Discussion of Big Science Today, by an Important Member of the National Association of Scholars

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

My position, as you should recall, is that the term “creationism” has been and is correctly used, both in casual conversation and in the academic literature, to denote a pseudoscientific belief that seeks to deny the theory of evolution in an attempt to scientifically legitimize religious doctrinal beliefs regarding human origins.

This is almost correct. Dumping hot-button terms and terms which, as used by you, are “loaded” with your preferred notions, we get something like this:

“Creationism – when used alone, without adjectives in front of it – is, in popular US discussions of origins, the belief that evolution (in the sense of descent of man and all other species via modification of unicellular creatures) has not happened, explicitly motivated by the belief that the true account of origins is given with more or less literal accuracy in the early chapters of Genesis.”

and:

“Scientific creationism” (also sometimes known as “creation science”), is, in popular US discussions of origins, the belief that evolution (in the sense of descent of man and all species via modification of unicellular creatures) has not happened, motivated (though often without the motivation explicitly stated) by the belief that the true account of origins is given with more or less literal accuracy in the early chapters of Genesis, but differing from simple creationism in that the former restricts itself (when in public debate with religious non-believers) to arguments against evolution that are based solely on scientific findings, without ever appealing to the authority of the Bible or Christian doctrine."

and:

“Intelligent design, understood as a theory or intellectual position regarding nature, is the view that there is evidence in nature that some or all parts of nature required design, not merely some combination of chance and natural laws, in order to come into being. Unlike creationism, it takes no position, explicit or implicit, on whether the account of origins given in the early chapters of Genesis is true, on how Genesis is properly read, or on any other doctrine of revealed religion, and its leaders and supporters include members of a wide range of religious traditions, as well as some who endorse no religion at all. This being the case, its theoretical writings limit themselves to reasoning, solely from the data provided by nature, to the conclusion of design. Note that it is possible to be both an intelligent design proponent and a creationist at the same time and that most intelligent design proponents are also creationists of one type or another; however, the two positions are logically distinct, since the one requires a religious commitment to a nearly literal reading of Genesis whereas the other requires no religious commitment at all.”

There; now you’ve got everything right. I’m glad we finally agree.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Eddie

And of course, no one on the materialist-atheist side has ever done such a thing.

I have not said that. It is a kind of cognitive failure that we should all be wary of.

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@colewd

What do you think evolutionary theory explains?

I’m actually not a big fan of evolutionary theory, mainly because it is so easily misunderstood. It is widely misunderstood by creationists. It seems to be misunderstood by the third way people. It was misunderstood by the mathematicians at that Wistar conference you often mention. It was misunderstood by Jerry Fodor and by Thomas Nagel in their critiques.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

Thanks Neil
I was thinking about your pencil comment and now realize our views may not be that different. If you say that explaining the origin of DNA is like explaining the origin of the arrangement of graphite atoms then I agree with you.

The point I give the ID guys credit for is pointing out the arrangement we can observe in DNA (A T G C) coding for the 20 amino acids which arrangement we can also observe.

Currently we cannot observe the arrangement of the molecules and atoms in matter. The observation of the arrangement and its potential cause is what ID is going after.

The important question is if this work has value to science?

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Eddie

“Intelligent design, understood as a theory…

There is no theory. There isn’t even a scientific hypothesis.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

This would be a good idea for a topic of its own.

Done.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@nwrickert

I have not said that. It is a kind of cognitive failure that we should all be wary of.

Good. We agree.

@nwrickert

I’m actually not a big fan of evolutionary theory, mainly because it is so easily misunderstood.

We agree again. The question is why evolutionary theory is so often misunderstood. Why evolutionary theory, and not classical electromagnetic theory, or fluid dynamics, or nuclear fission, etc.? It seems that solid, empirically based scientific theories, though often difficult in their contents, are understood in their general purport, whereas evolutionary theory (and perhaps a few other things, such as some parts of cosmological theory) often seems to lead to wrangling about even the general purport. The problem is clearly not simply that some fundamentalists misunderstand or misrepresent evolution, since we see that wrangles over evolutionary theory occur even among secular humanist scientists, e.g., between James Shapiro and Coyne, or some of the scientists at Wistar that you mentioned. The critics at Wistar were not stupid people and certainly were not anti-science. They were highly trained at mathematically modelling things, professors of physics and engineering from top American science/technology schools such as MIT. So if they misunderstood what “neo-Darwinian evolution” (the main model at the time of the conference) was saying, doesn’t some of blame for that fall on those who were articulating the theory at that time?

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

It seems that solid, empirically based scientific theories, though often difficult in their contents, are understood in their general purport,

Um, (cough cough) quantum mechanics …

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

Good. I see you have put up some references, which should be useful. I will look at this over the coming weeks, and see if I can formulate any useful questions. In the meantime, I may pop in to read some of the comments of others on your post.

I regard your challenge to Tour as in principle fair, and I thank you for putting up something concrete rather than culture-war invective against Tour.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Art

Um, (cough cough) quantum mechanics …

Agreed; quantum mechanics would be another one, though because it’s not my field I did not want to say that it was misunderstood in its general purport by quantum physicists (as opposed to the general public, which finds it baffling and/or cherry-picks sensational aspects of it without understanding it overall).

[nwrickert (Neil Rickert)]

@Eddie

The question is why evolutionary theory is so often misunderstood.

At Darwin’s time, biology was a relatively primitive science. It’s hardly surprising that he had to make do with the best explanation he could come up with.

Scientists are often depicted as starry eyed progressives. But they are actually somewhat conservative. So they stay with the traditional theory as much as possible.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

as opposed to the general public, which finds it baffling and/or cherry-picks sensational aspects of it without understanding it overall)

Cough cough …Robert Russell …

To give one example mentioned in this thread.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

The problem is clearly not simply that some fundamentalists misunderstand or misrepresent evolution, since we see that wrangles over evolutionary theory occur even among secular humanist scientists, e.g., between James Shapiro and Coyne, or some of the scientists at Wistar that you mentioned.

Shapiro and the Wistar crew are cranks and crackpots who have made no contribution to evolutionary biology, so who cares that they are generally disagreed with by those in the field who are even aware of them? That is not indication of significant disagreement within the field itself.

I challenge you to support your allegation that there is any more disagreement on matters of theory within evolutionary biology than there is within any other scientific discipline. Quantum physics has been mentioned, and it seems to me disagreement and controversy there is, if anything, far greater. Same goes for my own profession.

@Eddie

The critics at Wistar were not stupid people and certainly were not anti-science. They were highly trained at mathematically modelling things, professors of physics and engineering from top American science/technology schools such as MIT.

IOW, not biologists. They might as well have been piano tuners or dog groomers.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Art

Cough cough …Robert Russell …

To give one example mentioned in this thread.

I might agree with you that Russell misuses quantum physics notions. On the other hand, Russell has three degrees in Physics, and several scientific publications in physics, including some on “tunneling,” which I think is a quantum phenomenon (though I could be wrong), so I hesitate to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@Faizal_Ali

IOW, not biologists.

But with more training in mathematical modelling than most of the biologists they were debating at Wistar. And the focus of their critique was questionable aspects of the mathematics the neo-Darwinians were using. By the way, have you actually read any of the conference volume you are rejecting, or are you judging based on hearsay?

@Faizal_Ali

Same goes for my own profession.

Not at all surprising, since that profession is only half-scientific.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Eddie

Unlike creationism, it takes no position, explicit or implicit, on whether the account of origins given in the early chapters of Genesis is true, on how Genesis is properly read, or on any other doctrine of revealed religion, and its leaders and supporters include members of a wide range of religious traditions, as well as some who endorse no religion at all.

Incorrect. Rather, it should be stated as: Intelligent Design Creationists, in common with creationists of all other forms, are motivated by adherence to religious doctrine that human beings could not have come into existence without the direct intervention of a god, and therefore the theory of evolution is incorrect. However, since the movement was conceived for the purpose of subverting American Constitutional law prohibiting state endorsement of religion, its adherents and proponents deliberately avoid making explicit mention of the religious basis for their beliefs. Nonetheless, this religious basis has been obvious to those who follow the movement and it political activities.

Note that this description is based on evidence from the actual activities of the IDC movement, and not just on the literature and propaganda it uses to describe itself. To restrict the definition to the latter would be the equivalent of calling North Korea a democracy because its official name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

[Art (Arthur Hunt)]

@Eddie

… so I hesitate to say he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Not so sure about this, especially when he merges divine action and quantum phenomena. That’s a bridge too far, in a manner of speaking. IMVHO.

[Mercer (John Mercer)]

@Faizal_Ali

Shapiro and the Wistar crew are cranks and crackpots who have made no contribution to evolutionary biology, so who cares that they are generally disagreed with by those in the field who are even aware of them? That is not indication of significant disagreement within the field itself.

It’s amusing that anyone who agrees with Eddie is granted the status of being in the field. More typically, to be viewed that way, one needs to have contributed some original research, which Shapiro hasn’t done.

One can see the disconnect by contrasting Shapiro with Nick Lane. The former is a gadfly, while the latter has made major contributions to the field he’s informing laypeople about.

By the way, how is your reading of Lane’s book going, @Eddie?

[Puck_Mendelssohn]

@Faizal_Ali

Note that this description is based on evidence from the actual activities of the IDC movement, and not just on the literature and propaganda it uses to describe itself. To restrict the definition to the latter would be the equivalent of calling North Korea a democracy because its official name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

I would add to that the point that, like the North Korean government, the proponents of ID are demonstrably, consistently, thoroughly dishonest. I and others have given many clear examples of this dishonesty, from multiple DI authors over multiple works. Accordingly, no objection that it’s unreasonable to reject their own account of themselves can really stand.

I know, yeah, yeah: “polemical.” Well, y’know, that’s only a good objection if the allegedly polemical statements are not actually true. In this case the accusation is actually true, and nobody with an ounce of sense believes that the various lies of the DI, when addressing a popular audience on the subject of biology, can be defended. In the absence of any basis for such a defense, it is not reasonable to object to them being called liars, and it is not reasonable to suppose that they are suddenly filled with the spirit of honesty when giving an account of themselves.

[Paul_King]

@Art

@Eddie

It seems that solid, empirically based scientific theories, though often difficult in their contents, are understood in their general purport,

Um, (cough cough) quantum mechanics …

I’d say that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is quite frequently misunderstood. Especially by Creationists.