A better example: school science programs are under attack by climate change deniers, and the NCSE are becoming increasingly preoccupied with defending against that threat.
1 Like
How unfortunate for @Eddie that he is now too busy completing the article he claims to be writing to gracefully acknowledge that he been proven wrong.
1 Like
I think I already covered that in an earlier post:
On this, I have always found this particular argument really quite funny. The idea is that one can get out of being a creationist by defining “creationism” in an overly-narrow way. And that was the founding notion of ID: take a classic argument for creationism, pretend that you’re going somewhere else with it, and then stomp your feet and insist it’s not creationism whenever someone points out that this is just a rephrasing of classic creationist arguments.
The definition here of “creationism” really didn’t change with the advent of IDC. What changed was that where creationism had always called itself by its right name, now it was strategically and legally advisable NOT to call itself by that name. That, of course, is a marvelous policy for the creationists, if they can fool others. But it doesn’t really change the fact that the argument from design has always and only been a creationist argument as it pertains to biology.
3 Likes
Um, too late, I already asked you.
But, seeing as you asked without answering, when I say “unguided”, I mean “according to the rules of chemistry and physics”. I expect that others probably are in line with this.
@Eddie, rather than tease a novella out of you concerning the term “unguided”, mayhaps you can swivel to the complementary term “guided”. If you, or any ID proponent, concludes “guided” (for whatever reasons), where does this go? Mind you, it must go somewhere. Else we aren’t talking science, or philosophy, or anything other than blatant, vain, political, mind-numbing posturing.
Granted “guided”, what hypotheses follow? Humans? Space aliens? Are there really any other options? If “guided” followed by nothing (or “that’s not the issue”, or “that’s for later”, or any other evasion), then “guided” really isn’t an answer, or an appropriate conclusion. It’s like taking the 5th. Or “don’t ask, don’t tell”. It’s a blank. Nothing. Zero.
5 Likes
I answered this at least twice now.
1-- You have not yet given an example of a textbook produced by the DI that “teaches ID”.
2-- You wrote “are producing” (present tense), and the only ID book you have named was produced in 1989 and 1993 (past tense, very much past), and wasn’t published by the DI.
The only formal definition of ID in either edition of their book is found in the Glossary of the 2nd edition, and is completely consistent with the current Discovery definition. And even if we accept the “means” sentence as intended as a definition, we know that other very early ID proponents, including Behe who wrote part the the 2nd edition himself, did not agree that the “means” sentence was a good way of defining ID. So already, very early on, it was clear that the original Pandas authors (if indeed they thought that abrupt emergence was part of the definition of intelligent design) did not speak for the entire community of thinkers who championed the idea of intelligent design in nature. And in only a short few years after the second edition of Pandas, abrupt emergence was, both in the major works by ID leaders, and in Discovery articles, pushed off the stage as far as the definition of ID was concerned.
For the greater part of the general public that doesn’t eat, sleep, and breathe internet debates over origins, the meaning has not changed from what I presented. If you ask a man on the street what he understands by “creationism,” he will give you some variation on these two points: (i) evolution didn’t happen; (ii) because Genesis says so.
But a very small section of culture warriors, at the NCSE and Wikipedia and a few other places, have consciously tried to change the definition for purely political reasons, i.e., to bring ID within the definition, because they hate ID and want to tar it with the same brush as creationism.
I know what you mean, and there is a partial truth in your statement, but your objection does not hold water. However, I cannot show you this with direct reference to ID and creationism, because it appears you are too invested in a particular judgment about these things to take the detached attitude I would expect from a mathematician. So let us move to a different example, one where, perhaps, you have no strong prior feelings and are willing to examine with an open mind.
Take the word “fascism.” You probably have in your mind, if not a formal definition of fascism, some sort of rough working definition by which you could, if asked, distinguish ideas or people that are definitely fascist, or close to fascist, from ideas or people that are not fascist. For example, you might be pretty sure that Mussolini was a fascist, and you might be pretty sure that Martin Luther King was not.
Now, suppose you had never heard of Ayn Rand or her philosophy before, and supposing the very first work expressing her philosophy rolled off the presses tomorrow, and you picked up that work and read it. And suppose I were to ask you: “Are the ideas of Ayn Rand fascist?”
How would you proceed to answer that question? What would, in your view, be an intellectually legitimate, or fair, or objective, or rational, or impartial way of answering it?
I would honestly say that I am unable to answer that question.
I would not just attempt to apply a dictionary definition. It would require familiarity with Ayn Rand’s writings and familiarity with fascism. And I do not have sufficient familiarity with either.
But isn’t that Neil’s point? Some words, particularly technical, are not contended. Others are in the wild. The answer to your Ayn Rand question is going to be fought over to the last drop of blood. There will be disagreement over the conclusion, disagreement over the basis for conclusion, argument over what is a valid basis, and the center of that conversation will shift with time. I tend to agree that creationism is one of those words which a writer may be obliged to define his usage if it matters, because there is at least some range of understandings in currency.
1 Like
And I never suggested that anyone should do so. My definition of creationism, for example, came not from any single work such as a dictionary, but was a distillation of scores of sources, a distillation based on deep familiarity with those sources.
I was not asking you to work through the particular example with regard to the contents. I was asking what your procedure would be. To make clear the difference, suppose now that you had read every major history of fascism and every major political science text on fascism, and suppose that you had read all the works of Ayn Rand. What would be your procedure for answering the question? I’m not asking you answer the question, but how you would go about answering it? What steps would you take?
We can take another example, if you like, from some field with which you are familiar. Leave aside mathematics, for the moment. Do you know a great deal about, say, classical music? Or about jazz? Or about art history? Or about poetry, or drama? Or about some area of politics, theoretical or practical? Or comparative linguistics? Tell me some subjects about which you do have “sufficient familiarity” to draw reasonable conclusions, and I will try provide examples more to your liking.
Only by people who put ideological commitments (whether left-wing or right-wing) above rational analysis. No scholarly historian of political thought would have any problem answering the question, because there is a well-established procedure for answering it. But people whose main interest, when talking about political writers they like or don’t like, is to beatify or condemn such writers, will throw all procedure aside and simply insist on using terms in any way that serves their purpose.
If, for example, the word “fascist” is for certain people largely an emotive word with little clear conceptual content, but very strong negative connotations, and if they happen to hate Ayn Rand, they may well apply the term to her thought, without providing anything even slightly resembling intellectual or literary analysis.
My first reaction to such a question would be, “What do you mean by fascist?” If the person asking the question could not give even a rough working definition of fascism, I would refuse to answer the question. But if the person gave such a definition (and by “definition” I do not mean simply a single-sentence; the definition might require a paragraph or even a short essay), I would then have no trouble at all going through the works of Rand and ascertaining whether or not her thought came anywhere close to the meaning provided.
1 Like
In other words, “unguided” means “according to natural laws” or “due to natural causes.”
This is exactly what Eugenie Scott was thinking when, for political reasons, she told everyone on her side (anti-ID) to stop using the phrase “unguided processes” and speak of “natural processes” instead. By dropping “unguided” she got rid of the criticism that neo-Darwinian evolution was just as religious as creationism; she feigned metaphysical neutrality, suggesting that science made no judgment whether there was or was not any guidance in nature (and to be specific, in evolution). But given that her notion of “natural” already entailed the notion of “unguided,” she could have her cake and eat it, too, keeping all the benefits of the previous explicitly metaphysical term by using an implicitly metaphysical term that sounded purely “scientific” rather than “religious.”
“Guided” evolution (which I’m not here arguing for, but merely defining, to make clear the issue I’m addressing) would mean evolution directly steered by some intelligent being, or perhaps “remotely” steered by means of a clever set-up of the first life. (Though for that last possibility, some would prefer the term “front-loaded” or “programmed” evolution.) Asa Gray, Darwin’s American lieutenant, believed that evolution was guided, but Darwin would have none of it. Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution, also came to believe that evolution was guided (at least in relation to the rise of man), but again, Darwin would have none of it. I regard the question (whether evolution was guided) as open. I hope this answers your question.
No, @Eddie, you have not answered it at all.
You have ignored the question (twice), and you have responded as if the DI don’t produce textbooks on ID (twice).
This is untrue. I linked to the DI’s curriculum and textbook “Discovering Intelligent Design” in this post, which I know you read because you replied to it.[^1] But even if you missed that link, you’ve already admitted you know the DI publish textbooks for private schools and homeschoolers that contain material on ID[^2]. Even if you hadn’t, your demonstrated knowledge of and familiarity with the DI and their publications indicates you’d already be aware of them. So it doesn’t matter whether I’ve given an example or not. I shouldn’t need to, because you already know they exist.
“Discovering Intelligent Design” is published by the DI, according to Amazon. So that dodge won’t work here. It dates from 2013 and is still listed on the DI’s online store. So that dodge won’t work either.
You wrote:
As for whether they [the DI] want it [Intelligent Design] “allowed,” I would say that in the long run, they would like it allowed, but in the short run, they do not think it is ready to be taught in schools. They have said many times that it needs to become more mainstream in science, by getting more research published, before it is appropriate for the high schools. And I agree with that.
If ID is not ready to be taught in schools, and ID is science-based, it doesn’t matter whether those schools are public, private, or home-based. If ID is not ready to be taught in schools, the DI should not be producing textbooks that teach it for any schools. But the DI is producing textbooks. The obvious conclusion is that the DI considers ID ready to be taught in private schools but not ready to be taught in public schools. And that can only be because ID is not science-based, but religion-based.
You’ve had four chances to provide an alternative reason why DI are producing textbooks that cover something they (and you) don’t consider ready to be taught in schools.
Twice you’ve chosen to pretend they aren’t producing any such textbooks. The other two times you ignored the question completely. I see no point in asking again, since the expectation is that you would once more ignore it or feign ignorance.
You can object to accusations and implications of dishonesty on your part as much as you like, but when you not only claim to have answered a question that you clearly haven’t, but do so by pretending not to know about textbooks you’ve already admitted you do know about, no accusation is needed. Your posts speak for themselves.
3 Likes
Tut, tut. There may be a genuine reason for @Eddie’s failure to respond. He may be stunned from the realisation that of the “scores of sources” on creationism with which he has “deep familiarity” don’t include the Institute for Creation Research. He may be wearing Joo Janta 200 Super-Chromatic Peril Sensitive Sunglasses(
).
1 Like
One of your problems is you keep conflating the theological/philosophical debate over whether attributes of our universe point to the existence of a god, or some other such transcendental intelligent being, with the scientific debate (such as it is) over whether empirical evidence demonstrates that at least some attributes of living things cannot be accounted for by (unguided) evolutionary processes, and that these were produced by an intelligent being.
That latter question is not open in the least. It is done and dusted, no more debate to be had. But as someone who has shown neither aptitude for, nor interest in, understanding the relevant scientific evidence, it is understandable that you would be unaware of this fact, and remain under the misapprehension that the question is any more “open” than that of whether the earth is flat.
Since natural selection can be considered a form of guidance it would seem more correct, as well.
This is not quite correct. In the absence of sufficient evidence for external guidance science is required to work on the assumption that no such guidance is present - no scientific explanation or theory can include it. That is science, not religion. Only if it is required to teach that the absence of guidance is an absolute fact could it become a problem.
Perhaps you would do better addressing the dishonesty on your side of the aisle, rather than throwing questionable accusations at others. Even if you are angry that ID was kept out of schools (which is certainly the impression I get from your posts).
4 Likes
You seem to be emphasizing a view of language that was long ago debunked by Wittgenstein.
2 Likes
Yes, we already know that you are into polemics. But I find that quite boring.
I’m not a fan of Ayn Rand, and I don’t want fascism. But whether or not the word “fascism” should apply to Rand – it just isn’t a question that I care about.
I can recall Mike Gene catching hell from his fellow travelers a number of years ago when he suggested that ID wasn’t ready for prime time, such as in primary education. Apparently, there was strong interest among many ID enthusiasts in promoting ID theory in schools. And there were also the Defeating Darwin book and ‘Teach the controversy’ efforts squarely aimed at kids and teens.
I have previously given you an example of the definition of “creationism” used by those who consider ID to be a form of creationism. I do not recall you going thru the works of ID proponents and demonstrating that they did not meet this definition. Am I just misremembering?
I did miss that link. Yes, you are correct, Discovering Intelligent Design does deal directly with Intelligent Design, and it is a Discovery publication. But the book’s target audience is specified. It is “intended for use by homeschools and private schools.” Again, the only thing I was trying to argue was:
1-- All the educational materials published by Discovery intended for use in public schools are works calling for a more critical analysis of Darwinian evolution;
2-- All educational materials published by Discovery that explicitly endorse ID are intended for use in home schools and private schools.
These two statements remain true even when all the examples you have provided are taken into account.
As for your question, “Why is Discovery producing books that teach ID at all, if ID is not ready to be taught in schools?”, the reason I didn’t directly answer it (and thought my answers had already implicitly covered it) is that (due to the constant shifting of reference in your examples) I took it to be a a “When did you stop beating your wife” sort of question, i.e., a question based on a false assumption, i.e., that the DI had produced works explicitly teaching ID for the public schools. There was no need for me to answer the question, “Why did the DI do X?” if the DI never did X. But now that I am completely clear on what you mean, I can answer your question explicitly.
You have a good point: If the schools aren’t yet fit to teach X, why not delay the teaching of ID until they are? I get it. It’s a reasonable question. I actually am not sure it is a good thing to produce ID material yet for even home schoolers or private schools.
A general remark first. I have consistently distinguished between ID as a social movement, a movement which I have conceded has connections with creationism and which has proponents with creationist motives, and ID as a theoretical enterprise, an attempt to investigate nature to see if it reveals signs of design. And I have repeatedly conceded that Discovery as an institution is involved in both these aspects of ID. I have also repeatedly stated that my main interest in ID is on the theoretical side, and that I do not automatically defend all things that ID proponents say, write, or do, as individuals or when they act through the Discovery Institute.
That said, let me deal with your question. I think that one of the main concerns that the DI has is that if teachers with no conception of what ID was were forced by some state mandate to teach about ID in science classes, ID would end up being taught according to some imperfect formulation of its ideas produced by state education officials, and in many cases by incompetent ninth-grade biology teachers who would get it wrong. But if Discovery abandons all attempts to get ID into the public schools, and produces its own curriculum, written by its own people, then the explanations would be coming from ID proponents themselves, not from some science teacher being asked to make sense of Darwin’s Black Box and translate it for the students. So probably Discovery thinks that their materials for home and private schools are less likely to mislead students about what ID is than any state-mandated discussion of ID.
To take the example of the only book meant to teach ID (produced by Discovery) that you mentioned, one of the authors is Casey Luskin, who is at the very center of both Discovery and ID as a theoretical enterprise, and is unlikely to misunderstand ID, as, say, a high school biology teacher somewhere, trying to make sense of skimmed writings of Behe and Dembski filtered through a confused state curriculum outline and through Wikipedia and NCSE materials, almost certainly would.
That said, I myself would not have produced such a work; I would, following Discovery’s own advice, wait until ID is better established in the universities. So I actually am agreeing with you on one of the points you have made. Don’t have a heart attack!