Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Draft of anti-ID letter to the editor
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 17 (409557)
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


I'm attempting to reply to a pro-ID letter in the Duluth, Minnesota newspaper. Here is my first (rough!) draft. Suggestions? Remember, I want to keep this pretty short and concise.
In reply to the Dan Erickson letter printed in the July 8th edition:
The quality of intelligent design theory is thin at best.
Many intelligent design (ID) proponents do not state who the designer is. But the possibilities seem to come down to either God or extraterrestrial aliens. I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of the former. The Raelians would be an example of the later.
ID proponents range from young Earth creationists (YECs) to varieties of old Earth evolutionists. My experience, from on-line debates, is that YECs will grasp at any concept that seems to go against the hated concept of evolution, regardless of how contrary to YECism it may be.
Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry and professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is an example of the evolutionist variety of IDer. He is on record as accepting the ancient (4.45 billion year) age of the Earth, the bulk of the theory of evolution (ToE), and that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor. He, in my opinion, is the one who has forwarded the most coherent biological argument for ID. But that argument is but one of “God of the gaps”. That is, there are allegedly details in evolution that evolutionary theory can not adequately explain, which requires the input of a designer. In other words, the designer has to some degree influenced the pathways of evolution.
Mr. Erickson notes that “A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agree that ”human beings were created directly by God.’” Sorry, but scientific study of “the creation” strongly indicates that those people are wrong.
References/further reading:
The Discovery Institute
Discovery Institute - Wikipedia
Michael Behe -
Michael Behe - Wikipedia
The Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case -
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia
The Of Pandas and People book:
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia
Moose

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Parasomnium, posted 07-10-2007 7:15 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 07-10-2007 8:01 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 8:53 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2007 9:52 AM Minnemooseus has replied
 Message 6 by Percy, posted 07-10-2007 10:08 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 8 by Max Power, posted 07-10-2007 1:15 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 13 by Nighttrain, posted 07-11-2007 7:52 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 2 of 17 (409565)
07-10-2007 7:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


Some suggestions
Moose writes:
Many intelligent design (ID) proponents do not state who the designer is. But the possibilities seem to come down to either God or extraterrestrial aliens. I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of the former. The Raelians would be an example of the later.
To preclude any misunderstanding about what you want to say, my suggestion here would be:
"I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of those who promote the former. The Raelians would be an example of proponents of the latter." (My additions in bold; thanks, Mike, for "latter".)
[Behe], in my opinion, is the one who has forwarded the most coherent biological argument for ID. But that argument is but one of “God of the gaps”. That is, there are allegedly details in evolution that evolutionary theory can not adequately explain, which requires the input of a designer. In other words, the designer has to some degree influenced the pathways of evolution.
Minor quibble about the sentence in bold: two buts is ugly. Better would be:
"But his argument is still one of "the God of the Gaps" (Some more embellishments also in bold.)
Mr. Erickson notes that “A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agree that ”human beings were created directly by God.’” Sorry, but scientific study of “the creation” strongly indicates that those people are wrong.
I'd leave out "Sorry, but". First, there's no need to apologize for the results of science, and second, I think it weakens the power of the argument.
You might also want to point out that the truth about the nature of existence is not a matter of majority opinion.
References/further reading:
Include something by Dawkins?
Edited by Parasomnium, : added paragraph about "Sorry, but"
Edited by Parasomnium, : "latter"

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 17 (409567)
07-10-2007 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


4.55 billion years.
OK letter, but look for the last sentence to cause people to fire up their pens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 4 of 17 (409570)
07-10-2007 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


The latter letter later
Well, aesthetically, I can only see that you spelt "latter" as "later". Or did you mean later? Or am I wrong? Other than that, I'd say it's as succinct as it can be.
As for agreement/disagreement with what you said in the letter, I assume that's not what you're interested in. But I'm tempted to say that one of the only Theistic-argument/s I see as having worth are also the one/s you seem to be promoting somewhat.
If I were to reply to your letter, I'd say that a better conclusion for Theists, would be to infer that there is some sort of intelligence either within nature itself, or from an inexplicable source.
We seek an inexplicable intelligent source POSSIBLY. Well, we have intelligence in lifeforms, and entities (gods), therefore it's a lifeform or entity(gods).
We seek an inexplicable X.
A, B, and C have explicable X
Therefore it is A B or C. (Animal, god or alien).
As you can see, such reasoning is not sound, because by observation, what we are looking for is inexplicable and because we only relate intelligence to entities, doesn't mean that's the answer. The actual matter isn't that simple, as once again it could be that the impression of intelligence is an illusion, but at a deeper level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 12:32 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 17 (409573)
07-10-2007 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


Do you have a link to the letter that you're replying too?
Just curious.
I think your letter would be improved by the suggestions already provided. It looks good to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 8:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 6 of 17 (409579)
07-10-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


Is this the Duluth News Tribune? If so, I couldn't find the letter on-line. Their website seems to list very few letters.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 7 of 17 (409600)
07-10-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
07-10-2007 8:53 AM


Re: The latter letter later
mike the wiz writes:
If I were to reply to your letter, I'd say that a better conclusion for Theists, would be to infer that there is some sort of intelligence either within nature itself, or from an inexplicable source.
One of the problems with ID and creationism is that they are ideas which arise expressly from a belief in a transcendent entity. There are many possibilities conceivable by the imagination which would reconcile theism with evolution if we weren't bound by that theological conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 8:53 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 1:22 PM anastasia has replied

  
Max Power
Member (Idle past 6007 days)
Posts: 32
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Joined: 06-03-2005


Message 8 of 17 (409602)
07-10-2007 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


Not a scientific theory
I'm not sure what Mr. Erickson's intent was with his article, but one thing you left out was how ID is in no way scientific. It isn't falsifiable, has no predictive power, and doesn't add anything to the table as far as scientific inquiry goes. I gather that Mr. Erickson isn't trying to push it as a scientific theory though.
Otherwise I like it. It is straight to the point.
Max

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 17 (409604)
07-10-2007 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by anastasia
07-10-2007 12:32 PM


Re: The latter letter later
One of the problems with ID and creationism is that they are ideas which arise expressly from a belief in a transcendent entity.
Yes - that's a problem, as one can never infer that God is the cause of a thing it seems, as God will always be invoked posteriori. Therefore nobody can ever predict that an intelligence is at work without people thinking that the person is claiming that God did it.
But if there is a genuine cause to consider an intelligent agent of some sort, then the person's beliefs should not matter. A Theist can also not have an ulterior motive.
I, for example, consider myself a Theist, but I don't see that this intelligence necessarily has anything to do with God - as there could be a natural explanation, which there usually is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 12:32 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by anastasia, posted 07-10-2007 5:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
anastasia
Member (Idle past 5953 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 10 of 17 (409658)
07-10-2007 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by mike the wiz
07-10-2007 1:22 PM


Re: The latter letter later
mike the wiz writes:
Yes - that's a problem, as one can never infer that God is the cause of a thing it seems, as God will always be invoked posteriori. Therefore nobody can ever predict that an intelligence is at work without people thinking that the person is claiming that God did it.
People have always claimed that an intelligence was at work. History shows that the intelligence has been given many, many forms and names.
'The Christian God' is just the latest name, and to exlude that from being the 'I' in ID, is to start all over again in the evolution of theology. If the inexplicable is simply called 'God' we must, again, decide if the atributes of that God are natural, alien, immanant, or transcendent. Basically, because the Christian God arose from the conclusion of ID, there can be no Christian God Who is NOT intelligent and Who does NOT design.
Anyway, I started a thread which I thought was similar, but probably isn't. I won't clog up this one any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 07-10-2007 1:22 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 11 of 17 (409682)
07-10-2007 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2007 9:52 AM


The letter I'm replying to
I was unable to find the letter online. I also have not seen the letter it was replying to. The following is the letter as reproduced for the paper version:
Elvis analogy unsuited to intelligent design theory
The June 21 letter, “Intelligent design shouldn’t go near the science column,” implied that those who advocate for intelligent design are on an intellectual par with folks who claim to have sighted Elvis Presley. Yet the writer ignored the facts that no proponent of intelligent design believes in a “flat, geocentric world” and that only a small minority of intelligent design advocates are “young Earth creationists.” It’s also obvious that the writer’s Elvis-sighting analogy carried no weight. A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agreed with the statement that “human beings were created directly by God”. There are hundreds of scientists with earned PhD degrees who opt for intelligent design over neo-Darwinism.
What if the majority of Americans believed Elvis was still alive and even 10 police detective testified that the evidence convinced them that this was the case? No, it would not mean Elvis was really alive, but it would require those who disagreed with this claim to respond, not with mockery, but with rational argument.
In the same way, intelligent design cannot be dismissed by ridicule. Nor is it adequate to simply claim that intelligent design is no scientific because in considers more than a naturalistic explanation of origins. Intellectual honesty requires folks on both sides of this debate to acknowledge that very intelligent people disagree with them. The discussion should then continue with an effort to honestly weigh the evidence and discover the truth. This means refusing to make “a priori” assumptions which rule out certain conclusions, even supernatural ones.
Dan Erickson
Chisholm
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2007 9:52 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Parasomnium, posted 07-11-2007 3:10 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 07-11-2007 8:58 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2007 11:27 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 12 of 17 (409741)
07-11-2007 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 8:59 PM


Re: The letter I'm replying to
Moose,
In your draft you quote Erickson mentioning the Harris poll and respond with "Sorry, but scientific study of 'the creation' strongly indicates that those people are wrong."
But you didn't quote his following paragraph in which he says:
What if the majority of Americans believed Elvis was still alive and even 10 police detective testified that the evidence convinced them that this was the case? No, it would not mean Elvis was really alive, but it would require those who disagreed with this claim to respond, not with mockery, but with rational argument.
So in fact, he's not merely claiming that since a majority of American adults believe that human beings were created directly by God, it must therefore be true - as one might interpret it without the paragraph that follows it - but he's claiming that it should therefore be taken seriously and not ridiculed. That's quite a different argument, and he's got a point. You and I may not agree with it, but your rebuttal does not address Erickson's point.
You'd do well to change your letter and address Erickson's claim proper, instead of taking the, excusez-le-mot, shallow route.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 8:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 13 of 17 (409777)
07-11-2007 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 5:36 AM


Hardline
Hi, Moose. If the Harris poll is correct and 64% of adults are still wooly-headed, it`s time to forget the nice guy approach and hit them hard with facts that MIGHT cause them to start thinking. Sabotaging their foundations could improve those percentages.
Should there be an intelligent designer, then he/she/it deserves no respect, having created millions of species that couldn`t withstand five major extinctions, often are poorly constructed so spend their lives restricted, or in pain, have little or no defences against the ID`s diseases, are sustained almost completely by another life form (bacteria), and, in the case of mankind, resort to fantasies to cope with reality. Only an Incompetent Designer would fill the bill. If there was one. For which little evidence exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 5:36 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-11-2007 10:28 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 14 of 17 (409785)
07-11-2007 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2007 8:59 PM


Re: The letter I'm replying to
I don't think you're directly addressing all the points Erickson raises. Some of his points are more obvious than others, these are the key points I think he's making:
  1. The "detectives with Elvis evidence" argument is an analogy to what he believes is the situation for ID. He believes that legitimate scientists have identified evidence for ID, and that the possibility and its evidence should therefore be given serious consideration.
    You sort of indirectly allude to this point about the supporting evidence for ID, but don't directly address it. It might be worth mentioning that ID isn't an idea given any serious consideration by legitimate scientists, and that it isn't true that there are some scientists out there with convincing evidence of ID.
  2. When Erickson says, "Intellectual honesty requires folks on both sides of this debate to acknowledge that very intelligent people disagree with them," he's attempting to give the impression that there's a a legitimate difference of opinion within scientific circles. I think it would be a good idea to point out that the difference of opinion is not within science, but stems from a rejection by Christian evangelicals of evolution.
  3. When Erickson says, "The discussion should then continue with an effort to honestly weigh the evidence and discover the truth," he's making an appeal to people's sense of fairness. He's saying that the right and fair thing to do when there's a difference of opinion is to objectively examine both sides.
    The reply to this point is that it must first be asked if such an examination is warranted. For example, you could pose the rhetorical question of how examining the ID/evolution disagreements is more legitimate than examining the spherical earth/flat earth disagreements. After all, ID and flat earth are alike in their near total lack of supporting evidence.
  4. When Erickson says, "This means refusing to make “a priori” assumptions which rule out certain conclusions, even supernatural ones," he's questioning the fundamental definition of science as studying the natural world. Evolution is science because it brings the same naturalistic perspective to our study of the universe as does physics and chemistry. Adding supernatural possibilities to a theory means it isn't science anymore.
  5. Perhaps what is most important is what Erickson doesn't say. Unrecognized by many on the science side is the chasm that Dover opened up between creation science and ID. Before Dover, creation science and ID were in an uneasy alliance. ID's acceptance of much of traditional science aroused much discomfort among creation science adherents, but creation science's legal defeats combined with ID's apparent and growing successes persuaded the creation science faction to maintain a polite silence, believing that if ID ultimately succeeded, then creation science and ID could have a polite discussion among themselves to settle differences.
    Dover blasted this uneasy truce to smithereens, and the plain fact is, Discovery Institute aside, creation science adherents vastly outnumber ID adherents, primarily because ID is insufficiently bound to Biblical folklore.
    So the important point to make is that ID isn't even the theory of choice for most evangelical Christians.
Because Erickson introduces the foundation of ID's stance into the debate, a response is an opportunity to expose in a broad and sweeping way ID's intellectual poverty and inherent dishonesty. Post your next revision and let's give it another review so that ID is on the receiving end of the most high caliber ammunition we're capable of delivering. In fact, you might even sign it:
Your name here
EvC Forum
I don't know your newspaper's position on very long letters, but you might be surprised at what can happen. A few years ago in a local school board dispute I wrote a very lengthy letter to the editor. They gave it column status and it took up the entire bottom half of the Sunday editorial page. If you work on something hard enough and give it sufficient quality, it might be printed regardless of the length.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2007 8:59 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 17 (409793)
07-11-2007 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Nighttrain
07-11-2007 7:52 AM


Re: Hardline
Only an Incompetent Designer would fill the bill
Intellegence and competence are not mutually exclusive.
Should there be an intelligent designer, then he/she/it deserves no respect, having created millions of species that couldn`t withstand five major extinctions, often are poorly constructed so spend their lives restricted, or in pain, have little or no defences against the ID`s diseases, are sustained almost completely by another life form (bacteria), and, in the case of mankind, resort to fantasies to cope with reality.
You're just labeling those things as "bad". Maybe that is the best way for things to have happened. We don't know if they're good or bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Nighttrain, posted 07-11-2007 7:52 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024