Dishonesty and ID

---

Cobra_snake writes:
First of all, this statement constitutes a logical fallacy, that is, trying to discredit information by it's source. Secondly, I don't see how a statement that you wish to "destroy evolution" is an indicator of a lack of moral integrity. Perhaps you could inform me?

---

I agree with you. The desire to obtain an advanced degree as a means of disproving evolution does not appear to me to have any bearing on a person's moral composition.However, it does say something about Well's scientific detachment, since he had already made up his mind before beginning his investigation. Lack of scientific detachment doesn't automatically mean that someone's ideas are wrong, as is often said about Wells' ideas, but the history of science clearly indicates that the most successful scientists possess sufficient objectivity to simply follow the evidence where it leads, independent of their preconceived notions. It may be why older scientists are usually far less productive than their younger colleages, why most scientists make their contributions before age 40 - too many preconceived notions.Examining your link, in it Wells explains that while he was already a supporter of ID when he entered graduate school, he also accepted the Darwinian idea of common descent. He relates how his studies revealed to him the insufficiency of the evidence supporting the theory of common descent.In a strict scientific sense he's wrong about this insufficiency, since science only considers the natural world. But Wells universe includes the supernatural, and if supernatural intervention must be considered as one of the forces of nature, then given the complexities of common descent, supernatural intervention should be placed right near the top of the list of possibilities to consider.Unfortunately for Wells, there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural. Hence his ideas are unscientific.--Percy

cravingjava: I’d like to take a moment to parse some of the statements Sen. Santorum has made in the article you linked to. These few paragraphs appear to me to be the essence of his arguments. If there are others you feel are (more) germane, feel free to cite them for discussion.

quote:

---

The theory of intelligent design, which predates ancient Greece, contends that nature shows tangible signs of having been created by a pre-existing intelligence.

---

Besides the obvious rebuttal that we’ve learned a heck of a lot about the natural world since the ancient Greeks, and the minor fact that Sen. Santorum doesn’t see fit to mention any of these signs, the fundamental problem with ID (and creationism in general) is that it is and always will be a philosophical essentialist position. This is the idea that all the seemingly variable elements in nature can be sorted into invariable classes based on an undefined but real essence that is the property of each phenomenon or object. This essence is constant — a triangle is always a triangle, a horse is always a horse (defined by the characteristics of horse-ness). Each kind, each type, each species was separately created and all living species are descendents of the first pair created at the Beginning — a natural kind. One of the reasons to lump IDists with theistic creationists is that ID borrows heavily (and in fact indistinguishably) from biblical essentialism, even in the terminology they use (e.g. baramin = bara min = created kind). Where ID departs slightly from strict essentialism is the use of philosophical finalism, or the idea that evolution has moved from lower to higher, from primitive to advanced, from simple to complex, from imperfect to perfect. (Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, pg 75) By definition, finalism requires the existence of some intrinsic force or drive toward a definite goal (or at least higher perfection or complexity). Sen. Santorum — or any other creationist - has failed to provide any of the so-called tangible signs or evidence of the existence of such an essence or force in nature. If they had, then it might, in fact, be scientific. Philosophical musings are not science. Without evidentiary support, essentialism and finalism are merely baseless speculations. Even some of the very best ID writing, such as Michael Denton’s Nature’s Destiny, cannot escape from its philosophical underpinnings (in fact the book is based on Denton’s view of the seeming directed perfection in nature a la best of all possible worlds argument).

quote:

---

This is in contrast to Charles Darwin's theory, which assumes all physical and material reality has gradually evolved through pure chance and natural selection, whereby the fittest members of each species survive and reproduce.

---

This, as any biologist will state, is the cartoon version of evolution. Evolution deals with the change in allelic frequency in a population of organisms over time. Period. To assert that Darwinian evolution has anything to do with all physical and material reality is the worst kind of strawman argument. Secondly, pure chance has nothing to do with Darwinian evolution (which Sen. Santorum comes back to in his argument concerning odds below). There is no chance involved, except in reference to random mutation. Even here, since mutation is caused by deterministic physical and chemical processes, chance doesn’t have much play. There are only limited numbers of biochemical changes that a gene can undergo. If this is chance, it is an exceptionally limited and constrained form of it. Finally, Sen. Santorum is apparently misunderstanding (and hence misstating) natural selection and its role in evolution. Natural selection, operating on the individual organism, has an effect on fitness only in terms of the population: it can weed out deleterious phenotypes, it can maintain evolutionary equilibrium, or it can provide impetus for evolutionary change — regardless of what happens to an individual organism. Darwin’s key insight was to note that, unlike the essentialist position, every living species is composed of numerous local populations, and that within these populations every individual organism is uniquely different from every other. Since not all individual members of a population will survive, there are aspects of this individual variation that may assist an individual organism to reproduce. Populations change (evolution) through natural nonrandom processes acting on the continuous production of these new variations in individual members of the population (natural selection). Survival of the fittest is highly misleading and not necessarily the case, except that NS can increase the marginal fitness of a population in a particular ecosystem over time. Living long enough to reproduce is how an individual organism defines fitness. You can have the most perfectly adapted organism the world has ever seen in its local population, but if it gets eaten before it reproduces its genotype it isn’t fit by evolutionary definition.

quote:

---

Critics of intelligent design, such as the newly formed Ohio Citizens for Science, claim that intelligent design is not a viable scientific theory and should not be taught in the classroom. They fear it is creationism in disguise, and hence, propagates religion in public schools.

---

I strongly doubt there is any fear involved. ID is NOT a viable scientific theory because it, as Peter put it, begins from a baseless foundation. There IS NO EVIDENCE ever produced by any ID proponent showing the existence or actual operation of a putative Designer. ID demands a priori acceptance of an undefined and indefinable entity (or entities) as a basis for ID. ID proponents spend their time attempting to demean and refute evolutionary biology, rather than developing the evidence necessary to support their own theory. When ID proponents finally do come up with evidence, they will have the right to demand at least a hearing. Until then, teaching ID or any other form of creationism in a science classroom is utterly inappropriate.

quote:

---

Despite a recent poll that shows overwhelming support for including the theory in the new teaching standards, these critics continue to resist its adoption.

---

This statement is pure, unadulterated argumentum ad populum fallacy. Science is not performed by popular vote. Science is based on persistent, continuous examination of evidence, and rigorous logical inference. The falsifiability of a scientific theory or hypothesis does not depend on whether or not non-scientists like it — or even understand it. I fault scientists for not making the basic ideas of their particular fields more accessible to the general public. God has a lot better publicist.

quote:

---

This opposition to intelligent design is surprising since there is an increasing body of theoretical and scientific evidence that suggests an alternate theory is possible.

---

Which, unfortunately, the ID proponents have neglected to make available to anyone. They have yet to provide any single piece of verifiable evidence for anything they state. The most that can be said about ID is that there are many writers who have provided numerous possible scenarios. Of course, possible in this case is akin to the possibility that the sun will go supernova tonight, or the possibility that the universe was formed last Tuesday and our memories were merely implanted to give the impression of longer time scales. Without evidence, possible is mere speculation. With at least some hard evidence to support the logic behind the possibility, at least a reasonable inference can be drawn. Whether or not the inference is, in fact, indicative of reality generally awaits further evidence. When enough converging lines of evidence point to the validity of a particular inference, it can (provisionally) be taken as real. Even so, it is not Truth, but rather an asymptotic approach to a description of reality. This epistemology is the basis of science — including evolutionary science. Too bad ID doesn’t have any evidence for its inferences.

quote:

---

Research has shown that the odds that even one small protein molecule has been created by chance is 1 in a billion. Thus, some larger force or intelligence, or what some call agent causation, seems like a viable cause for creating information systems such as the coding of DNA. A number of scientists contend that alternate theories regarding the origins of the human species including that of a greater intelligence are possible.

---

Nothing like cramming multiple fallacies into a single paragraph. Let’s see: origin of life (not evolution, hence false analogy), coupled with spurious statistical maunderings about chance (as opposed, of course, to the totally antichance action of natural selection), stating the conclusion (designer did it) as proof of the premise (designer did it), conflating information system and DNA (false analogy), and then ending with a complete non-sequitur on human origins. The whole, of course, provided under the thinly disguised umbrella of the standard ID/creationist argument from personal incredulity. Amazing.

quote:

---

Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes.

---

Somehow this conclusion doesn’t follow from anything Sen. Santorum has said. Nor, for that matter, from anything any ID/creationist has said.

quote:

---

In order to protect intellectual freedom in the classroom from the dangers of political correctness, I drafted an amendment to an education bill that emphasizes how students studying controversial issues in science, such as biological evolution, should be allowed to learn about competing interpretations. Teachers have a constitutional right to teach scientific controversies so long as the discussion is about science, not religion or philosophy. Teachers must teach these theories, even if some believe they have religious or philosophical implications. There is no reason to ignore or trivialize scientific issues involving controversial theories, regardless of their implications for religion or philosophy.

---

Nice special pleading. Actually, science teachers should teach scientific controversies. A stellar example would be an exploration of the evidence and disagreement between the proponents of strict gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, or the argument between the archosaur/thecodont and the dinosaur/theropod theories of bird evolution. I also concur that there is no need to trivialize controversial scientific theories. Too bad ID/creationism isn’t a scientific theory (something about lack of evidence, lack of testable hypotheses, unfalsifiability, lack of explanatory or predictive power, etc).On a lighter note: check out this link: Descent of Man. I especially like the modern synthesis.

Thanks Percipient for a very well-thought-out and reasonable reply.I'd also like to point out, though, that it is nearly impossible for a scientist to enter the fray without a preconcieved notion in an area of study such as evolution, which can be a very emotional issue.

​

[This message has been edited by Cobra_snake, 04-14-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I'd also like to point out, though, that it is nearly impossible for a scientist to enter the fray without a preconcieved notion in an area of study such as evolution, which can be a very emotional issue.

---

This is mostly true. However, it is also the reason that the 'scientific method' exists. Using this method makes it possible for an individual to 'weed out' his bias. Having other scientist with different backgrounds, and therefore different preconcieved notions, also come to the same conclusion, repeatedly, insures that no bias has 'skewed' the theory.------------------
compmage

Hi Cobra: I want to start out by saying that I agree with both you and Percy concerning the fact that attacking an individual or their credentials is not a valid argument. I do, however, feel constrained to point out that when an individual or his/her credentials are used as a basis (or one of the bases) for judging the validity of a claim made by that individual, then the credentials and/or individual motivations are fair game. An example would be if someone were to say, "Dr. Jonathan Wells, a PhD biologist, states..." (or words to that effect). In this type of "appeal to authority" case it is certainly germane to bring into question both Wells's scientific credentials and his motivations. Beyond that I agree the argument is spurious.TalkOrigins (as you might imagine) has a fairly comprehensive examination of "Icons of Evolution" here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

​

I'd also like to point out, though, that it is nearly impossible for a scientist to enter the fray without a preconcieved notion in an area of study such as evolution, which can be a very emotional issue.

---

I'm not sure I agree with this statement - at least as written. It certainly makes sense to me that an evolutionary biologist devoting his/her life to studying evolution would have an interest in promoting the science. I'm not sure how that equates to "preconceived notion". They are certainly willing to argue about the details of evolution - often passionately - but to conclude that there is some kind of bias that would preclude them from considering actual evidence is stretching it, don't you think?

quote:

---

It may be why older scientists are usually far less productive than their younger colleages, why most scientists make their contributions before age 40 - too many preconceived notions.

---

Nah, that's not why, Percy!!Don't most scientists get tenured at around age 40??Then the tenured scientist, like the sea squirt after it finds a secure place in the ocean and permenently attaches itself to a rock, eats it's own brain because it doesn't need it anymore.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
Nah, that's not why, Percy!!

​

Don't most scientists get tenured at around age 40??

​

Then the tenured scientist, like the sea squirt after it finds a secure place in the ocean and permenently attaches itself to a rock, eats it's own brain because it doesn't need it anymore.

​

---

JM: Allright now! I received tenure at one place and gave it up to come here. The year after I received tenure was my most productive (11 articles submitted/published). Furthermore, the notion that your biases hinder new ideas after 40 may be true in other fields, I'll let those people speak for themselves. In geology, there is a saying that the 'best geologist is the one who has seen the most rocks'---in other words, you get better with age. I do know that some people view tenure as an excuse to 'coast', but it is in the minority in science. It actually gives you more freedom to fight the status quo because (a) you've demonstrated you can do it; (b) there is little chance of stepping on someone's toes who might later deny you tenure and (c) you've see more rocks! My colleague next door is near 70, he is a member of the National Acadamy of Sciences, is tenured, and is one of the most active people in the department. No, I don't buy the 'tenure'=inactivity argument as a regular rule.CheersJoe Meert

Gee, Allison, I think we struck a nerve!Seriously, to all you professor types out there, tenured and untenured, the model I actually had in mind while I wrote about the productive years being before age 40 after which the mind becomes set with preconceived notions was quantum uncertainty and Einstein. Independent of whether you over-the-hill professors are still productive, that's pretty good company!--Percy

Percy,Actually, I got both the context and the tongue-in-cheek follow up. I just wanted to make sure that readers who didn't catch it would not leave here thinking that it is true. By the way, I've heard that in math and physics the 'age' has more relevance. Most math 'genuises' do their best work at a young age.CheersJoe Meert

"Hi Cobra: I want to start out by saying that I agree with both you and Percy concerning the fact that attacking an individual or their credentials is not a valid argument. I do, however, feel constrained to point out that when an individual or his/her credentials are used as a basis (or one of the bases) for judging the validity of a claim made by that individual, then the credentials and/or individual motivations are fair game. An example would be if someone were to say, "Dr. Jonathan Wells, a PhD biologist, states..." (or words to that effect)."I understand and agree with you. However, I'd like to point out that Creationists often brag about their credentials in order to dispel the myth that there are no credentialed scientists who do not follow the evolution world view."I'm not sure I agree with this statement - at least as written. It certainly makes sense to me that an evolutionary biologist devoting his/her life to studying evolution would have an interest in promoting the science. I'm not sure how that equates to "preconceived notion". They are certainly willing to argue about the details of evolution - often passionately - but to conclude that there is some kind of bias that would preclude them from considering actual evidence is stretching it, don't you think?"All I was referring to was the idea that it would be difficult for a normal person to begin studying the issue without a preconcieved notion. Generally, I person either starts out with the idea that "evolution is true" or "evolution is false". They may be very prepared to have their views changed, but beginning scientific study without a preconcieved notion in an issue with such emotional impact as evolution is surely not likely.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
but beginning scientific study without a preconcieved notion in an issue with such emotional impact as evolution is surely not likely.[/B][/QUOTE]JM: It's an emotional political issue. Scientifically, it is not an emotional issue at all.CheersJoe Meert

Cobra: Joe brings up an excellent point that I don't think has been explicitly stated before. From a scientific point of view, the idea of the reality of evolution is not an emotional issue (although the arguments over the details can get pretty lively). The ONLY people who come at the entire debate from a beginning, gut-level bias are those who feel the entire idea is an attack on their worldview - i.e., a certain segment of fundamentalist Protestant Christians, and to a lesser extent, fundamentalist Moslems. The "political emotion" Joe mentions has its roots in the religious side of the equation. Without the self-diagnosed "threat" to their religion, there would be no political issue.I will admit that evolutionists (and before anyone starts jumping on me for using that construction, Mayr uses the term extensively, so there ), are often passionate when debating anti-evolutionists. That does not mean that they consider evolution an emotional issue - only that they get emotional when confronted with continuous, repetitive, and often spurious or ludicrously inaccurate distortions and caricatures of the science to which they have devoted their lives. After the 50th time someone refutes a particular claim, they tend to get a bit, hmm, dogmatic in the reply. Human nature, in this case, IMO.As to the question of bias, I'd have to say in the sense I think you are using the term, you are probably at least partially correct. I highly doubt anyone who becomes an evolutionary biologist (or other scientist of that ilk - even including geologists ) starts out from a fundamentalist position. Not because they can't do the work or understand the concepts, but rather because the field very likely holds no attraction for them. Since the ranks of biology hold thousands of non-fundamentalist Christians, as well as adherents of all the other religions, it appears to me the only folks who are coming at the issue from an a priori bias are the fundamentalists.Just my $.02

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
Gee, Allison, I think we struck a nerve!

​

Seriously, to all you professor types out there, tenured and untenured, the model I actually had in mind while I wrote about the productive years being before age 40 after which the mind becomes set with preconceived notions was quantum uncertainty and Einstein. Independent of whether you over-the-hill professors are still productive, that's pretty good company!

​

--Percy

---

The sea-squirt joke is from my husband, who is All-But-Dissertation in Cognitive Neuroscience. He got it from one of his advisors, I think.It's probably best to explain things, so thanks, Joe.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by schrafinator:Then the tenured scientist, like the sea squirt after it finds a secure place in the ocean and permenently attaches itself to a rock, eats it's own brain because it doesn't need it anymore. [/B][/QUOTE]Well, thats not the case in the Biotech Industry. Everyone knows that it is the Marketing group that eats their own brains there PS, Yes I got the joke . Hey I turn 40 this year does that mean that I have to move to marketing and eat my own brain ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

I've been reading all these discussions for some time now and it is apparent there is very little concept of how to have an effective argument. If we are all arguing about evolution based on different definitions created by whoever feels they have some sort of superior knowledge to proclaim what Evolution is as a finality in the argument, than we will never come to any conclusive answers. For example, Quetzal commandeers the direction of the argument and proclaims that all evolution is is the "change in allelic frequency within in a population of organisms over time." I completely agree with him if that is all we are ever to say evolution is. Close this forum, good Mr. Quetzal has solved the problem.I am of the opinion though, that, if on forums or in real life we get together just to throw opposing viewpoints around without intending to come to a consensus we are all wasting a big amount of time. It would be more effective to argue on the basis of an accepted definition of what every one is talking about before we ever begin. If you cannot agree with the English on how to play rugby I suggest you never begin the game. In other words, I'm not saying the definition is accepted by the general public but by all the individual engaged in the discussion.Unfortunately, we define and redefine definitions on this forum because we do not, even the evolutionists, believe that Quetzal's definition is all evolution is. And correct me if am wrong about why everyone here disagrees with each other, but, it is because evolution is taken beyond that simple and misleadingly harmless definition given so eloquently to us by Quetzal, and it is transformed by researchers into a scientific basis (or so they hope) to back a philosophical finality. I say undeniably because I would hope we would all agree that if evolution as it was defined is used to explain origins of life, and its concepts are used to do this, than it excludes any sort of Deity. That obviously has some major implications. The "groundless" philosophical foundation accompanying evolution can come first, before before any hypothesis is formed or second, after the person feels they have information, it does not matter which, but I think it is this philosophical accompaniment that sparks the debate. That is why we do not have passionate mud slinging debates anymore about basic atomic structure. What sort of implications to humanity does that have? Does it explain who we are and why we are here? Of course not. For those of you who think I am pointing out the obvious please don't tell me so unless you have never attempted to define evolution according to whatever it is you believe and then argue from there.For the purposes of responding to Quetzal, I will agree completely on the definition. But what about the particulars? Does this "population" change in complexity of information or species? Is it always the population of the finch or the moth or whatever favorite example of evolution that is used? Or does it go from moth to something, it matters not what, that is more complex than the original creature? If this is how the population changes than, I fear we have found a place to disagree. I still have not seen any reputable evidence to show one organism has evolved into a more complex one. Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, the moths, the finch beaks, Haekel's embryos, the Miller-Urey expirment etc., have left me far to distrustful of the "ethics" behind evolutions "good science."I also agree that the kind of selection within a population that allows the animals with the best variations within that population to exist capitally, is quite true. However, it just doesn't go any farther than that. You say, Quetzal, that you are continually pointing out all sorts of wonderful information that proves evolution to be true. You are right, adaptations do show your definition of evolution within a population to be true. But only on the level of your definition. It goes no further than the population. No new populations of greater complexity come about from the variance in genetics within one species. No matter how long the time is.As far as time goes, it is pretty untestable to show evolution happens over humongous periods of time. Don't go spouting off the radio dating done by so and so, I assure you I have looked at it. And I am not interested in all the old examples given like the fascinating fossils that you know about showing all sorts of vestigials and neat looking teeth. The evidence for what I am asking is not there so far, and I'm sick of hearing about the old things. Show me new and undeniably true proof for that sort of occurence. Not some fabricated archaeoptryx or nice but fictional drawings of embryos. I want to see the real honest stuff to take your definition of evolution any further than what it is. Dogmatically, I think, is the word best describing the boring defenses against anyone's attacks on your evidence. All the evidence in the world will not convince a dogmatic follower of any religion, belief, theory, whatever, that they are wrong.Finally, the proof you call for in ID is for obvious reasons not accepted because it makes evolution false and forces us to be reminded of a creator. The hypothesis behind ID, which seems to have escapen everyone, is that there are systems in nature that can be found to contain complex, detailed, amounts of information, going beyond syntax and whatnot. If we are all to agree upon the Laws of Information than we must conclude these are evidences pointing towards a Deity. Information, so far as has been shown by nature, will never come from noninformation. It runs along the lines of refuting spontaneous generation of matter, which was probably held to dogmatically by it followers at the time as well. Show me the case then, because I would like to see it, where this law is broken and information comes from unintelligible irrational random processes. That is all ID is trying to point out. If the systems they discover are not examples of information pointing to an intelligent source than they are most definitely falsifiable. And anything that comes out of the original hypothesis, that is, that the system is laden with information, is likely to become falsifiable too.I get the feeling everyone thinks ID is trying to explain the nature of quarks or why it is that time slows with an increase of gravity. ID is not interested in research that answers questions regarding AIDs vaccinations or cancer cures. So naturally, it is not in the business of putting forward hypothesis within those areas. Stop expecting ID to try and answer all the particulars that evolutionists believe quite vainly that there theory can do. Its frankly ridiculous.-Gerhard

​

[This message has been edited by Gerhard, 05-10-2002]