About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

The next step of Intelligent Design theory

I was waiting with trepidation to learn what ID proponents would be up to after the debacle last year at the Dover, PA trial. Predictably, I didn't have to wait long. A recent article in New Scientist has introduced the world to the Biologic Institute (get the pun? Bio-Logic??), based in Seattle and funded by the Discovery Institute, the major ID so-called “think” tank.

The goal of the Biologic is to provide laboratory evidence of the impossibility of evolution, as well as empirical support for Intelligent Design. Good luck to you, guys. In reality, of course, the goal is simply to provide ammunition to rebut one of the most damning statements in Judge John Jones's decision at Dover: “[in addition to its religious undertones, ID has not] been the subject of testing and research [and it has not] generated peer-reviewed publications.” Hence, it ain't science.

The work going on at Biologic is so secretive that nobody there would speak to a New Scientist reporter, and when one of the directors, George Weber, finally did, he was immediately fired! Hmm, a splendid example of academic openness and freedom of intellectual debate, no doubt. Weber isn't a scientist, not surprisingly, but a former professor of business and the head of Reasonstobelieve.org – clearly the sort of credentials one would expect from the director of a scientific “research” institute.

Weber told the New Scientist reporter that “We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design.” Yes, you might call it that, or you might more appropriately call it a thinly veiled exercise in public deception. “The objective” -- Weber continued -- “is to challenge the scientific community on naturalism.” Except, of course, that naturalism is a philosophical position, so Weber should really be challenging the likes of Daniel Dennett, not the intellectual descendants of Charles Darwin.

Steve Fuller, a sociologist who testified in favor of ID at Dover (why a sociologist, and not a scientist? Nobody has ever denied that ID is a fascinating phenomenon from a sociological standpoint!) said about what Biologic is doing: “Regardless of whether the science cuts any ice against evolution, one of the virtues is that it could provide a kind of model for how religiously motivated people can go into the lab.” Are you kidding me? In other words, who cares if the so-called science is crap, it's ok because it makes religious people feel good about playing scientists!

Of course, none of this is really new stuff. The Institute for Creation Research, a young-earth creationist propaganda machine, has been in operation since the '70s, and it has produced volumes on topics such as “flood geology,” the difficult problem of making enough space for all animals on Noah's Ark, and the ever-popular documentation of humans and dinosaurs living at the same time (or was that a cartoon series for kids? I get confused with these scholarly sources). None of this has helped because it's the same sort of science-looking smokescreen that supporters of pseudoscience have always used, from astrologers to spoon-benders. And it's not going to work at Biologic for the same exact reason: it ain't science, baby.

19 comments:

  1. Bio-Logic's pseudoscientific results will work in the minds of IDers. The same way Michael Behe is a genius. Once their 'lab' is 'producing' results we'll no doubt have them thrown at us, like a bad lawyer yelling Ah! Ha! in court. They want the Perry Mason moment they were denied in Dover. Then they'll whine that the establishment or "the man" is keeping them down when their results are torn apart by real science.

    When I asked about your new book at the bookstore as well as "Tales of the Rational", the clerk said she really liked my taste in reading. I'll invite you to the wedding. Happy Holidays, Massimo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm counting on that wedding invitation, don't let me down... :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hear the Bio-Logic lab has a large order in for mirrors and smoke machines from a theatrical supply house. Me thinks that's in keeping with their track record.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This new endeavor is a terrific example of the wasted time and energy that people like Sam Harris talk about. How nice it would be if such people could put their energy and money - lots and lots of money - into something legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So the idea is to prove what happened didn't happen? That should work out. I guess they plan to test whether certain proteins can self organize into more complex structures. How is this anything but a test of certain ideas about evolutionary processes? Whatever the results I don't see how it defaults to positive evidence for intelligent design.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the Purpose of the Biologic Institute is to adduce positive evidence for a designer, then they seem to be doomed methodologically. At the very least, they would be forced to specify characteristics and attributes of the Designer. They are universally loath to do this, because the religious conservatives would see it as limiting God.

    If their purpose is to show that evolution by natural means is impossible, then they are trying to prove a negative. In that case, they are doomed logically. The best they can do is to show gaps in knowledge, that could---and probably will be--filled later.

    When I was in law school a very long time ago, there was a cynical maxim about trying cases: "When you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you have the law on your side, pound the law. When you have neither, pound the table." The Discovery Institute has been doing a lot of table-pounding recently. The Biologioc Institute may be an attempt to recover a few "facts" having public-relations value among politicians. Richard Bailey compares the Biologic Institute to the infamous Tobacco Institute, at http://www.reason.com/blog/117318.html

    ==Olorin

    BTW: The Cobb County case just settled in Georgia. The school district is barred from using any type of "controversy" stickers in their science texts. Yet another legal loss for DI.

    ReplyDelete
  7. O: "The best they can do is to show gaps in knowledge, that could---and probably will be--filled later."

    And one of the best known and fairly stated facts is that neither "camp" was there at the beginning of time and of the universe. therefore filling in the gaps is a problem no matter what ideological twist on origins one favors.

    There are things (by nature of our understanding of God) that God cannot do:

    He cannot Lie. He cannot Learn. He cannot make us love Him.

    So according to scripture, he imposes limits on Himself for our own good so that we can both learn about the nature of reality and love Him and others freely. To even have the ability to "choose" evolution is evidence of God's love for man and his power over the will of man.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  8. >>When I asked about your new book at the bookstore as well as "Tales of the Rational", the clerk said she really liked my taste in reading. I'll invite you to the wedding. Happy Holidays, Massimo.<<

    Yea, Happy New Year too and all that. I was talking to you after class last week about your book (remember, you told me about Michael Moore's book being censored and the librarians taking charge and all that), and I just wanted to let you know that MAKING SENSE OUT OF EVOLUTION is actually at Borders bookstores (at least the one on 347 in Stony Brook). It is also probably the MOST expensive paperback in the entire store! 26 bucks! ouch, hopefully your next book will be marketed like a regular hardcover--it would be so exciting to walk in to the store and see a book of yours on the table next to Chrichton and Dan Brown(well, maybe a bit removed from Dan Brown...)

    Anyways, on the subject of the post, I am having a drawn out argument with an internet blogger who insists that Judge Jones Plagairized his decision from the ACLU. He points to some investigation done by the discovery institute that you can find here:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/study_shows_federal_judged_cop.html

    Also, William Dembski seemed to trumpet the idea on Richard Dawkins website, which you can find here:
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,428,Christmas-Present-to-Defenders-of-Darwinism,William-A-Dembski

    Have you heard anything about this MP? What do you think? Bunk?

    -KEC

    PS, I agree with you more and more. Science and Science education is serious business, and it's quite obvious that ID advocates are not simply looking to have a one-day discussion of, say, Michael Behe's theory of Irreducible Complexity in a HS bio class (which, honestly, I really wouldn't have a huge problem with, if it was presented accurately, and the opposite side presented as well...), most of them want an entire science curriculum based around biblical teaching, which would be an utter travesty, and hence (as a future teacher), now take the position that no ground should be ceded.

    ReplyDelete
  9. KEC,

    I didn't realize that "Making Sense" is being ditributed to major bookstores. I know Chicago Press can do that, in terms of financial muscles. The steep price is because it's a rather technical book, so they don't expect to sell a lot...

    As for creationist conspiracy theories, I don't really care where Judge Jones got his wording (incindentally, to use phrases that appear in "amicus curiae" briefs isn't exactly "plagiarizing"). The point is that a conservative judge declared ID a travesty, from both a scientific and a religious point of view. I guess after a devastating defeat like that one has to come up with _some_ excuse to save face...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cal,

    So according to scripture, he imposes limits on Himself for our own good so that we can both learn about the nature of reality and love Him and others freely. To even have the ability to "choose" evolution is evidence of God's love for man and his power over the will of man.


    I was so overwhelmingly disagreeable with the above statement and wrote this in response:

    To even have the ability to "choose" evolution is evidence of God's love for man and his power over the will of man.


    As far as I know, I fought other humans(who think they know best as their knowledge came from God{so they claimed}) to maintain my right to "choose".

    'To even have the ability', we are all born with abilities(like birds, they have the ability to fly), right? And from that, we made choices in life.

    If God imposes limit on himself, by that He had "severed" his "ability" and thus he has limits that He can't surpasses anymore.

    But..., I admit I was floored by this statement of yours:

    "(by nature of our understanding of God)"

    Good defence! You should study Law.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I have to admit that CAL has the most vivid, imaginative mind of anyone who posts on this site. I used to dislike her posts intensely, but now I can't wait to read her next religious apologia. She is an original!

    ReplyDelete
  12. To even have the ability to "choose" evolution is evidence of God's love for man and his power over the will of man.

    Sorry to be contrary, but I just don't get that line of "proof". How is it any different than me saying that "The ability to choose evolution is evidence to the Flying Spaghetti Monter's love..."? Either way, we are ascribing blessings we may not have (there is a perpetual assault on free will by neuroscientists) to an arbitrary being we have no evidence for? Just doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  13. www.doesgodexist.org
    Please visit this site. The author was a former atheist who became a Christian after trying and failing to refute biblical facts through science. Take care. =)

    ReplyDelete
  14. One word for that pathetical attempt in the "Practical man's proof...": strawman. (is that really ONE word? oh, well) Please, try harder next time as to at least make it interesting reading...

    J

    ReplyDelete
  15. www.doesgodexist.org
    Please visit this site. The author was a former atheist who became a Christian after trying and failing to refute biblical facts through science. Take care. =)


    I honestly cannot tell if that suggestions is supposed to be a joke. After a few minutes at the site, I left because I could feel myself getting dumber. I would rebut the claims myself, but I would just be repeating what philosophers have been saying for a couple thousand years, so I will refer you to them. If that is the best "science" that Christians have, I am very very happy to call myself an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. cal said: To even have the ability to "choose" evolution is evidence of God's love for man and his power over the will of man.

    to which chris said: Sorry to be contrary, but I just don't get that line of "proof". How is it any different than me saying that "The ability to choose evolution is evidence to the Flying Spaghetti Monter's love..."? Either way, we are ascribing blessings we may not have (there is a perpetual assault on free will by neuroscientists) to an arbitrary being we have no evidence for? Just doesn't make sense."

    Chris,
    I can think of two verses in particular which show evidence that by God’s providence an individual's freewill is mostly his alone to make of what he wants.

    Deu 30:19 "Today I have given you the choice between life and death, between blessings and curses. I call on heaven and earth to witness the choice you make. Oh, that you would choose life, that you and your descendants might live! (NLT) BLUE LETTER BIBLE

    Jer 21:8 "Now you shall say to this people, 'Thus says the LORD: "Behold, I set before you the way of life and the way of death." (NKJV)

    And I think that in a society that is increasingly less free, (because of constant techno surveillance, some intentional some not) we become incredibly more aware of the fact that our choices really do matter. Some choices obviously lead us to a better and a more secure life, and some specifically will not. And could you not imagine if I were to often prompt my children to make the choices that gives them a reasonably good and happy life, that I must love them? In the above mentioned verses, it is all that God is prompting humankind towards.

    Life.

    It is also fascinating to me that the time that we happen to live in of increased knowledge, leads us away from an expansion of freedom or freewill.

    It makes me wonder why do more than a few people prefer a seemingly indifferent master instead of a moral one?

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dennis said... I have to admit that CAL has the most vivid, imaginative mind of anyone who posts on this site. I used to dislike her posts intensely, but now I can't wait to read her next religious apologia. She is an original!"

    ?

    Imagination is possibly the product of a random ,(semi-disorganized)mind I suppose. I'd often rather be more systematic and less random, but it hasn't dawned on me yet how to change that. :)

    Honestly tho, I noted a shift in the way I felt about things after my dad died last spring. When someone is not there any longer to affirm you no matter what stupid thing you might happen to do or say, it tends to change one's approach to life.

    That's all.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  18. See http://intelligent-design-hypothesis.com

    ReplyDelete
  19. http://intelligent-design-hypothesis.com

    This link is broken.

    www.doesgodexist.org

    Yep- same poor arguments. Though I notice the reader is quickly shunted over to the catalog to purchase more of the same. The prices aren't too bad (compared to similar drek), but it smells to me as though this guy believes more in the power of the dollar than he does in the power of god (whichever one he might publicly ascribe to...).

    cheers-

    Felicis

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.