either NDs or IDs. As I have said before, the primary, perhaps the only, contribution of ID to date is exposing the glaring shortcomings of ND. For that, the IDs deserve recognition. That is a long ways, however, from proving *their* alternative theory.
This is not a court case in which a verdict must be reached. For now, I believe the best approach *on the scientific question* is to admit, in the words of Professor Johnson, that "we don't really know what happened." Let the science go as far as its methods will permit and let us not declare that the evidence proves more than it does.
On the *faith question*, I confess with the Church universal, "I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." That scientists cannot prove this creedal declaration using the methods by which they are bound makes it no less a true and accurate statement of how everything that is came to be.
Posted by: GL | Nov 14, 2007 1:52:31 PM
I like what the ID guys are doing, but I'm a lot more interested in their work on how materialistic evolutionary theory has affected society and culture than I am in the hard science. To that end, this looks to be an intriguing book:
http://www.isi.org/books/bookdetail.aspx?id=8298e795-8e57-4163-ad81-c5ab44db5c4a
Posted by: Rob G | Nov 14, 2007 1:56:18 PM
The best and most careful essay I have ever read on the philosophy of science (especially concered with evolution and ID) was posted on this site by James Altena. Beware, there are over 500 posts in this thread so use the edit menu to "Find on this page". Alternately, I'm sure he wouldn't mind emailing anyone a Word version of it. I'm hoping he eventually submits a version of it to First Things.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 14, 2007 2:47:48 PM
GL,
Sounds like you are on board with the ID proponents in this case (i.e. the Dover school board) who wanted about 3 or 4 paragraphs of verbiage in a whole textbook explaining some of the limits/objections of ND and pointing out the existence of ID.
Philosophical naturalism, and ND in particular, has a neo-Epicurean world view that rests on certain faith propositions (eternity of matter/energy, simplicity laws of atoms/energy, denial of agents above and beyond atoms/energy/time, etc.). So in that sense, the statement that neither ID nor ND can be "proved" is correct (depending on your level/definition of "proof"). That said, I think it is incumbent upon us in the know to point out the religious nature of ND and it's "scientific" paradigm...
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 14, 2007 3:11:47 PM
Christopher, I direct you to James' essay, which describes how we got to ND and why.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 14, 2007 3:37:11 PM
Christopher,
No. As I said above, I believe the effort in Dover was premature and an overreach. The outcome was predictable.
Posted by: GL | Nov 14, 2007 3:56:26 PM
I recall at the time reading some bits on the Discovery Institute webpage, explaining why their experts refused to testify at Dover. It had something to do with the incompetence of the attorney who had invited the DI experts to testify. DI did NOT agree with the Dover school board's move to put ID in textbooks, as I recall, but were willing to testify in Dover's favor anyway, until Dover's attorney put them off.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Nov 14, 2007 6:06:02 PM
Those who say ID hasn't proven its case keep mistaking the central argument. ID is claiming, rather effectively for anyone who looks at the actual evidence, that Darwinism hasn't really proven its case.
Posted by: Christopher Hathaway | Nov 14, 2007 6:07:29 PM
Those who say ID hasn't proven its case keep mistaking the central argument. ID is claiming, rather effectively for anyone who looks at the actual evidence, that Darwinism hasn't really proven its case.
If that is all they claim, then I agree with them.
Posted by: GL | Nov 14, 2007 6:58:15 PM
I should add that Touchstone itself made an appearance in the Nova show. Touchstone, with a brief shot of the July 2004 cover, was cited as the source of Discovery Institute fellow Paul Nelson's unusually candid comment:
"Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory right now, and that’s a problem. Without a theory, it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now, we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as ‘irreducible complexity’ and ‘specified complexity’-but, as yet, no general theory of biological design."
That's been the perennial problem with ID. No research program. Even when solicited by sympathetic resources, ID couldn't come up with a research program. The Templeton Foundation funds scientific research with religious implications. They didn't fund any intelligent design research because no ID research was being done:
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
I strongly disagree with those who claim ID merely points out that Darwinism hasn't proven its case. In one sense, as Mr Altena exhaustively and patiently discussed, no scientific theory ever proves its case. Nevertheless, evolution has proved extremely robust as an overriding theory of biology. No working biologist, including Behe, contends that common ancestry is not well established. All biologists recognize natural selection is essentially correct. There is no other scientific alternative to evolution.
Intelligent design, at best, makes the claim that certain biological systems could not have evolved and must have been designed. To date, only a handful of such systems have been nominated as candidates. If Behe's suggestions are validated, then it would be a tremendous scientific accomplishment. We will have demonstrated through science, that there is (or has been) sentient intelligences(s) far more powerful than human intelligence. That still leaves evolution in place for the vast majority of biology.
Unfortunately ID hasn't done the science. It has greatly oversold its accomplishments to the point of deception and unfortunately gullible members of the public have bought into the overblown rhetoric and not the more cautious and more accurate language of Behe and Nelson. That became painfully clear during the Dover trial. ID has attempted to get a place in high school bilogy classes, when it has no more scientific basis for support than the uplift universe. Science fiction shoud not be part of high school biology class.
Mairnealach poses the $64,000 questions: "What is particularly "conservative" about this issue?"
Nothing. Many conservatives reject ID. Larry Arnhart and John Derbyshire both do. All politically conservative biologists do.
"What is even "Touchstonian" about it?"
Nothing. Touchstone is best served by avoiding ID. It's a train wreck.
Posted by: JRM | Nov 14, 2007 9:20:42 PM
ID has attempted to get a place in high school bilogy classes
If bilogy were a subject, I'd put that sentence in its textbook 101 :)
Don't confuse the overheated majority on that particular Pa. school board with the concept of ID. It really does have a place in discourse; its best supporters are not clamoring for its inclusion in curricula.
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 15, 2007 1:08:11 AM
Upon reading the posts here, I sense another extended comment on ID vs. evolution (this time on aspects of the rhetoric of the debate) brewing in me. Unfortunately (for me, at least), I doubt that I have the time at present to write it. So I will content myself with two brief comments.
First, contrary to e.g. Labrialumn, Christopher, and Christopher Hathaway, critics of ID (or certain aspects thereof) on MC such as myself, gene, and JRM, have previously addressed all of their charges here in detail. We have dealt with e.g. the definition and qualifications of what constitutes science and qualifies as scientific; we have not mistaken the central argument of ID, but addressed it; etc. Unfortunately, it seems that it is far easier for the aforementioned gentlemen simply to reiterate their accusations than to do the hard intellectual labor of actually responding to the counter-arguments that have already been posed. (That being, in fact, one of the key rhetorical strategies employed on *both* sides of the debate -- never actually respond to your opponents' arguments; just keep insisting loudly that you argument hasn't been addressed, even when and though it has been.)
2) Jim Kushiner has asked that posts here be restricted to comments on the NOVAS program. Would one and all here *please* honor that request? (That's another reason I haven't posted here -- I didn't waste my time watching the program, its content and stance being all too predictable.)
Special kudos to my good friend GL for some exceptionally fine posts here. Plaudits are also in order to Gene and JRM.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 15, 2007 2:44:23 AM
"Touchstone is best served by avoiding ID. It's a train wreck."
Rubbish. One merely needs to differentiate between what Bonobo calls "the overheated majority" and the idea's more levelheaded, cautious supporters. We don't, after all, swear off the abortion issue because the occasional wackjob bombs a clinic.
Posted by: Rob G | Nov 15, 2007 7:11:51 AM
I will comment on the program, which I did watch. I would have loved to see the science teacher who was shown with his wife and family in church explain how to square his unqualified defense of Darwinism with his faith. Not that it can't be done, but he was presented as an example of "these people are both Christian and Darwinists" without any rationale. Now, if they are Christians, they are "creationists" to the extent that they do not accept the "life came out of inanimate matter by random processes" creation myth of the neo-Darwinians, right? Or can you be a Christian and accept that, too? And if you do, what role is left in your theology for God's not only creative power, but His care and concern for us? And how would you define "random"?
In other words, it is impossible to plumb the depths of this program's shallowness.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Nov 15, 2007 10:40:09 AM
The idea that life came out of inanimate matter by random processes is an unscientific and (hence) unwarranted extrapolation from the neo-Darwinian synthesis. I agree that you can't be a Christian and accept that there is no Providence. Not to beat a dead horse, but James A. has looked at all the possibilities that lie behind the word "random". Some of them are, indeed, loaded with freight that a Christian would find impossible to bear.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 15, 2007 11:01:30 AM
The random creation of life out of inanimate matter may be an "unwarranted extropolation from the neo-Darwinist synthesis," but it is also a direct claim of such ND proponents as Dawkins and the late Carl Sagan. Their "extropolations" are being presented to the public as pure science in the name of Darwin. Let's not be blind to what's going on, or how science is being bent and twisted to promote atheism by (some) scientists.
Posted by: Dcn. Michael D. Harmon | Nov 15, 2007 12:31:50 PM
Yes, but let's not twist science to "promote" Christianity, either. That's what the young earthers (in my opinion) do. Just because somebody is falling off a horse on the left side doesn't meant that we've got to fall off on the right side to "balance" them. I'm all for calling twisters of every stripe out when they start twisting.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 15, 2007 12:51:34 PM
JRM,
I think you overstate what we have been saying about ID (especially Behe - did you read his latest book?). Also, I don't think Behe would agree with a blanket statement like "That still leaves evolution in place for the vast majority of biology" and "There is no other scientific alternative to evolution." Evolution, or ND has at it's core random mutation, and the limited power of this phenomena that Behe suggests it has, is a major and important difference. "Evolution" as Behe sees it is very different from evolution as ND describes it. I think you undercut this important distinction. Reducing ID (as Behe describes it) to "science fiction" is silly.
As to what is "conservative" about ID, think about Chesterton's "Everlasting Man". As Mr. Harmon points out, fact is modern "science" is not neatly separated from it's metaphysical basis and assertions (such as ND), and man himself is not neatly separated. The implications ND has about life and it's meaning are very relevant to both political/social "conservativism" and Touchstone's stated purpose in the culture.
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 15, 2007 3:29:10 PM
Mr. Altena,
Forget your medication this morning? Why don't you back off on the sour-puss verbage and false characterizations (i.e. ...Unfortunately, it seems that it is far easier for the aforementioned gentlemen simply to reiterate their accusations...) and point us to where these arguments have already been discussed. Some of us do not make it our life to read every thread here at Mere Comments. Mr. Godbold provided a link above to a rather large thread, and frankly I could not locate your relevant post. Don't bother however if the above post displays the same attitude you display here.
"Jim Kushiner has asked that posts here be restricted to comments on the NOVAS program. Would one and all here *please* honor that request?"
Who died and made you boss? Or in this case, moderator? Mr. Kushiner has displayed the plenty willingness to police threads in the past, why don't you come off your high horse and let him do the moderating?
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 15, 2007 3:37:31 PM
Christopher,
I just sent you my copy of James' treatise. It really is quite good.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Nov 15, 2007 3:52:02 PM
James did make some good points in that post about the loading of the word "random", even if I believe he's too hard on ID. I think there's a tenancy in some some Christian streams of thought to drift into a deist perspective (which I'm not saying James has!) where God winds up the universe and sets such perfect laws in place that he never wanders back.
Posted by: Nick | Nov 15, 2007 4:34:13 PM
Christopher,
Physician, heal thyself. If anything is sour-puss here, it is your combination of ad hominem attack -- why does someone who disagrees with you have to be characterized as a psychotic who needs medication? -- and unwilliingness to expend the small amount of energy necessary to find my post -- which simply further illustrates my point about your unwilligness to do "the hard intellectual labor" needed here. You're not even willing to perform the lightweight task of a simple search, for which Gene already gave instructions to make it easier by using the edit menu. Likewise, your "don't bother" remark also suggests that you seek excuses not to have to deal with material that present a substantial challenge to your unsupported assertions.
And I'm not pretending to act as policeman for the site. I am simply seconding Mr. Kushiner's request. But it is interesting that you feel so free to disregard that request so blatantly.
Posted by: James A. Altena | Nov 15, 2007 4:49:42 PM
Mr. Altena,
So how does that plank feel? Hard to blink? Your being a jackass about this. But go ahead and keep throwing around your false accusations at those who don't read every thread. Let me know how that works out for you. My guess is whatever contribution you have will to make will be lost in your offensive tone. I hope it's your being off your meds - I would hate to think this is your normal disposition.
By the way, your still trying to moderate - and it shows...;)
Posted by: Christopher | Nov 15, 2007 6:55:33 PM
Mr. Altena in his normal disposition often makes the best contributions of us all - I trust many will agree.
Posted by: Clifford Simon | Nov 15, 2007 7:30:11 PM
