I've been putting off writing about the phony "evolution versus creationism" debate in this little series mostly because wading in to the cesspool of creationism makes me feel stupid. I suppose I could link to the "Institute for Creation Science" or the Creationism museum in Kentucky, which is supposed to have a display of primitive human beings living cheek by jowl with dinosaurs (who, apparently, didn't get Noah's memo to show up at the ark?).
Instead I decided to link to this guy. In a post entitled "Science Already Recognizes Intelligent Design" we read:
I will stipulate, however, that the very notion that scientists "believe" something demonstrates how little allegedly faithful Christians think of their own faith, willing as they seem to be to strip the word belief of any real meaning this way.
Instead I decided to link to this guy. In a post entitled "Science Already Recognizes Intelligent Design" we read:
Earlier today, a friend of mine posted a link to a "Surrealist Letter To The Rectors of European Universities". In comments, someone wrote the following: "How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb? Answer: Fish!" That makes far more sense than the preceding, while standing as a model of logic compared to what follows.It has for a long, long time. As Greg Koukl notes, consider archaeology, forensics and the search for extra terrestrial intelligence. All infer, with good reason, that you can detect whether something happened without being caused by another agent or whether there was an intelligent being behind the creation of something.The movie “Contact” was a shining example of the self-parody of materialists. While mocking those who believe in Intelligent Design, their litmus test for extraterrestrial life was whether patterns they viewed had evidence of design.Forensics is all about looking for evidence of design. And archaeology correctly infers design.
We agree there is a gap in understanding some things about the universe. The Darwinists plug it with the “naturalism of the gaps.” They don’t know what caused it, but it definitely wasn’t an intelligent designer. They have no argument other than blind faith. We don’t have the same gap. We logically infer from the evidence that some things — such as life and the indescribable complexity and design of the universe — had to have come from a powerful designer. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins concede that the universe appears to be designed.There are some folks who take the time to deconstruct nonsense like this. I refuse, preferring to treat people who write this way much the same way one professor invited to "debate" the issue responded to his interlocutors.
Now, the person to whom I linked will probably cry "Foul!" because he writes about Intelligent Design, rather than creationism. To which I will only copy and paste what Federal District Court Judge John Jones wrote in his opinion tossing out the Dover Area, PA School Board's requirement to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution:Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics
need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist
to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite
an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a
Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and
that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars.
Creationism is in the same category.Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of
your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed
journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by
scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.
Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas
that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly
explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying
to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or
scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel
Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the
prominent mainstream journals.“Conspiracy” is the predictable response by Ben Stein and the
frustrated creationists. But conspiracy theories are a joke,
because science places a high premium on intellectual honesty and
on new empirical studies that overturn previously established
principles. Creationism doesn’t live up to these standards, so its
proponents are relegated to the sidelines, publishing in books,
blogs, websites, and obscure journals that don’t maintain
scientific standards.
You can call it "creationism" or "creation science" or "Intelligent Design", but it all comes down to the same thing: demonstrating not only a magisterial ignorance both of the creation stories in Genesis as well as the traditional Doctrine of Creation alongside an almost comical ignorance about what science is and how it works. There is no need to "respond" or "rebut" what are not "arguments". The constant demand from creationists for attention should be met with silence broken only occasionally by the laughter from those who understand that every time a creationist writes something, they again demonstrate exactly why they aren't taken seriously.The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
I will stipulate, however, that the very notion that scientists "believe" something demonstrates how little allegedly faithful Christians think of their own faith, willing as they seem to be to strip the word belief of any real meaning this way.
24 comments:
"demonstrates how little allegedly faithful Christians think of their own faith"...
Yup. If they actually believed the things they claim to believe, they wouldn't need to lie about science in order to back themselves up. I'm surprised I haven't seen more of them try utilize the notion of parthenogenesis to back up the doctrine of the virgin birth. I probably just need to wait...
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. "
Um. Yeah.
They decided that the way to get around the US Constitutional separation of church and state was to change every reference to religious "creationism" in their book Of Pandas and People to "intelligent design." When challenged in the 2005 Dover case that intelligent design is simply religious creationism repackaged, of course they denied it. Until a copy of Of Pandas and People was shown that was full of references to "cdesign proponentsists."
Seriously, they couldn't even get a global search and replace right.
Since then I always refer to them as "cdesign propenentsists"
Two questions:
What scientific background does John Jones have? I know the level of importance you have in people not speaking about which they know nothing. In which field of science does Jones have a degree? If he has none, what possible value does his opinion have as regards the scientific validity of either ID or Creationism, or the lack thereof?
Can one force one's way into any of the scientific journals mentioned? Are such journals forced to print everything submitted to them for publication? It seems this is another case of assuming absolute integrity on the part of the "mainstream" scientific community to presume that the atheists among them would be eager to prove anything that conflicts with their personal worldviews.
Back when I was a college senior, I took a history class on the 1920's. I decided to do my paper on the Scopes Trial. OK, this was 1987, 25 years ago, and I found a book that rebutted every single creationist argument, whether the claim about the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the business about how fossil beds are sometimes upside down.
In the quarter century since, ID hasn't put forward a single thing different. Not one.
In an early draft of this blog, I called the example I culled from Neil Simpson's vast archive "Grade A bullshit", which, really, is an insult to bovine excrement of any kind.
As I said at a class at church last spring when someone brought up earlier periods of warming in Earth's history and the lack of automobiles at the time, we can talk about global warming and we can have a discussion, but we have to talk about it as if science were a real thing. Which is not to say that there haven't been periods when the earth underwent climate change; it's only to make clear that we have to deal with the reality that these earlier periods of change have been studied, and the current one is being studied, and the differences among them all point to a single variable that is different - the presence of human beings burning billions of tons of fossil fuels.
I love it, incidentally, when conservatives insist they're the adults in the room, yet consistently sound like ignorant children demanding attention.
"Can one force one's way into any of the scientific journals mentioned? Are such journals forced to print everything submitted to them for publication? ... atheists among them would be eager to prove anything that conflicts with their personal worldviews."
Journals submit articles for review to a list of reviewers (usually volunteers). The reviewers submit comments and recommend publication, revision, or rejection.
In 2006, there were roughly 23,750 scientific journals in various fields that published about 1,346,000 articles. To assume that:
1) That many journals would refuse to publish authentic work in a field based only on a lack of integrity would require a coordinated conspiracy on a colossal, international scale. If you're going to suggest that's why no such work gets published, you're going to need some pretty extraordinary evidence, MA.
2) What makes you think that all scientists, or even all the editors of these journals, or even all the reviewers are atheists?
As for Judge Jones expertise in science, MA, one doesn't need *any* expertise in science to know that ID is merely relabeling of creationism: It was a fact introduced into evidence, hence my use of the term "cdesign propenentsists". Creationists simply did a global search and replace in word for the word "creation" and substituted "intelligent design" in their book "Of Pandas and People." That's literally the dictionary definition of relabeling, and one doesn't need a scientific background to recognize it.
(By the way, claiming that ID is just repackaged creationism is not a scientific claim anyway, since neither one is a science. Therefore anyone making such a claim would not need to be an expert in science in order to make it.)
All of this is available online if you choose to use Google and read about the Dover case, Judge Jones, and Cdesign Proponentsists.
Judge Jones came to his decision regarding ID, had you happened to click the link to the entire decision, by reviewing the history of creationism/ID that resulted from a series of Supreme Court cases.
Again and again, Art - Jones isn't a scientist, but was asked to rule, based upon evidence, as to whether or not ID was, in fact, a new marketing strategy for the same, tired nonsense. Precisely because the evidence - every single bit of it - demonstrated this to be so, what other conclusion could he have made?
Read the decision, Art, then ask a question about it.
Here in TN, they have taken steps though new legislation to allow creationism back into the classroom. This law turns the clock back nearly 100 years here in the seemingly unprogressive South and is simply embarrassing. There is no argument against the Theory of Evolution other than that of religious doctrine. The Monkey Law only opens the door for fanatic Christianity to creep its way back into our classrooms. You can see my visual response as a Tennessean to this absurd law on my artist’s blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.com/2012/04/pulpit-in-classroom-biblical-agenda-in.html with some evolutionary art and a little bit of simple logic.
Alan,
You have not answered my questions, but instead make assumptions about my reasons for asking them. Not cool. The number of articles published has no bearing on the questions I asked. Double or triple the number and it wouldn't matter. Can one force one's article into any of those journals against the will of the publishers of those journals---yes or no? Are journals in any way forced to publish every article submitted to them---yes or no? If the answer is no, then there cannot be any assumption regarding the character of the publishers or the motivations behind what dictates their publishing decisions. YOUR response suggests an unholy faith in their integrity, when my questions merely point out that one cannot have such faith. It is not unreasonable to fear discrimination by the "mainstream" scientific community who are made up of human beings who are affected by financial gain and loss just like anyone else.
Another point regarding the numbers of articles published is simply that there is no reason to assume that every article published, or considered for publication poses any threat to the standing of either accepted understandings or the people who have based their careers on them. Thus, a doubling or tripling of those numbers would not make any difference.
Furthermore, if you re-read my original questions, you'll find that I may no assumption as to the number of atheists among the mainstream scientific community. This is apparent by my words "the atheists among them". Surely there must be some.
For the both of you,
I have been researching the case in question and though I have yet to reach the end of the unnecessarily lengthy decision (Jones even apologizes for this within it), I have found legal scholars that have trouble with his ruling.
More later.
You "found" a "legal scholar" who disagrees with a court decision.
Paint me red and call me a stop sign.
I can almost guarantee you there are all sorts of people who disagree with just about everything. There are, after all, Holocaust deniers, Art.
Does that mean Judge Jones' ruling has no legal force? Does that mean there is no sound reasoning in Judge Jones opinion?
How, exactly, do these things work, at least in your mind? There are serious scientific debates over all sorts of things, including evolution, Art; does that mean evolution isn't real and the mechanism for its functioning aren't real?
I realize this is difficult for you to understand, but people disagree about stuff, Art. The nice thing is "legal scholars" can disagree with a court ruling without ever once stopping the ruling from being enforced. In fact, in a country of 300 million people, finding any kind of consensus on pretty much anything would seem a nearly impossible task.
Which is why we have things like laws and administrative rules and the Constitution to make clear how things work; even though 47% of the electorate voted for Mitt Romney, Barack Obama is still President, just like in 1985, even though I didn't vote for him I didn't sit around a whine that Ronald Reagan wasn't my President. I didn't carry on about Bush in 2000 or 2004, not because I wasn't upset over irregularities, but because legal institutions had made their decisions, regardless of my feelings or beliefs in the matter.
So, please, go ahead and read your legal scholars and read Neil's barrage of dead-horse beatings. There isn't a force in the world that can stop you.
None of it has a bit to do with anything other than you having a tantrum.
Of course one cannot "force" someone to publish one's work. That goes against the entire process of scientific publication. If someone has to "force" a publication to publish their work, it is likely that it wasn't worth publishing in the first place.
If it provides a unique contribution to the literature, if it's conclusions follow from the evidence presented, if the methods are sound, then it will likely get published. Those are the only 3 criteria the the 4 journals I review for ask me to consider when I review submissions.
You ask the question: could all of the reviewers of all the journals in the world be disingenuous? Then you decide (without evidence) that the answer is "Yes, it is possible" then you decide that, since it is possible, it is probable.
Again, where is your evidence? I don't have "faith" in this process. I "know" this process works because it does work. Good work gets published, along with a modicum of bad work which subsequently gets revised. The underlying assumption is that a paper should get published unless their is reason not to. The assumption is not that authors must prove that their work must be published.
Again, all I'm asking for is for evidence of what would be a massive conspiracy on an international scale involving hundreds of thousands of people.
BTW, I'm not sure what the "financial gain" angle is here. Do you think people get paid for publishing work? Do you think reviewers get paid to review? Again, all I'm asking for is some evidence for your claims. What is the evidence you have for financial gain in this vast conspiracy to suppress anti-global warming research?
You cannot just suppose something is the case, MA, then decide because you think it might be true that it is true.
Where's the evidence?
Also, I'm still confused why someone being an atheist would have any relevance to the global warming debate. But if you have evidence about that....
Perhaps it would be easier if you would simply explain, in your own words, your understanding of the publication process. How does an idea get from the beginning on a blackboard somewhere, through the process of exploration, all the way through to a publication? Who does the work? What is their compensation? How long does the process take? Who supports their research? Who writes it up? Who publishes it? Who runs these publications? Who funds the publications? etc., etc etc
How much money do I get to review a paper, MA? How am I paid .... is it a set fee per paper or a yearly stipend? What is my financial incentive to provide a negative review based on something other than a paper's poor quality?
"How, exactly, do these things work, at least in your mind?"
That's easy. In this case, Jones says one thing, and then the legal scholar(S) present a list of reasons why his opinion is flawed. Somewhere, at some point, I hope to see a response that renders those reasons invalid or confirmed. Until then, I judge both based on which makes the most sense as arguments. As such, the critiques of these scholars demonstrate that Jones did NOT use sound reasoning. So far, in my reading of his opinion, it does look to be the case. Should I finish the boring exercise, I might not feel that way. Doesn't look like I will at this point. Sue me.
In the meantime, remember that you offered Jones' ruling as if it was the be all and end all regarding whether or not ID is science theory. The point being, if the discussion is whether or not ID id scientific theory, Jones, who admits he is an activist, has rendered an opinion with which other legal scholars find fault. In other words, without responding to the critiques, his opinion has no value on the subject.
More importantly is that learned individuals like yourselves have likely not read the decision for yourselves, have read it but aren't learned enough to spot the flaws in his reasoning, or refuse to acknowledge them as important if doing so renders his opinion as valid. Instead, you throw a tantrum about me throwing a tantrum.
"If it provides a unique contribution to the literature, if it's conclusions follow from the evidence presented, if the methods are sound, then it will likely get published. Those are the only 3 criteria the the 4 journals I review for ask me to consider when I review submissions."
Alan,
Assuming you make every effort to be as objective as possible for the sake of truth and knowledge, it is still a matter of your opinion as to whether a submitted article complies with those criteria, isn't it?
"You ask the question: could all of the reviewers of all the journals in the world be disingenuous?"
I did not. And I even went back to all my comments above to be sure I wasn't having a senior moment and I couldn't find any such question. Why am I expected to remain civil when such obvious tactics are being used?
My comments only suggest that you two are too willing to comply with anything that supports your position, while I simply question that which does not seem solid. It does not matter my own level of expertise. Indeed, my lack of it justifies my questions and demonstrates my willingness, my eagerness to learn. You two assume evil intent right off the bat. But when I wonder about your complete and utter faith in the review process, I get heat. I have pointed to it before, but the Wiki description of peer review has its own section that justifies any suspicion on appeals to reviews, journal publishing and the like. There are plenty of supporting links to go with it.
So, the following...
"Then you decide (without evidence) that the answer is "Yes, it is possible" then you decide that, since it is possible, it is probable."
Is shear strawman in that you are deciding what I have decided. Again, my point is that YOU do not allow for any shenanigans on the part of the scientific world as regards their willingness to objectively review that which might conflict with their understandings or of the mainstream understanding of any given issue. You assume complete and utter unvarnished and sincere objectivity and thus, no paper that is rejected is ever rejected for reasons not completely honest. That's more faith in the scientific community than any rational human being has any reason to possess.
Once again, I offer the Wiki article as my evidence that the process is not without flaw and within that article are links that go deeper into the subject of those flaws. You do indeed have faith in the process because you want to believe that it is without stain, both unintentional or otherwise.
"Again, all I'm asking for is for evidence of what would be a massive conspiracy on an international scale involving hundreds of thousands of people."
Why are you asking me? I did not suggest a conspiracy at all. And are there really "hundreds of thousands of people" that would be reviewing every submission for publication? You're playing with numbers again to lend more credence to your position. But it is quite clear that there is a huge issue in the scientific community as regards the existence of God or a supreme intelligence that results in immediate dismissal of anyone who suggests a designer, regardless of what he brings to support the proposition. Do you deny this?
On top of that, ID theory is relatively new. It's still in its infancy. Most ID proponents acknowledge they lack the substance to stand on equal footing with other more established theories. None of this means it isn't either science or scientific theory rather than religion in disguise.
Here's the problem as I see it: the existence of God will always be in conflict with the scientific community because they cannot allow for His existence. He is beyond the reach of their tools and equations. He is beyond measuring and testing. Because of this they want no part of Him and any suggestion that He played a role in creation cannot be tolerated. Thus, ID will long be demonized as fantasy and superstition without any sincere scrutiny. What gets me is that I can't see how it matters to what scientists are doing now. Where is the real threat? The only question now put forth by ID proponents is why is does no designer=science and designer=religion?
"BTW, I'm not sure what the "financial gain" angle is here."
Is it not true that some research is supported by funding and that if the research yields no fruit, the funding stops? Is it not also true that some researchers who are considered the top of their field profit by being so? If either of these is true, the profit motive is clear. Any threat to standing or to the viability of research would threaten also the incomes of those involved. A professor would not be valued as highly if the field in which he leads undergoes a shift to a new/better way of understanding the field. We know that viable ideas lead to funding from the venture capitalists, governmental bodies and educational institutions. Bad ideas don't get funding. Newer and better ideas divert funding from older and lesser ideas.
"Also, I'm still confused why someone being an atheist would have any relevance to the global warming debate."
I've no idea. My questions were in relation to ID, weren't they?
I seem to detect a bit of confusion here. Judge Jones wrote a legal decision regarding the legal status of a law requiring the teaching of Intelligent Design in a Pennsylvania school district. The question before the court was simple: Was Intelligent Design a religious doctrine rather than a scientific theory? If so, was requiring the teaching of Intelligent Design a violation of the First Amendment establishment clause?
Alan is asking about publication in professional journals for scientists, not legal opinions on the constitutionality of laws.
As for "It's just your opinion, isn't it?" question: No. There are standards and guidelines that need to be met for a paper to reach a particular threshold of acceptability. Certainly there will be disagreements over marginal cases (my sister reads for a couple biological journals, and I have heard some stories), and, as Alan said, the system isn't perfect.
So, separating out these two very different things, let me ask two unrelated questions. First, in regards the Pennsylvania Intelligent Design case: Since Judge Jones reviewed all the relevant literature, including that written by proponents and creators of Intelligent Design that explicitly state it is nothing more than a repackaging of creationist claptrap, how is it possible for Judge Jones to say anything other than what he did? Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Creationism, no matter what anyone calls it, isn't science.
Both Alan and I have written in the past that the process of professional publication is certainly far from perfect; it is also, surprise surprise, by and large free from coercion, manipulation, and certainly the lure of financial gain.
Since you demonstrate by your continued carrying on you have no idea what you're talking about, let me ask you this, Art: What possible benefit would any scientist have, under the system that now exists, for perpetuating a decades-long fraud that you seem to think is contrary to publicly available evidence? Do you really think it possible that, given the fact that methods, evidence, and process being made public as they are, scientists are just stupid? Can't do the jobs they're trained to do, enjoy doing? Because that certainly seems a plausible explanation, at least from your perspective.
I'm not sure you really answered my questions, MA, so I'll try rephrasing them.
Can you please explain the process of getting science from the germ of an idea to publication. Who does the work, how is it funded, how is it reviewed, who publishes it, who financially supports the research, who financially supports the publications, etc.
I'm still not sure how what you perceive as funding issues (eg. people get funding for research, and if they don't get results they don't get funding) has anything to do with the review process for publication. So, what is the relationship between what you perceive as the funding process and the review process for publication?
I'm not playing games with numbers, MA. I'm pointing out that every article gets reviewed, usually by 3 or 4 independent reviewers, in addition to the journal editors. You misunderstood if you thought I was saying that every article is reviewed by thousands of people, as that isn't what I said, nor what I implied. Instead, I was pointing out that, because of the thousands and thousands of articles published in thousands of journals every year, and given that all those articles are reviewed, there would have to be a massive conspiracy among all of them in order to keep ID publications out. You haven't suggested such a conspiracy, but it is the ONLY option for all those people to keep all those journals from publishing actual scientific evidence for ID. Do you have an alternative theory for how it could be possible that ID articles, if they exist, have been prevented from being published in peer reviewed journals, if not a massive conspiracy?
Again, I do not have faith that this process works. I know it works. I know that because I have utilized the scientific literature for years and years in order to inform my own research, as has everyone else I know. I know it works because science progresses, and if the entire process was as flawed as you imply, we would never have the scientific progress we see year after year.
Are there examples of when the process breaks down? Yes, I never said it was perfect. But the fact that we know about these examples demonstrates that it is still self-correcting. In fact, that those examples are well known, in fact, supports my contention that it is overwhelmingly useful and trustworthy.
So, you say I have "faith" in the process. I explain that I do not, and explain why, and then you simply repeat your contention that I have "faith" in the process. What is your purpose in simply denying anything I write? I'm remaining civil here, perhaps you can try to do the same, when something is clearly explained to you?
I would still like to hear more about your understanding of funding. You appear to think that funding works like a business for academic scientists (the majority of publlishing scientists.) Can you explain that in more detail, because so far it isn't clear to me that you understand how a primary investigator at an academic institution gets paid. You do realize they're salaried employees, right? They get a yearly salary, regardless of their funding level. Anyway, some answers to these questions would be interesting to read.
If the funding thing is too general, MA, let's be very specific. I'm an academic scientist with grants. Please explain how I get paid and how my work, if successful, would reap me financial gain.
" He is beyond the reach of their tools and equations. He is beyond measuring and testing..."
What would be the scientific evidence for a designer if he is beyond measuring and testing?
Perhaps I misread what you mean here, but it seems to me you have just made our case for us, completely and concisely.
On another thread elsewhere, Art insists that I actually hold particular beliefs that I have not only categorically stated I do not hold, but I insist no one holds them, and I also said they are crazy. Yet, Art says that I do, in fact, hold these particular beliefs.
Why?
Because, apparently.
Language is like an elementary particle for Art. It is both meaningful and meaningless at the same time.
Well, I decided, in the interest of proving once again that I'm willing to engage with him when he remains civil to give him one pass on telling me that I have faith in something that I have catagorically stated I don't have faith in. We'll see if he wants to continue having a conversation or not.
... Or not, I guess.
Post a Comment