National Post Column on ID

Let’s be intelligent about Darwin This is the lead to an column in one of Canada’s national newspapers. Elizabeth Nickson was the author. This is available online at Home | The National Post Home Page | National Post so I feel it is ok to copy here.With our twin election campaigns about to begin, Christian-bashing season is upon us again. Consider the faint possibility, however, that when you hear the words "right-wing ideologues," "backwards-leaning bigots," "fringe scientists" operating "on the margins," "uneducated," "illogical," and so on, that in fact, Christian and religious North America is engaged in serious intellectual inquiry, while mainstream academics and scientists are busy closing the gates of academic freedom. I know it's preposterous, but hold it in your mind, as a theory, say. For copy right reasons I will paraphrase the rest of the article:There is a paragraph about NY academy of sciences and the National Cener of Science Education attempts to kill the oppostion to Darwinism.There are then some column inches about how intelligent is growing in popularity and support. Of course, teaching both is put forward.
She says right on to this quote from the Discovery Institute. Our stategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.She does a bit of a rejection of reductive materialism and it’s dreary results.Then we find that there is growing controversy among scientists about the ability of natural selection or chemistr alone to explain the complexity of life.At this point we are half way through what amounts to a third of a page but there is no real meat yet.She suggests that many scientists are questioning and 100 scientists from such as MIT, Yale and Rice published a statement questioning the creative power of natural selection.
Then more suggesting that scientists are questioning Darwinism.
Then several paragraphs on the moral implications and how materialists rightly fear the intelligent design revolution because the realize that a moral revolution necessarily follows upon it. She comments on how frightening it would be for materialists if we posses an immortal soul.She then somehow gets on to Canada’s acceptance of the increasing discredited science of Kyoto.I am going to prepare an email response to this. Any comments would be appreciated. My basic thrust is that perhaps she has not gotten her facts straight but that it would be very interesting to see some of the details behind her claims. I would like to see some further discussion of the issues in the paper for what seems to be a very important topic.

​

The second part of the response should have, in my opinion, some specific facts for her to check. I’m pretty sure that we can pinpoint where she is getting her information (like the 100 scientists thing I hope).

I could not find the article at the link. It seemed it wanted me to register or something.That said I would love to help you rebut this bit o' tripe.I am extremely familiar with the Discovery Institute and their teachings. They do in fact have a list of 100 scientists who disagree with evolution. You can find their pdf file at (just look for the title about 100 scientists):
Center for Science and Culture | Discovery InstituteHere are some starting refutations:1) Those 100 scientists. 100 out of how many scientists? This is not a growing phenomenon within science as science, instead it is a phenomena of scientists being encouraged to embrace and express personal faith as if it is as valid as science research. Their argument basically boils down to "I can't figure it out, so it must be beyond comprehension, and therefore done by some supernatural intelligence greater than man".In the end this is simply a list of scientists with rather large egos, and some bad scientific habits. Look at the quote that is the catchphrase for their dissent. It is not that they have found explanations that are better, it is simply that they have found current mechanisms wanting. Well what about different mechanisms?Lynn Margulis, like the above scientists, found certain mechanisms wanting, but instead of throwing up her hands (for everyone else too it seems) she continued research and has found plausible new natural mechanisms. In fact, her once scoffed at theory of symbiosis has been given extremely large backing by finds within cells, and symbiosis provides a POWERFUL set of new mechanisms besides mutation and natural selection for what we see.Symbiosis in short, can be analogized to individuals growing into a city. The individual pieces find ways to coexists with each other including the physical demands of the other organisms. This forces a "creative" if "nonconscious" solution for those demands.2) Questioning Darwinism. There will always be questioning of "Darwinism". If she does not understand this then she is not doing a good job as a reporter. There is a difference between recognizing that species have changed over time, and agreeing what were the driving mechanisms. Darwin did not even address this, and that is at the core of dispute.For example, did she see anyone at Discovery Institute claiming species did not change over time? Or that they claimed ALL change was due to design?The difference between IDers and evos is the belief that SOME organic phenomenon must have been been designed, because mutation and change are not the best explanations.Unfortunately this excludes the possibilities of other mechanisms... like the ones proposed by Lynn Margulis. It is interesting to note how IDers avoid talking about her theories, and the most they will say is that hers is probably not true because her theory is "controversial" and "not accepted by most scientists". If that is not the pot calling the kettle black...Sure people question the current set of mechanisms for change. It might be important to note that more people question the ID explanation for mechanisms of change, then question the current set of mechanisms.3) "the moral implications and how materialists rightly fear the intelligent design revolution because the realize that a moral revolution necessarily follows upon it. She comments on how frightening it would be for materialists if we posses an immortal soul."Science does not deal in morality at all. But she and the IDers have missed the entire point. What does ID REALLY mean for morality?Let us for sake of argument say that ID is real. We find unquestionable proof that organisms have been designed. Does science then leave us? No.There would be no evidence for a soul, just because we were designed. The creator clearly designed us in this space-time continuum and no ability to perceive beyond that. So why would that suddenly become believable?As IDers state when trying to get funding, and their agendas pushed in the classroom, design does not say one thing or another about the creator. It could be one it could be many. And as I just mentioned, it could have just been physical beings creating other physical beings.This leaves us with no identifying moral message than we already had before. Any religion or Sci-Fi explanation could be equally good (though I would point out Biblical literalist interpretations would still be knocked down).About the only that we could do, if we wanted to draw moral conclusions from design, is to say we are as our creator wanted us. Without question we are designed to have sex. And in most cases, sex with many partners. We are prone (er I mean "designed") to lusting after many partners, and fantasies when we cannot get it in reality.Hmmmmm. I guess this says that open sexuality is morally good. And so is nudity because we weren't born (oops, designed) with folds to cover our sexual organs.The ID theorists have not thought the next step out very well. They seem to feel there is a moral component to having been designed which is the faith they hold. But the reality is quite the opposite.As an atheist, I am still not perturbed by the idea that humans may have been created or modified. Okey-doke I say. Even Watson Crick came up with the possibility of pan-spermia. My only fear is bad science, which is what ID is.ID jumps from a gap in mechanistic understanding, to a conclusion that their mechanism must be right, to a conclusion that their religious metaphysic must be right, to conclusion that their morality is right.Unfortunately for them, none of the conclusions above is right.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thank you I will definitly use that in a reply. I will post that here tomorrow await critism but want to send it no later than Monday.Thanks again.No you can't see it without registering. I have a paper copy of the whole thing. I've covered it pretty thoroughly I think (it isn't exactly meaty ).[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-07-2004]

Heheheh... I just realized something else you could add.While there may be over 100 scientists with questions about certain mechanisms, there are over 100 Xians who have accepted evolution over the Genesis account, or "mystical" creation events. In fact there are well over 100 Xians who have come to doubt Xianity completely.If the latter two cases should not phase Xianity, Xian theologians, or ID theorists, then why should the first case rock science (as some sort of significant trend as an indicator of truth)?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The exact statement was "We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."Obviously expressing skepticism is not necessarily questioning "Darwinism" or evolution. However, note that several known and important mechanisms (e.g. genetic drift and gene transfer) were left out of the statment; so it's quite possible for a firm believer in evolution to agree with the statement! As it says at Doubting Darwinism Through Creative License:

quote:

---

But did the scientists themselves object to evolution? Any of them? All of them? Or were some of them only questioning the importance of natural selection? Many scientists - including many associated with NCSE - could in good conscience sign a statement attesting to natural selection's not fully explaining the complexity of life!

---

If you haven't read it already. I reccomend that you read the entire page. I don't think they make their case answering those questions very well, but it's useful information.

Here is a third draft, I have mailed it off.Intelligent? About Darwin?Ms Nickson’s column of February 6th is, by it’s title supposed to be discussing evolutionary theory. Instead it seems to wander all over the place. I’ll try to constrain my comments so as not to wander quite as far.Her major points seem to be: The idea of intelligent design is growing in popularity. There is a growing controversy over Darwinism. Scientific knowledge leads to immorality and dreariness. And, finally, from out of nowhere, the Kyoto accord is brought into a column about evolutionary theory..I would enjoy a series in the paper on some of these issues. One supported by some actual research and facts. However, it is not at all clear the Ms Nickson has done any deep research.Her actually discussion of intelligent design is the smallest part of the column. She refers to intelligent design as a growing alternative to neo-darwinist evolutionary theory. This, she claims, is supported by the inability of evolution to create fundamentally new structures. However, there are, as yet, no structures that the ID proponents have been able to put forward that are demonstrably not amenable to evolutionary mechanisms. There appears to be no other support for what, I presume, was supposed to be the central issue of the column.It does appear that Ms Nickson, as does the Discovery Institute, is trying to break down the separation of church and state. There are individuals who feel threatened by the advance in our knowledge of the natural world. The February 6th column is an example of the kind of scatter-shot rants that result from this fear.She somehow connects rather disconnected things. For instance, scratch a Darwinist and you find a depressive. This seems to suggest that there is some connection between outlook on life and an understanding of science. Implied is the idea that knowledge leads to directly to a reduction in religious faith. While Ms Nickson may be depressed by learning things about our universe, many are not Since about 40% of practicing scientists are religious believers of one sort or another it seems her connection between knowledge and lack of faith doesn’t hold well. Since the majority of Christians also have no problem with their religious beliefs and what is known through science this fear on the part of some says a lot more about them and their faith than anything else.Since a great deal of her underlying feelings seem to be concerned with morality as it is affected by biological science I would have to ask her how she thinks intelligent design as a mechanism for evolution would change any moral conclusions. All we would have is some intelligent agent was involved in a few steps of evolution. In fact a few IDers will comment that this agent could have been a space alien. How would we know? If the intelligent intervener was shown to exist what would that mean for morality? We would also have to demonstrate the nature of the intervener. If Ms Nickson thinks that is God then she is asking to have God subject to examination and proof or disproof through scientific means. This is not a theological position that a majority of believers would be comfortable with.I’d like to comment on some of the details of the rest of the column next.Her idea is that there is something wrong with evolutionary theory because 100 scientists published a statement questioning the creative power of natural selection. I would have to ask 100 out of how many? Is Ms Nickson aware that about 400 scientists named Steve have signed a much stronger statement supporting evolutionary theory? This is only partially tongue in cheek.It is, however, more meaningful than Ms Nickson’s list of 100. She should consult the actual statement that was published and perhaps learn about current evolutionary theory rather than comments about 150 year-old ideas. The actual statement that the 100 signed does not include all current evolutionary mechanisms. Therefore any evolutionary theorist, however Darwinian, would have to technically agree with the statement. As such it is meaningless.If 100 Catholics left the fold am I to conclude that there is a serious problem with Catholic theology? If not, I presume that 100 out of 10,000’s of scientists aren’t anything to get very excited about either.She wants a public examination and discussion of serious questions in evolutionary theory. Of course, this is exactly what is going on in the scientific literature all the time. However, the questions being asked are not about whether life evolved since that is accepted now even by the Discovery Institute. That mutation and selection can produce large evolutionary change, which is also accepted by many proponents of the intelligent design idea is also not in question. The discussions are about the details of evolutionary processes. The ID folks want to sprinkle in some intelligent intervention here and there is the only difference. However, they have not been able to be clear on where and on how it took place. In the end, what they suggest becomes yet another piece of God of the gaps theology.Her comments on the connection between science and immorality are about as far off what I thought the topic was supposed to be as her comments on the Kyoto accord. I don’t think additional space needs to be wasted there.As we approach the 195th birthday of the man who got what some have called "the best idea anyone ever had" it seems a shame to waste time on individuals who know so little about the world around them.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-09-2004]

bump -- come on! beat me up a bit.

Ok, I'll try, but really, I only have one comment, because I want your letter to be your letter.My comment is that I think the point Holmes made that this woman wants to make the leap from a gap in evolutionary theory to her theory being true, to her morality being true is a very powerful point. Even if the one argument she makes is correct, which is that Darwinism (whatever that is defined to mean) can't explain everything, that hardly means ID is true, and worse yet, even if ID were true, it would establish a quite opposite morality than she is proposing.I hate to see you leave that out. It's not only really powerful, but it is understandable to fundamentalists, who might not be able to understand anything else you said.

Thanks, I will look more closely at that. I will edit the letter directly rather than adding a whole new copy of it.

Second draft now up there.

You are missing an apostrophe in Discovery Institutes (should be 's), and a period between one of you many sentences beginning with "Since".While I think the letter is accurate, I feel hesitant in saying it is good enough.The first thing that surprised me is it doesn't sound like any of your posts at EvC. It's like you were writing with a different voice. Not sure why that is, but maybe you should comb through it again, as if you were addressing one of us at EvC about the problems of what this lady said.The second thing is I felt it could be tightened. The points felt a bit mixed up, as if it wasn't following a progression. Obviously a progression isn't necessary but it makes the read more impactful. One example of this is that the mentioning of 400 Steves having signed a document supporting evolution would have been better placed later with the other counterexample (100 Xians doubting Xian theology).So maybe comb through it to find the best progression, keeping similar points together.And last, if you aren't going to discuss Kyoto or morality then simply say that they don't appear relevant. It seems redundant to note this and then say, you are not going to deal with it... or perhaps not redundant but contradictory. You have addressed it by saying it is not relevant to the rest of her article.By the way, don't take my criticism too hard, part of my current work is as a writing consultant so I pick apart everything, including the stuff I like.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thank you for the input. It is just that I have emailed it already. I might try to send a replacement but am feeling way to rotten to think clearly.

quote:

---

am feeling way to rotten to think clearly.

---

I hope my comments were not the cause of this. If so, don't worry about them, I was just nitpicking. It was fine.If I wasn't the cause, then I just hope you get over whatever's ailing you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)