 |
Monday, Nov. 16th, Stephen Meyer and Chris Mooney will be on The Michael Medved Show (second hour, 1pm PT/4pm ET). Mooney is a diehard Darwin defender that various Fellows here at the CSC have debated in the past, and he's someone we've reported about over the years. His view of science is elitist and arrogant, and he has recommended such things as suppressing dissenting views from the media, to spinning science in such a way as to manipulate public opinion. He considers anyone who disagrees with him to be ignorant about science. It will be interesting to see how he does with Meyer, a Cambridge PhD who clearly disagrees with Mooney on ... well, practically everything.
With the anniversary of Darwin's opus nearly upon us, a question that keeps coming up is whether the scientific community is any closer to figuring out the origins of life now than when Darwin published his theory 150 years ago?
To mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species, advocates for intelligent design and Darwinian evolution will be squaring off at the end of the month to debate the origins of life, the challenges to Darwin’s theory of evolution and the alternative theory of intelligent design. The American Freedom Alliance is sponsoring this debate as a part of their series of events celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origins this month.
The debate will feature:
• Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute and author of Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
• Dr. Michael Shermer, the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine and editor of Skeptic.com, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, and an Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University.
• Dr. Richard Sternberg, evolutionary biologist and Research Scientist at the Biologic Institute and a Research Collaborator at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History.
• Dr. Donald R. Prothero, Professor of Geology at Occidental College in Los Angeles, Lecturer in Geobiology at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, and member of the editorial board of Skeptic magazine.
WHEN: Monday, November 30th at 7:30pm
WHERE: Saban Theater, 8440 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA
Tickets are available for $20.00; students: $10.00 and can only be purchased either at www.americanfreedomalliance.org or at the door on day of event. Co-sponsoring the event are The Skeptics Society, Center for Inquiry, the Saban Theater, and the Temple for the Arts.
I recently received an email asking if the correspondent correctly understood my views about intelligent design and God. Since I sometimes get similar questions, I’m posting this correspondence for anyone who is interested.
Q: I understand your current position to be that design is detectable in nature, and that design detection is not merely a theological gloss upon the scientific facts, but is actually an activity appropriate for science. I further understand you to be saying that design detection in itself is neutral regarding the way that the design found its way into nature. Thus, if the bacterial flagellum is designed, it *could* be that God took a regular bacterium and miraculously "tweaked" it, or it *could* be that God "front-loaded" the evolutionary development of the bacterial flagellum, in a manner similar to that suggested by, say, Michael Denton. Design detection as a science cannot rule on these things; all that it can show is that Darwinian mechanisms, all by themselves, could not have produced integrated structures such as the flagellum. If there was not direct intervention (tweaking, guiding, steering, etc.) or advance planning ("front-loading"), neo-Darwinian processes would never have been able to produce all the complex varieties of living things that we see today. Have I got your current position correct?
Me: Yes, that's exactly right.
Q: Then there is the question whether your views have changed over the years. Someone I know claims that in your early writings and early conference appearances, you said directly, or gave the strong impression, that some things (A, B, C ...) were brought about by wholly natural processes, whereas other things (X, Y, Z ...) were brought about by design (the implication being that "designed" in your early thought was opposed to "natural"). My acquaintance’s picture of Behean evolution would then be something like this: evolution in the early oceans chugs along on its own, via neo-Darwinian and other stochastic processes, as various sorts of marine worms and sponges and so on develop. But then, during the Cambrian Explosion, God takes a direct hand and literally reshapes marine worms into 30 or so new phyla, after which things go on by natural means again, until the next limit is reached, and God has to disrupt the normal flow of nature again (maybe to create land animals, or mammals, or birds, or man). Thus, there would be a jerky, stop-and-start sort of evolution, with chance/natural law causes alternating with fits of miracles. So, looking at any given creature, science would have to say things like: "Human lungs -- evolved by blind mechanisms from primitive air bladder; human camera eye -- required special intervention from intelligent designer; bacterial cell walls -- evolved by blind chemical mechanisms; bacterial flagellum -- was made by a bolt of divine lightning." Etc. Given this understanding of your views, one can see why my acquaintance or other TEs would characterize ID as "God of the gaps" reasoning. My question is: Was it *ever* your view that ID *required* such a jerky view of evolution, and more generally that it required miraculous intervention (breaking the causal nexus, violating the laws of nature)? Or was it always the case that your view *allowed for* jerky, stop-and-start evolution, and *allowed for* miraculous intervention, but did not *require* these things?
Continue reading "God, Design, and Contingency in Nature" »
Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution is another case where a federal court found that the government does not violate the Establishment clause when it advocates evolution. Yet the reasoning the court used to find it permissible to teach evolution could, if applied fairly, also validate the teaching of intelligent design as constitutional.
1. Summary
Plaintiffs sued the Smithsonian Institution, arguing that displays featuring evolution at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History established secular humanism and violated the constitutional mandate requiring the government to remain neutral in matters of religion.70 Plaintiffs requested an order compelling the Smithsonian to “expend an amount equal to the amount extended in the promulgation of the evolutionary theory . . . on the Biblical account of creation found in the Book of Genesis.”71 The court found that the displays passed the Lemon test because (1) they had “the secular purpose of ‘increasing and diffusing knowledge among men’”;72 (2) the primary effect of the exhibit did not advance religion and any effects upon religion were “at most incidental to the primary effect of presenting a body of scientific knowledge”;73 and (3) the exhibit did not excessively entangle government and religion because the Museum dealt with evolution as a non-religious subject of natural history.74 Additionally, the court found that the exhibit did not violate the plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion because they “can carry their beliefs into the Museum with them, though they risk seeing science exhibits contrary to that faith.”75 Quoting Epperson, the court added that “the state has no legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful to them.”76 The court argued that if it granted plaintiffs relief, it would be showing preferential “treatment to the religious views of one group.”77
2. Importance and Commentary
This lesser-known case follows Wright and Epperson in finding that government advocacy of evolution does not establish religion.78 However, Crowley stands apart from those cases in its high degree of stated sensitivity for the plaintiffs who felt that evolution challenged their religious beliefs. The court told the parties it was “sensitive to plaintiffs' interpretation of the theory of evolution as religion and is aware that they do not stand alone.”79 The court thus did not claim there was no offense to the plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, but instead argued that “[e]ven accepting their argument that evolution is hostile to their beliefs as to creation, this impact is at most incidental to the primary effect of presenting a body of scientific knowledge.”80 Under Crowley, teaching a legitimate scientific theory such as evolution will not establish religion because the primary effect of such a government action will advance scientific knowledge.81 Any effects upon religion are “incidental.”82
Continue reading "Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution: The Government May Promote Scientific Theories That Touch Upon Religious Questions " »
The case Wright v. Houston was decided by the lowest level of the federal courts in 1973, and it effectively ruled that it is not illegal to teach just the evidence supporting evolution. This is one case in a line of cases that found that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.
1. Summary
Students in the Houston Independent School District sued their district and the Texas State Board of Education for teaching evolution but not including any other views about origins, such as the Biblical story of creation.43 The student-plaintiffs contended that the study of evolution constituted the establishment of a sectarian, atheistic religion and inhibited the free exercise of their own religion in violation of the First Amendment.44 As a remedy for the alleged constitutional violation, the students asked that the Biblical story of creation be required to be taught alongside evolution.45 The district court held that the school district’s one-sided teaching of only the pro-Darwinian scientific evidence was constitutional.46 Specifically, the court found that the curriculum did not violate Epperson's mandate that public schools "may not be hostile to any religion"47 for two reasons: (1) there was no State law or school district regulation which prohibited nonevolutionary teachings, and (2) there was no evidence to suggest that students could not challenge the theory of evolution in class.48 The court thus let the curriculum stand without ordering any changes.49
Continue reading "Wright v. Houston: It’s Not Illegal To Teach the Evidence Supporting Evolution" »
[Editor's Note: Ken Miller speaks regularly on intelligent design (ID), and for years has repeatedly promoted the same misrepresentations of ID when speaking on the topic. This is Part 2 of a series of posts that comprise a lecture guide for those listening to lectures by Dr. Miller against ID. When this series is complete, the entire lecture guide will be released as a single document.]
At the Dover trial, Ken Miller asserted under oath that intelligent design is merely “a negative argument against evolution” which requires an appeal to the supernatural: It is what a philosopher might call the argument from ignorance, which is to say that, because we don't understand something, we assume we never will, and therefore we can invoke a cause outside of nature, a supernatural creator or supernatural designer. Dr. Miller even stated this holds true in all cases: “The evidence is always negative, and it basically says, if evolution is incorrect, the answer must be design.” (Day 1 PM Testimony, pp. 15, 36-37.) These are outright misrepresentations of ID made by Dr. Miller, and it’s likely you’ll hear these same mistakes at any anti-ID lecture Dr. Miller gives.
The Positive Argument for Design
At the Dover trial, ID proponents were extremely clear that ID is not merely a negative argument against evolution, but a strong positive argument. Michael Behe refuted Miller’s testimony by stating: "This argument for design is an entirely positive argument. This is how we recognize design by the purposeful arrangement of parts." (Day 10 AM Testimony, p. 110.) Behe also made this clear in the afterward to Darwin’s Black Box: [I]rreducibly complex systems such as mousetraps and flagella serve both as negative arguments against gradualistic explanations like Darwin’s and as positive arguments for design. The negative argument is that such interactive systems resist explanation by the tiny steps that a Darwinian path would be expected to take. The positive argument is that their parts appear arranged to serve a purpose, which is exactly how we detect design. (Darwin’s Black Box, pp. 263-264 (2006).)
Continue reading "Misrepresenting the Definition of Intelligent Design" »
Tomorrow, Tuesday November 10th, University of St. Thomas School of Law is hosting a legal symposium titled “Intelligent Design and the Constitution.” Participants include Peter M. J. Hess (NCSE), David DeWolf (Professor of Law, Gonzaga University; senior fellow, Discovery Institute), Josh Rosenau (NCSE), Thomas D. Sullivan (Aquinas Chair in Philosophy and Theology, University of St. Thomas), Patrick Gillen (Lead Defense Counsel, Kitzmiller v. Dover), Russell Pannier (Emeritus Professor of Law, William Mitchel College of the Law), and myself. The title of my talk will be “The Constitutionality and Pedagogical Benefits of Teaching Evolution Scientifically.” According to the website: The symposium, free and open to the public, will bring together scholars to debate and analyze various constitutional and philosophical issues surrounding evolutionism and intelligent design, particularly as they affect U.S. public schools. For details, visit here.
ENV: In the past, you’ve remarked about mathematicians and their opinions of Darwin’s theory of evolution. They were skeptical, you said; very skeptical. John Von Neumann was an example. How do you know that about him and about other mathematicians?
DB: How do I know? Here’s how:
I have been close to a number of mathematicians, and friends with others: Daniel Gallin (who died before he could begin his career), M.P. Schutzenberger (my great friend), René Thom (a friend as well), Gian-Carlo Rota (another friend), Lipman Bers (who taught me complex analysis and with whom I briefly shared a hospital room, he leaving as I was coming), Paul Halmos (a colleagues in California), and Irving Segal (a friend by correspondence, embattled and distraught). Some of these men I admired very much, and all of them I liked.
I had many other friends in the international mathematical community. We exchanged views; I got around.
Among the mathematicians that I knew from very roughly 1970 to 1995, the general attitude toward Darwin’s theory was one of skepticism. These days, I do not get around all that much, and whatever the mathematician's pulse, I do not have my finger on it. But the reactions of which I speak were hardly surprising. Until recently, mathematicians have been skeptical of any discipline beyond mathematics, and I say until recently because attitudes as well as times have changed.
In talking of the mathematician’s skepticism, I mentioned Von Neumann because his name was widely known. I might have mentioned Gian-Carlo Rota. He despised the enveloping air of worship associated with Darwin; he thought biology primitive and dishonest.
Continue reading "Darwin and the Mathematicians" »
[Editor's Note: Ken Miller speaks regularly on intelligent design (ID), and for years has repeatedly promoted the same misrepresentations of ID when speaking on the topic. This is Part 1 of a series of posts that comprise a lecture guide for those listening to lectures by Dr. Miller against ID. When this series is complete, the entire lecture guide will be released as a single document.]
Introduction
Brown University biologist Dr. Kenneth Miller is the kind of person you naturally want to believe. He has a charismatic personality and a fast-paced, upbeat, and energetic lecture style. On top of all that, he coaches softball, rides horses, and comes off as an all-around nice guy. If you’re in college, Professor Miller makes you wish you’d taken him for introductory biology rather than the boring prof you probably were stuck with. If you’re out of college, he might even make you fondly recall undergraduate courses when learning from a capable professor engaged your mind.
Continue reading "Truth or Dare with Dr. Ken Miller: A Lecture Guide to the Anti-Intelligent Design Claims by Dr. Kenneth Miller" »
Q: Many of the most important and lengthiest essays in The Deniable Darwin were originally published in Commentary magazine. How did that fruitful partnership, or patronship, come about? Did you encounter any resistance from the Commentary readership?
 DB: My association with Commentary was a stroke of good luck. I wanted a wider readership. Who doesn’t? So I wrote [editor] Neal Kozodoy a letter. It was 1994. Neal, for reasons of his own, thought it important to broaden Commentary's intellectual horizons. We had been struck by the fact that science as an institution lacks for critics. To a very surprising extent, it gets a free pass. So our association began. I've never known a better editor. “The Deniable Darwin” provoked a great deal of controversy when it was published. It still does. Bloggers still feel obliged to waddle into Blogginess with a counter-critique. Some readers found my Commentary essays difficult, especially those dealing with the origins of life and the evolution of the eye. They objected, perhaps rightly so. They are difficult. But Commentary, you must remember, is a Jewish magazine, and it was the thought that I might in some way be offering encouragement to Christian evangelicals that some of Commentary’s readers found troubling. They were fearful that in the very next issue I might be found speaking in tongues or eagerly handling snakes.
Continue reading "David Berlinski on The Deniable Darwin and Commentary" »
There's a narrative that should be familiar to most of us by now: a man is considered the great hero of the faith, a sign of hope for every true believer as he advances its claims, but secretly he struggles with his doubts about what he's preaching.
This time, there's a twist to the old story: the faith the man espoused publicly was Darwin's theory, and the man was the brilliant Stephen Jay Gould.
In Suzan Mazur's fascinating new book, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry, Richard Milner describes Gould as "a popular articulator of Darwinian evolution to a new generation, while privately, his creative and rebellious mind sought to move beyond it." (emphasis added) A personal friend of Gould's, as well as his editor at Natural History magazine, Milner goes on to explain that "Gould took issue with those who used natural selection carelessly as a mantra, as in the evidence-free 'just-so stories' concocted out of thin air by mentally lazy adaptationists."
So here we have a picture of a man committed to his creed ("The universe is all there is, or ever was, or ever will be") who was nonetheless unhappy with the easy answers of reductionists such as Richard Dawkins.
Continue reading "Even Evolution's Priests May Doubt" »
David Opderbeck, Professor of law at Seton Hall University School of Law, has in the past offered some insightful criticisms of the Dover ruling, including the facts that Judge Jones: "misrepresents key ID arguments by stating that they are only negative arguments against evolution rather than positive evidence for design"
"went far beyond the case / controversy at hand by giving his primer on whether ID is ‘science’”
used “criteria for determining what constitutes ‘science’” that seemed “muddled and dangerous”
“misrepresents the merits of key ID arguments, in particular irreducible complexity” Now over at the pro-Darwin BioLogos blog, Professor Opderbeck writes “In Defense of Dover.” Well, only sort of. Professor Opderbeck qualifies his post's pro- Judge Jones title, stating: “I still think Judge Jones' opinion in Kitzmiller missed the mark in some important ways, even though I think (and have always thought) the end result was correct.” Truthfully, I don’t disagree with a word of Professor Opderbeck’s praise of the Dover ruling when he writes:
Continue reading "Did Judge Jones Get Anything Right in his Activist Ruling Against Intelligent Design?" »
Thanks to various live-bloggers, you can read summaries of all of the University of Chicago Darwin 2009 conference presentations. The conference organizers have also promised to make video podcasts available of all the lectures shortly. By contrast, what follows below is -- as they say in sports television -- color commentary. This will be a longer post, because much was said that calls for comment.
Bottom line: this was an outstanding conference, where any ID theorist would have enjoyed himself, and learned a lot, if he didn’t mind a bit of mocking laughter along the way.
Continue reading "Reflections on the University of Chicago Darwin 2009 Fest" »
|
 |
Darwin's Dilemma
Berlinski is back!
