Nathan Lents: My Experience With Discovery

It seems, and I could be wrong (often am), that once one opens the door to considering such a force who has brought about the universe with the properties you described, that the door would also be open for that same force to meddle.

2 Likes

Well, there are constraints. Another way of describing meddling would be a miracle. A miracle would, I suggest, violate the laws of physics. If God decided to help his favourite team play and win at soccer, he could miraculously deflect the ball into the net. Observing a discontinuity like this would be evidence something more is going on in our Universe. Look for a miracle.

3 Likes

You are certainly correct. I was thinking more about timing and not violating the laws at all. Rather just facilitating by ensuring that the proper processes occurred at the correct time and place.

I wasn’t intending to make a big deal at all about your comment, but really to state that your opinion is refreshing to me. I can see the hard evidence for evolution at work, now and in the past. I just struggle with the belief that these otherwise random events could have occurred when they have and how they have without some meddling.

Earlier in the thread (maybe its parent), there was a conversation about vitamin C and the GULO gene. The question was asked as to why God would create man with the inability to manufacture vitamin C when the ability was only a few mutations out of reach. This is a very good question and potentially problematic for the theist. However, it also seems that the ability to manufacture it was possessed by some common ancestor further back in the tree. I don’t know how long ago this was, but here were some details shared by @evograd:

It just seems to me that when we evaluate a minute, single aspect such as the GULO gene, the process moves so slowly that it’s very difficult for someone like me to accept that the overall process of evolution didn’t require some meddling. That complex ecologies existed as soon as we see multicellular life arrive on scene seems all too perfect. I’m not asking anyone to see things as I see them. It’s just that we all have our personal reasons for disbelieving something. For me, your willingness to crack the door open slightly to allow for something to have planned an environment that is receptive to this process, is helpful. It makes what I would otherwise believe to be an impossibility, believable.

2 Likes

I think that this is a potentially universally agreeable description, Neil. To carve out a niche says to me that the organism is feeling its way along, finding its place, but doesn’t go so far as to suggest planning and forethought as in “design”.

3 Likes

Yes, that seems about right to me.

3 Likes

2 posts were split to a new topic: Reckoning With Human Zoos

The best we can do is understand how ID proponents use the term:

“The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”
What Is Intelligent Design?

From what I can discern, intelligent design is “not evolution”.

1 Like

I don’t know about that, because Behe affirms common descent, and so does Denton.

I’d say rather that a valid position is

“God created us, and in this sense designed us all. God designed us through a process of common descent that is legitimately, though partly, described by evolutionary science.”

That wording takes the rhetorical winds out of the conflict’s sails. One does not have to agree to it, though I do. We just have to acknowledge this is a valid theological position that does not put one in conflict with mainstream science.

1 Like

“The logic was simple: since evolution is a gradual process in which slight modifications produce advantages for survival, it cannot produce complex structures in a short amount of time. It’s a step-by-step process which may gradually build up and modify complex structures, but it cannot produce them suddenly.”–Michael Behe

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840

It is one thing to say that species share common descent (sort of), and yet another to say that all the differences between them are a product of evolutionary mechanisms.

The conflict would be the “though partly” bit.

1 Like

From a theological perspective (not science), evolution does not tell us if God inspired a mutation here or there or not. It does not tell us if he created events to guide selection of particular features. If he did either, even a complete scientific account of evolution is only part of the story.

From a scientific perspective, evolution does not tell us what gives rise to all the contingencies, like why precisely the asteroid hit us 65 million years ago. It does not tell us what gives rise the laws of physics, or even the first cell. Therefore evolution is not the whole story. It is only part of the story.

From both perspectives, it is a partial account of how we got here, even if it is 100% correct. Of course, it is not 100% correct, because research and knowledge advances all the time. It is our best account, but not a total account.

The real gap between Behe and mainstream science is that he has convinced himself that there is evidence of design. In the two points above, we would not expect to see evidence of design. Even in Behe’s scenarios, there is no evidence of design.

The features that Behe is talking about do not fall under the processes that gave rise to the laws of physics or the first life. What Behe is talking about falls firmly within the limited theory of evolution. Behe is saying that evolution could not produce certain features whereas a consensus of the scientific community thinks it can. Behe’s work on the flagellum and multiple residue adaptations certainly lead to this conclusion.

So I’m not sure how you want to characterize difference of opinion. Behe accepts that certain parts of the genome are the product of evolution, and others parts are not. Behe thinks the parts that are not the product of evolution were intelligently designed, whatever that might entail. It would seem that the splitting biology into “evolved” and “not evolved” is different from a more wholistic approach where God’s providence applies to the whole genome.

1 Like

If Denton is considered an intelligent design proponent then so am I. Most ID proponents are very Paleyesque but not Denton. He doesn’t advocate for any direct intervention. His is more of a fine-tuning argument. The laws of form/Type/Bauplans are built into the laws of nature, Darwinian mechanisms are trivial, etc.

I’m not making a defense of Behe.

I agree that there is no evidence against the consensus of the scientific community. Behe is wrong here, I have explained repeatedly.

I’d just say the key thing is common descent, and that the arguments from ID are not convincing. Science, however, is silent on God’s action. We can’t say whether He did or did not act. Here I am nearly quoting NSCE’s Eugenia Scott. That is all.

Hey everyone,

I’m new here, and I know that this forum is supposed to be devoted to promoting “peace” in the evolution conversation. That’s a great thing, but I am having difficulty reconciling that goal with all of the uncivil rhetoric that Dr. Lents is being allowed to post here attacking Discovery Institute. It seems like Dr. Lents was given a platform here to have an unmoderated bash-fest describing his “experience with Discovery Institute”. For example, on this thread here:

Dr. Lents attacks Discovery’s science/competence:

“amateurish approach to science”
“what they do is nowhere near what we think of as science”
“They have an agenda and a posture, and that is completely antithetical to science”
“DI posted an article from an engineer with absolutely no background in biology”
“It’s not science, it’s religion.”

Dr. Lents attacks Discovery’s motives:

“DI is a conservative political group, first and foremost”
“founded with a particular political agenda”

Dr. Lents attacks Discovery’s moral behavior:

"It’s like a weird mix of arrogance and insecurity expressed as rhetorical foot-stomping’
“they can’t manage to behave in a serious way”
“Ask them what would change their mind and watch them scramble”
“they can’t muster even a modicum of adult conversation about science”
“That community does not read the books and articles they criticize.”
“there is no point taking them seriously”
“Correct it! Remove the article! I’ve made mistakes, some I caught, others someone else caught. I always correct it the best I can. That’s what honest people do.”
On David Klinghoffer: “These are serious scientific conversations and I just want to yell him to ‘SHUT UP, GROWN FOLKS IS TALKING!’”
On Jonathan Wells: “His whole ‘zombie science’ bit is dishonest”
On David Klinghoffer: “Klinghoffer was definitely the nastiest one toward me, and also the most dishonest”

That’s all from this thread on this forum. Dr. Lents is entitled to his opinions of course! But how is allowing him to use make such uncivil bashing of Discovery Institute conducive to bringing peace?

Moreover, doesn’t it seem a tad ironic that Dr. Lent’s complains about Discovery Institute’s “nastiness” and complains that they called him “arrogant”, YET ON THIS VERY THREAD DR. LENTS SPECIFICALLY CALLS DISCOVERY INSTITUTE and its people “arrogant,” “dishonest,” “amateurish,” “insecure” and many other similarly uncivil attacks?! Again please take note of what is taking place here: Dr. Lents complained about Discovery calling him “arrogant” and then HE specifically called them “arrogant”!

But did Discovery Institute really call Dr. Lents “arrogant”? A quick investigation shows that didn’t happen.

Dr. Lents complains that Discovery calls him “ignorant and arrogant” and that quote is a complaint about something that Steve Laufmann wrote on Discovery Institute’s blog Evolution News. But Laufmann DIDN’T CALL Dr. Lents “ignorant and arrogant”. What Laufmann said, in a roundabout way, that is that “the bad design argument almost always results in a bizarre blend of ignorance and arrogance” because such arguments tend to assume that we have a godlike knowledge about the way things ought to work. Maybe Laufmann shouldn’t have put it that way by using the words “ignorance and arrogance” but he wasn’t about attacking Lents specifically or Lents personally.

But then here on this forum, Lents DOES ATTACK LAUFMANN PERSONALLY when he attacks Laufmann’s competence and knowledge by saying that he’s “an engineer with absolutely no background in biology” (how does Lents know that Laufmann has no background in biology?) AND Dr. Lents specifically and directly states that Discovery Institute has “arrogance”.

Is Discovery Institute really so uncivil? Today Discovery Institute has responded to Lents with AN ENTIRELY IRENIC AND CIVIL post that does no namecalling or personal attacks at:

The contrast is striking. They’re not attacking Dr. Lents personally. They’re just responding to his arguments. They point out that Dr. Lents was wrong to claim that Michael Egnor wrongly cited the paper on “paranasal sinuses” because the maxillary sinus (which Lents write about) IS ONE OF THE PARANASAL SINUSES! Here’s what they say:

The maxillary sinus and the paranasal sinuses are not “totally different structures.” The maxillary sinus is one of the paranasal sinuses! The paper Egnor cited was discussing the maxillary sinus as well as the other paranasal sinuses.

Lents similarly writes on his blog, “The paranasal and frontal sinuses surround your nose and are in your forehead, respectively. Nothing I write in my book or articles make reference to those sinuses.” Again, that’s not true because, to repeat, the maxillary sinus, which Lents indeeds writes about in his book, is one of the paranasal sinuses, meaning that Lents does write about the paranasal sinuses. He is wrong in his terminology.

Again, the contrast between Dr. Lents’s discourse on this forum, and their discourse is striking. When they found that Dr. Lents committed an error they defended their writer against his attacks but they didn’t attack Dr. Lents personally.

But when Dr. Lents thought that they committed an error he is INVITED HERE TO MAKE all kinds of uncivil personal attacks against them on this forum! How does that bring peace?

So again, I agree with the goal of “peace” and civility, but how committed is this forum to bringing civility to this conversation? It seems like on this thread, Dr. Lents was given an unmoderated platform to go off bashing Discovery Institute with all kinds of vicious and uncivil and nasty personal attacks. Something seems wrong about this thread. It does not seem compatible with the goal of bringing peace.

And now it turns out that Dr. Lent’s was fundamentally wrong in his chief attack on Michael Egnor! And their team of writers have said far fewer uncivil things against Lents than one single person, Nathan Lents, was allowed to say against them here on this thread alone. Yet the civil ID-guys who didn’t make the scientific mistake are the ones being attacked here. What’s wrong with this situation? Something doesn’t seem right…

Welcome @JeremiahSixFourteen.

There is uncivil rhetoric all over. I do not endorse everything posted here.

We allow for conversation. To be clear, he was not invited here in order to make attacks. Conflict arises when people who disagree are in conversation. That is just how it works and what needs to be worked through.

The goal is to seek peace. Sometimes this is messy. This might be one of those times.

What is wrong? The story is not over yet. Give it time.

1 Like

Thanks for your reply about this. It’s very nice to see you saying that you don’t approve of Dr. Lents’s rhetoric. But I’m still not comfortable with the situation here.

I don’t know much about the moderation policy here but why did you not moderate Lents calling Discovery Institute “dishonest”, “arrogant”, “amateurish” etc? This forum seems to have pretty tight moderation policies–which is probably a good thing on the wild internet when evolution is being discussed. But is it your usual policy to give people the unmoderated opportunity to bash people like this?

Also, why has nobody else on this thread pointed out to Lents just how incredibly uncivil his rhetoric is whilst he himself is complaining about Discovery Institute’s tone? Something seems very off and one-sided here…

One other important thing that troubles me: At the link I posted above (Nathan Lents Is Back; Still Wrong About Sinuses | Evolution News) it seems pretty clear-cut that Dr. Lents was wrong to say that the maxillary and paranasal sinuses are “totally different structures”. Discovery Institute cites quite a few credible medical sources showing that the maxillary sinus is one of the paranasal sinuses I’ve done some of my own googling on this and everything I have found seems to confirm that Discovery Institute and Egnor were right and that Dr. Lents is wrong at least about this question of proper nasal anatomy terminology. Thus, it seems like the paper that Dr. Michael Egnor cited was directly on-topic for this conversation, as Evolution News writes:

What’s clear is that the paper that Egnor cited frequently discusses the maxillary sinus, and the maxillary sinus is one of the four paranasal sinuses . When it states that “Accessory ostia are not only common for the maxillary sinus but also for the entire paranasal sinus system,” it is not, as Lents says, “completely off-topic” but rather directly on-topic.

Yet Lents wrote here on this forum about Egnor’s supposed error:

That’s why there is no point taking them seriously. They made an obvious error, got caught, and then just pretend it didn’t happen.

Look I have no desire to attack Dr. Lents, but it seems pretty clear cut from the evidence that Discovery Institute has cited that Dr. Lents made a basic error of nasal anatomy terminology by claiming that the paranasal and maxillary sinuses are “Totally different structures”. That’s no major sin–as you correctly say everyone makes mistakes and we can forgive it.

But Lents was permitted to completely go off on Discovery Institute because of this supposed error, and now it turns out he is the one who was in error.

You wrote in response to Lents on this supposed error:

This is important to pick apart and be clear on.

So, since you are an MD I would imagine that you know a lot more about anatomy terminology than most of us here do, and I’m interested to know: What is your opinion? Did Dr. Lents make a mistake on this terminology by claiming that the maxillary sinus and the paranasal sinuses are “totally different structures”?

Also, I would imagine that you are in private communication with Dr. Lents. If that is the case, then will you ask him to correct the error, especially since he so forcefully claimed that Discovery Institute should not be “taken seriously” when they refuse to correct their errors?

You do not have to be comfortable with it.

The moderation policy is that this is an unfunded effort. I have a full time job. Do not be demanding of the moderator.

I understand and sympathize with your position. However, please keep in mind that Lents is being far more gentle in his opinions about ID than most scientists I know. If you want to know why scientists are angry with ID, that will take some time. You don’t have to like his perspective, but it is out of bounds to blame me for it.

If we turn this in to an incivility battle, it will not look good for ID. We are not going to do that. Rather, let us see what happens. Give it some time to work out.

Stop being troubled. It is already being addressed elsewhere. Who is Right About Sinuses? Rather than being outraged, just be patient. This will work out in time.

I wrote my opinion on the other thread, before you even showed up. Rather than post the same link two times, just pause and pay attention to what is going on. We already engaged that link.

@JeremiahSixFourteen, please pause and remember that this is a two-sided conflict. If you want the conversation to become civil, understand the other side. You are getting a rare opportunity to see how most scientists view ID. Rather than raising the temperature, see what you can learn here.

You and your perspective are welcome here, but realize that I have a full time job that does not include this.

1 Like

If this is true, and it might be, I’m not sure why you are so bothered. Who do you think looks good in the end if that is the case? Just be patient and see what happens.

1 Like

Thank you for pointing me to that other thread! I had not seen it yet and I am very glad to see that you wrote:

In this case, it does appear that the maxillary science is one of the paranasal sinuses. In this case, Egnor does appear to be correct. It does not appear he was caught in a mistake, unless I am missing something here.

That is very gratifying to see. Thank you! Here is Lents’s reply on that thread:

I am 100% done going back and forth with the DI. As I learned in little league, never swing at a pitch in the dirt.

Well, this is really unfortunate that he is not going to dialogue further and retract something that you, an MD, agree was an error–especially when he was so forceful about not taking Discovery Institute seriously when they (supposedly) refuse to correct errors.

Also, I appreciate that you have a full time job and that you run this site on a volunteer basis. And I’m not blaming you for Lents’s perspective. That’s all very praiseworthy and that’s not why I am concerned.

What concerns me is that when moderation does take place, it seems very one-sided. For example, you are now accusing me of “raising the temperature”. So clearly you have enough time to accuse someone of “raising the temperature.”

But yet when Lents:

attacks Discovery’s science/competence:

“amateurish approach to science”
“what they do is nowhere near what we think of as science”
“They have an agenda and a posture, and that is completely antithetical to science”
“DI posted an article from an engineer with absolutely no background in biology”
“It’s not science, it’s religion.”

attacks Discovery’s motives:

“DI is a conservative political group, first and foremost”
“founded with a particular political agenda”

and attacks Discovery’s moral behavior:

"It’s like a weird mix of arrogance and insecurity expressed as rhetorical foot-stomping’
“they can’t manage to behave in a serious way”
“Ask them what would change their mind and watch them scramble”
“they can’t muster even a modicum of adult conversation about science”
“That community does not read the books and articles they criticize.”
“there is no point taking them seriously”
“Correct it! Remove the article! I’ve made mistakes, some I caught, others someone else caught. I always correct it the best I can. That’s what honest people do.”
On David Klinghoffer: “These are serious scientific conversations and I just want to yell him to ‘SHUT UP, GROWN FOLKS IS TALKING!’”
On Jonathan Wells: “His whole ‘zombie science’ bit is dishonest”
On David Klinghoffer: “Klinghoffer was definitely the nastiest one toward me, and also the most dishonest”

…he’s not accused of “raising the temperature.” Seriously? In fact, unless I missed it, I see no warnings issued to Lents that his rhetoric is inappropriate.

But when an ID guy comes in and point out Lents’s incivility and it has taken just a couple posts before I am accused of “raising the temperature.” Lents goes off on Discovery Institute for a long time and nothing is said.

I appreciate that moderation is a tough job. But so far the moderation I’m seeing on this thread seems fairly one-sided and biased against ID, and I see you attacking the civility of ID proponents (“If we turn this in to an incivility battle, it will not look good for ID”), which isn’t a problem on this thread, and saying very little if not nothing about the civility of ID-critics.

I’m not trying to turn this into an “incivility battle” but this matters because I want to know if this is a safe place for ID proponents to participate?

I’m happy to wait and see what happens. But just as you ask me to try to “understand the other side” (which I’m very happy to do, and believe me, I am learning a few things very quickly here), I would exhort you, my civil brother, to try to “understand the ID perspective.” An IDist would be probably intimidated from posting in a forum where Lents is allowed to say things like this…

So when one person on that other thread asks “Why couldn’t they come here and discuss it?” I think the answer is clear: Is this a safe place for Discovery Institute people to have peaceful dialogue? This thread doesn’t feel like it.

But I’m happy to wait and see what happens!

and learning as we go.

Josh, this is thread is exactly what we’ve come to expect from the ID folks. They’re incensed about something, sound off about it, you respond, they repeat their complaint, you respond again and explain more, they repeat their complaint, you explain yet again and implore them to be patient and let the debate take its course, they repeat their complaint again… you see the pattern - they do not accept your thoughtful and measured response, they just keep repeating their complaint over and over. This is also how they approach science and it’s why arguing with them is a complete waste of time. I am kicking myself for wasting my time responding to them earlier in the summer. My pride (which I freely admit is overdeveloped) got the better of me, but I’m not making the same mistake again, especially during the academic year, when I barely have time for things that are important to me.