We see creationists trying to sell what isn’t science as science but confusing concepts to such a degree that they can then weasel out of any sort of actual discussion of what they are suggesting.
Case in point, John Bambenek asks why there are no classes in intelligent design
What’s hysterical is that John never defines what intelligent design is–and for good reason. ID Advocates all adhere to their different pet theories–most of which are incompatible with each other.
A specific example is Michael Behe who if you corner argues that common descent is beyond question and he’s essentially arguing for different mechanisms beyond mutation, genetic transfer, drift and selection, but he never questions that common descent is accurate.
Bambanek never actually argues what he is for in his article only this amorphous concept of ID without even identifying where that class should exist.
The bamboozlement begins with:
In the intelligent design debate, we can clearly see that the University fails to live up to the ideal. Intelligent design is disregarded as “religious nonsense” and banned from the classroom with all the zealotry one would expect to find at a book burning. The charge? Challenging established orthodoxies.
This is a broad claim for which it’s hard to understand what he is discussing–in what field should intelligent design be taught? What specifically should be taught? Even at the Discovery Institute you have a wide variety of ID variants with the only common theme being that evolution can’t be true. Even if it were true there were significant problems with evolutionary theory, that doesn’t mean ID is true. You can falsify one theory in science without providing evidence for another. It is only when you conduct a test that provides confirming evidence for one theory that would fit a falsification of the other theory at the same time.
Bambanek never addresses this issue instead whining about how orthodoxy is bad. Orthodoxy has little to do with why ID is a joke. Common descent is supported by an incredible body of evidence. To argue for some sort of alternative, the alternative would have to explain that evidence better than evolution and not be falsified itself. Again, there is no discussion of how this amorphous theory of ID does such a thing.
By denying intelligent design any space in the academy (at times with less than ethical means), they have declared that there are forbidden questions that may not be asked. The placement of restrictions on the question of how life began is the same behavior that fundamentalists visited upon science leading up to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
This is quite a claim. What supports it? What question is forbidden? The utter lack of specifics is a nice rhetorical trick, but it doesn’t actually address what is not being considered because of the broad conspiracy poor Bambanek seems to be facing down.
Not content with simply ridiculing it out of the realm of inquiry, some have brought the force of law to bear with the ACLU. It is interesting to see the so-called defenders of liberty suggest that in order to protect freedom, free inquiry cannot be allowed. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. You know the drill.
The drill is the scientific method. If you are introducing a concept into the science curriculum, it needs to be evidence based and based on findings of science. Declaring that an idea is unfairly discriminated against would mean that the idea explains the evidence just as well and it hasn’t been falsified. The problem ID faces when introduced into classrooms is that it’s not science–something Bambanek apparently agrees with leaving the question of why would it be in a science classroom.
The foes of intelligent design like to throw out the charge that it is not scientific. If by scientific you mean “capable of being confirmed or disproved by observation or experiment” then you would be correct. But you would also be stating that evolution as a theory of creation is not scientific.
Evolution as a biological force is easily observed. Evolution as a theory of creation, however, is completely flaccid. The primordial soup theory is novel and interesting but, at best, it is a theory that fits the facts.
The primordial soup, presumably referring to abiogenesis is not a part of evolution. Evolution is about a change in alleles over time. It assumes life exists–a trivial assumption. How life got here is the realm of other theories so referring to abiogenesis as evolution demonstrates why Bambanek has no business talking about the subject. Evolution isn’t a theory of creation. Only creationists have those. Scientists deal with theories of nature and how it acts and no one theory covers everything.
If Bambanek wants to offer a competing theory to the different abiogenesis theories he is free to do so, but simply saying they aren’t demonstrated doesn’t mean ID is correct, it means there isn’t enough evidence to determine which, if any, theory is correct. ID would have to be a theory that explains the evidence at least as well as abiogenesis and not be falsified. That’s requires a positive statement of testable hypotheses concerning ID.
We have never seen life come from non-life. There is a strong metaphysical case to be made for that being the way it played out, but it’s firmly in the realm of metaphysics, not science.It has never been observed or tested and cannot be. We have never seen life come from non-life. There is a strong metaphysical case to be made for that being the way it played out, but it’s firmly in the realm of metaphysics, not science.
This is simply bullshit. The point of abiogenesis experiments–none of which he appears familiar with since he’s confusing it with biological evolution, is to simulate the conditions on Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and then see given specific catalysts if the building blocks of life are formed through natural processes. That’s called an experiment.
The problem of asserting ID here is all that it says is something caused it to happen. And….how, did that happen? What evidence supports that theory? How is it falsifiable?
They argue that evolution is scientifically complete and therefore, by exclusion, eliminates intelligent design. The irony is that while they use this argument, science itself doesn’t believe that it has all the facts on evolution. With the discovery of tiktaalik roseae – essentially a fish with feet – last week, scientists lavished accolades on finding one of the “missing links.”
Here’s a hint when you are going to try and discuss an issue–know what the hell the arguments actually are on the other side and address those, not those arguments taking place between imaginary people that exist solely in your head.
No one argues that our understanding of biological evolution is complete. It is far more advanced then our understanding of gravity though. The basic point to be made of why evolution is widely accepted as the best explanation of how life changes on Earth is that it is a complete scientific theory that fits the evidence. See the link above to the evidence for common descent and the mutiple nested hierarchies and then attempt to explain how ID explains those and does it more parsimoniously than does evolution.
That we don’t know specific species does not negate the evidence of multiple nested hierarchies in morphology, genetics and cladistics that are independent of each other, but have very high degrees of correlation.
These are basic points of the theory of which Bambanek does not even seem to have a minimal understanding.
The two camps can be summarized as “man is made in the image and likeness of God” and “God is made in the image and likeness of man.”
Instead of trying to search out the truth free of presuppositions, science chooses arguments and theories that make the assumption that God must not exist. Anything challenging that assumption is labeled heresy and discarded, quite unscientifically. That’s why theories that aliens brought life to Earth are O.K. while intelligent design is not.
Bullshit. There is no assumption in evolution that God does not exist. Evolution does not exist God though it does falsify some particularly narrow and fundamentalist interpretations of Genesis as well as other claims made usually by fundamentalist strains in other faiths.
I’m not sure where the idea that aliens bringing life to Earth is widely accepted or taught in science classes. Perhaps John could cite where that occurs. It’s true, the Raelians don’t get as much attention, but neither does the crazy preachers in the quad.
s there a class on intelligent design at the University? (I couldn’t find one). If not, why not?
First question: In what department would it belong?
Second question: What would the substance be?
Third question: What would such a sylllabus include?
Classes aren’t taught because a bunch of people have a wild hair up their ass. They are taught to convey accumulated knowledge. For there to have been an accumulated knowledge of intelligent design the concept would have be defined to actually fit within some field. Given Bambanek doesn’t even identify which strain of ID he thinks should be taught, it’s hard to know where such a class would fit or what would be taught.
UPDATE: Running from the Thought Police and Narciblog also have posts on the column
I think your post is mostly very good, but at a few moments you stray dangerously close to debating these people on their terms. That’s a colossal mistake: the one virtue of an ill-considered hodgepodge of inconsistent politically-motivated pseudoscientific claims is that poking holes in it one at a time is the worst possible way to kill it.
They want to suck us into an evolution-v.-ID debate (or, worse still, an evolution-v.-God debate). Having that debate grants ID way too much credit. Instead, the debate should go like this:
1. There’s a well-established taxonomy of the academy. (In this taxonomy, science means something very specific and simple, something about falsifiable hypotheses and experiments.)
2. Okay, so ID should be taught in schools? Fine. Tell me in what department, and explain why it belongs there. Period.
To be clear, I appreciate that you make these points (and you make them well) in your post. But I think it’s absolutely essential to keep the debate on these terms (the crucial point being that the word “evolution” didn’t enter). If they want to try falsifying evolution, we can discuss the merits of their argument. But there’s no need to mix the two discussions. Ever.
There’s a letter in today’s Daily Illini suggesting that a course in Intelligent Design be taught in the Marketing department. Can’t say as I can disagree there.
I didn’t define ID for a good reason, I’m not defending it. My column didn’t call ID science, in fact, it clearly says it is not.
Also, if you are going to do a hit piece, spell my name right.
If science so perfectly refutes ID, there is no harm in letting it be taught. Fact will vindicate itself. The argument is self-defeating.
If these is not an assumption that an active god did not play a role, why are “supernatural” explanations out of the realm of possibility from the word go?
===I didn’t define ID for a good reason, I’m not defending it. My column didn’t call ID science, in fact, it clearly says it is not.
You are so full of shit. So then why should it be taught? We don’t teach the Earth is flat because cranks argue that it is. We don’t teach that there is a secret plot to control you through radio waves so you should wear a tin foil hat because some crank argues that.
You teach something because it is a part of a larger body of knowledge. Specifically, intelligent design is a challenge to science and so one would assuem it is supposed to be taught in science. Behe argues he is talking about science. What is it if it isn’t science?
==Also, if you are going to do a hit piece, spell my name right.
Telling that is one of your bigger complaints.
==If science so perfectly refutes ID, there is no harm in letting it be taught. Fact will vindicate itself. The argument is self-defeating.
Science cannot refute something that is not clearly stated. So define Intelligent Design and what variant of it you are attempting to say should be taught.
=If these is not an assumption that an active god did not play a role, why are “supernatural” explanations out of the realm of possibility from the word go?
Methodological naturalism–which has been mentioned to your previously.
http://www.asa3.org/asa/education/origins/mn-cr.htm#top2
Is a good description of how confused you are about science and faith–it’s a group of Christian scientists.
Furthermore, it’s a really dumb question because evolutionary theory is built upon about 150 years of scientific inquiry. What you are attempting to say is that something supernatural actually accounted for the change and history of life on Eart over the last 4.5 Billion years. If this were true, why does evolutionary biology’s predictions fit the evidence of what we find on Earth?
Supernatural explanations are by definition unable to be observed and studied–so they are statements of faith. I happen to believe in the Supernatural, but it is exactly because I have faith that Jesus rose from the dead. However, I don’t expect science to address it because I understand it is a statement of faith and miracles are those events that happen outside of the rules of the natural world.
Now, if a supernatural explanation were true, the natural explanations that also account for should be falsified. Nothing falsified evolutionary biology.
Even if that were to occur and evolutionary biology were to be falsified as well as other potential explanations then one is left with faith which varies from individual to individual. It is the ultimate state of post modernity. Fortunately, God created a rational world that isn’t relative, but natural.
What’s stunning about your claims is not only your ignorance of science and intelligent design, but your utter ignorance of theology.
Thanks for proving my point.
First order of business “you are so full of shit”.
I am the first, last, and only authority on what my position is.
I’m fascinated by this constant attempt to label me as a devotee of ID and then “proving” me a heretic with it. It’s clear you aren’t interested in intellegent discussion but rhetorical games and I’m not going to play them with you.
If you want me to be bluntly honest, the party line ID belief I do disagree with. What I think *is* useful is asking whether evolutionary biology, darwinism, etc, is sufficient by itself to explain where life comes from and how we got here, or is there something else that played a role.
If you read my article, you would have seen me saying maybe Darwin wins out. But apparently you are more interested in demogogery and in the end, you prove my point.
Don’t be a zealot.
===I am the first, last, and only authority on what my position is.
So take a position. Saying it isn’t science, but should be taught begs the question of what should be taught and how
===It’s clear you aren’t interested in intellegent discussion but rhetorical games and I’m not going to play them with you.
LOL–a rhetorical game would be suggesting ID is being discriminated against and should be taught, but then not saying in what discipline or identifying what forms of ID should be taught.
I’m asking where you think that ID fits in the body of knowledge. First, you have to identify what it is. Saying ‘it could be’ is like saying someone could have faked the moon landing. It doesn’t mean anything.
Worse, you are attempting rhetorical tricks by trying to define evolution as a theory of creation–without actually knowing anything about what evolution posits.
Grow the fuck up and stop being a whiny dumbass.
== What I think *is* useful is asking whether evolutionary biology, darwinism, etc, is sufficient by itself to explain where life comes from and how we got here, or is there something else that played a role.
Darwinism isn’t a scientific theory. Evolutionary biology is. I linked to 29+ evidences of common descent–what questions do you have about that?
Evolutionary biology doesn’t explain where life comes from–I’ve already pointed this out to you–it explains how life changed over time. Why do you have problems with such basic concepts?
===If you read my article, you would have seen me saying maybe Darwin wins out.
So what? You don’t have an argument. You have a bunch of bullshit misrepresentations of the science, the scientific method, and what scientists actually say and then say those things should be open to challenge by some amorphous concept you cannot define.
By your ‘argument’ any random idea that says evolution is wrong deserves to be taught at the university. That’s post modern bullshit.
==Don’t be a zealot.
How am I being a zealot? By pointing out that ID is bullshit and that you don’t know anything about the subject you are talking about? Or is it because I actually expect you to define what you are talking about?
John, you pulled this exact rhetorical shit on me and left wimpering something about “Gnosticism” even after I pointed out the separatenss of religious knowlege. What makes you think you can get away with trying it on Archpundit, who writes better than I do?
The flimflam in this position is basically that they want “equality” for ID without subjecting it to scientific analysis.
This demand to make the cut without otherwise having to furfill any of the requirements seems to be a character flaw for conservatives in many other areas as well.
I also suspect that any rejection of ID is often viewed as a rejection of religion, and that’s why its proponents are so insistent that it be accepted. Even over at Squire’s blog, Bambenek mocks those that don’t accept ID, claiming they say things like, “It’s not science! It’s religion and religion is evil and must be stopped!” They’re unable to question their own religions on rational grounds, and so accept them on emotional ones. As such, they think that anything doesn’t accept their religion is “biased” against them.
I see lots of conjecture and little actual reading of what I wrote.
ID suggests one question, is evolutionary biology as it is currently held sufficient to explain “how we got here”? I just got through listening a talk on ID by William Dembski and some opponent. The problem with evolutionary biology is that they insist evolution is right because there is nothing else, and that ID doesn’t propose a “process”. They have a fair point on the last count but simply because an alternative process hasn’t been discovered doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. The ID people assume that alternative process is an intelligent designer because that seems like the only logical jump.
I think these talks about design are an unnecessary jump at this point though the discussion on design detection was all interesting. ID, if nothing else, exposes the fact there are problems with evolutionary biology as currently held and should hopefully drive the search for the missing components of how life developed. I doubt, in the end, it will be something that looks like ID, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think ID isn’t a useful line of inquiry.
But of course, me stating that I have some benign motive in mind is obviously a lie and a sham, and really, I just want to ram religion down people’s throat, right?
When ad hominem is the first tool of science, you’ll excuse me for drawing the conclusions I do.
===ID suggests one question, is evolutionary biology as it is currently held sufficient to explain “how we got here”?
And again, you appear to be conflating a whole series of scientific theories with evolution. Evolution explains the history of life–not how life started, not geology, not the Big Bang, not the formation of the universe. Using this kind of nonsensical languate about how we got here is exactly the kind of rhetoric that is used to avoid dealing with specific issues.
==I just got through listening a talk on ID by William Dembski and some opponent. The problem with evolutionary biology is that they insist evolution is right because there is nothing else, and that ID doesn’t propose a “process”.
It’s not just some random insistence. Evolutionary biology is built upon 150 years of research by science, all of it during the most rigorous period of scientific research.
Evolutionary biology is considered correct because the primary tenets of the theory have not been falsified and it fits the available evidence. As the 29 evidences for common descent point out, the body of work is extensive. Trying to insist something else could have done it defies logic.
To make a counter case one would need to identify testable hypotheses and then test them against the evidence. Would you care to provide us with a testable hypothesis that is mutually exclusive with evolutionary biology and hasn’t already been falsified?
Dembski doesn’t. Instead he tries this rhetorical crap over and over again.
Falsifying biological evolution would not mean any particular alternative is correct. It would simply falsify biological evolution. Saying the only logical alternative is intelligent design is a logical fallacy in itself. However, why would one look for a better explanation if the current theory is the most parsimonious and fits the evidence well?
===They have a fair point on the last count but simply because an alternative process hasn’t been discovered doesn’t mean there wasn’t one.
That there could be another explanation is always true in nature, but is there any reason to think so based on the evidence?
===The ID people assume that alternative process is an intelligent designer because that seems like the only logical jump.
For anyone to take such a claim seriously, two things would have to happen. First, one would have to find a problem with evolutionary biology in terms of its power to explain the history and diversity of life. There are no significant problems with the theory, though specific questions in terms of pathways and linneages will always exist.
Second, one would have to demonstrate there is positive evidence for an intelligent designer. Just saying it is logical doesn’t make it so.
What is strange here is that the entire basis of the argument is really a neo-pagan argument assuming that God is more like Zeus than the elegant and far more omnipotent God of the Bible. Trying to insist that God isn’t elegant enough or omnipotent enough to make nature work. It’s a bizarre theological statement in Christianity.
==ID, if nothing else, exposes the fact there are problems with evolutionary biology as currently held and should hopefully drive the search for the missing components of how life developed.
No. This is false. Science doesn’t work by having to have an alternative. Science works by testing hypotheses based on a theory. If those tests are confirmed you hold on to the theory tentatively. If those tests falsify the point, you regroup and attempt to see what is wrong.
More to the point though, is that there are not signfiicant problems with evolutionary biology. It is the organizing principle of modern biology and is remarkably powerful in its explanatory and predictive power. What is telling is that people who want to think there is some sort of problem, don’t actually deal with evidence. Case in point, you. The 29 evidences for common descent have been pointed out to you. You don’t bother with it.
You have made many mistakes about the scientific method and the actual state of the science regarding evolutionary biology, abiogenesis, and by extension physics and geology. Evolutionary biology not only is confirmed by biology, but by modern day physics, chemistry and geology a fact that is conveniently ignored by those who proclaim great problems with a theory they clearly don’t understand.
===But of course, me stating that I have some benign motive in mind is obviously a lie and a sham, and really, I just want to ram religion down people’s throat, right?
No, it means you are stupid. You don’t understand evolutionary biology, refuse to address evidence or the theory, and make broad sweeping statements that are contrary to evidence that is pointed out to you.
==When ad hominem is the first tool of science, you’ll excuse me for drawing the conclusions I do.
That’s bullshit. You’ve been provided several lines of evidence for common descent. If you care to discuss a different line of evidence dealing with evolutinary mechanisms, pick one. Instead you whine that people aren’t nice to you. When you are too fucking lazy or too fucking stupid to do the basic work to inform yourself despite people hand feeding the information to you, people are under no obligation to be nice to you. Do the fucking work and stop your whining.
The ID people assume that alternative process is an intelligent designer because that seems like the only logical jump.
How DARE they deny the evident effects of His Noodly Appendage! Them and their Abrahamic God! [/sarcasm]
The problem with evolutionary biology is that they insist evolution is right because there is nothing else, and that ID doesn’t propose a “process”.
While you’re right that there’s a problem with evolutionary biology as it currently stands (and no, I’m not giving you the freebee of telling you what it is), that’s not it. The only hint you’ll get as to the nature of the problem is that there’s one person on campus who’ll be more than happy to tell you what the problem is.