I guess Phillip Johnson stepped down from on high to deliver a thunderbolt of a defense of Intelligent Design creationism. At least that’s the impression you get from the IDists.
Ho hum. To me, it sounds more like an old man farted.
You can get an assessment from the rational people on the side of evolution, like Shalini, John Pieret, and Joe Meert. I think Larry Moran summarized it most succinctly.
Like most IDiot arguments, this one relies on two main points: (1) evolution is wrong, (2) the bad guys are picking on us. There isn’t one single scientific argument in favor of intelligent design.
Johnson whines and whines and whines, and is disappointed that “influential scientific organizations formed a solid bloc of opposition to the consideration of whether evidence points to the possible involvement of intelligent causes in the history of life.” There’s a reason they’ve opposed ID; the proponents never get around to offering any of that evidence we’re supposed to consider, and Johnson’s latest emission is no exception. Instead, we get a lot of nonsense about how Anthony Flew converted, sorta, and how we shouldn’t be afraid to let God into our science.
The gasbag of ID is slowly deflating, and the intellectual flabbiness is becoming apparent. Rather than rejoicing, the IDists ought to be dismayed that this is the best they can do, after years of phony triumphalism.
Victor Stenger ably dissected the so-called “science” which provoked Flew’s tepid conversion.
The TalkOrigins FAQ tells us,
I note that Johnson’s piece mentions none of this. Unhappily, belief appears to be an excuse for ignorance and the propagation of untruth.
Never take your law from scientists or your science from lawyers. I actually have a case where my (scientist) opponent made a probably fatal mistake because she followed the advice of a fellow scientist about how to pursue her legal claim.
Wait wait wait, I thought Luskin was the attack mouse.
After all the sound-and-fury over Richard Dawkins supposedly not understanding theology, my soul skips with ill-concealed glee when I see creationists still pushing metaphysical twaddle already addressed in The God Delusion.
Tu quoque, my countrymen, tu quoque.
The claim that evolutionary science has discovered and verified a mechanism which can account for the origin of biological information and complexity by involving only natural (unintelligent) causes is supported by an immense extrapolation from limited evidence of minor, cyclical variations in fundamentally stable species.
The cretin (to be fair, he is scholarly in his area of expertise, but what are we to call him in regions where he is completely clueless?) hasn’t paid any attention at all to the fulfilled predictions of said “mechanism” (really, it’s ‘mechanisms’) from genetics, the fossil record, and morphology and its development, or he’s just lying. Of course the whole thing reads like a piece of lawyerly mendacity. He really seems immune to learning anything beyond his decidedly minimal amount of science knowledge.
This version of the story omits the beaks’ return to normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a “new species of finch” might arise in 200 years if the initial trend towards increased beak size continued indefinitely. When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in court, you know they are having trouble fitting their evidence to the theory they want to support.
It’s a hypothetical, not an obvious “distortion” (I’d have to see the context to know if it may have been a distortion, but I’m not taking his word for it). “Normal” has no meaning, of course, this being yet another case of Johnson being outside of even the language of science.
The argument for intelligent design in biology was soon taken up in books by two highly qualified authors,
Highly qualified in what, lawyerly arguments in front of those unqualified to understand the details of science? And how would you know, even if they happened to be qualified?
biochemistry professor Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, and mathematician/philosopher William Dembski, whose book The Design Inference was published after peer review by Cambridge University Press. (More popular-level books by Dembski are available from internet booksellers.) Many individual scientists showed significant interest in these books as well as my own, and expressed their skepticism of the claim that known material mechanisms could account for the origin of the complex specified information required for the intricate functional activities of the living cell, let alone the information needed to coordinate the functions of thousand or millions of cells involved in the life processes of a multi-cellular animal.
I doubt the claim of “peer review” (not usual for books), but even if it happened I more seriously doubt that biologists qualified to understand Dembski’s claims were the reviewers. As for the rest in that passage, it’s mere argumentum ad verecundiam, unworthy of an honest legal scholar.
Nevertheless, the subject is sufficiently fascinating, that orthodox scientific bodies have had to take strenuous action to keep it from cropping up in science education, and even in scientific journals.
What strenuous action, liar? It’s certainly not difficult, using the usual standards, to keep such nonsense out of the journals, with only a member of a “baraminology” study group foisting one paper off into a low-rated journal.
And yes, we still have to keep religious twaddle from being mandated into the curriculum by credulous dolts like Johnson.
As the case of philosopher Antony Flew demonstrates (see below), the argument has persuasive power.
If you mean that it can persuade someone who doesn’t know the science, we had never disputed that.
If independent thinkers in science felt free to write about the possibility of intelligent causes in the history of life without suffering adverse consequences, the literature on it, professional and popular, would probably be substantial and lively.
OK, give us the substance that would compose that literature.
Since you haven’t, and you and yours generally know nothing about what you pretend to discuss, yes, ID and other flimflam is kept out of the journals. Do you even know how and why that is the case, Phillip?
That is why those who do not want the concept of intelligent design to flourish find it necessary to enact explicit rules against allowing scientists and others to discuss the possibility that there is a real intelligence behind complex genetic information.
Again, for a lawyer you have great disdain for evidence. Have there been any explicit rules against allowing scientists and others to discuss the possibility of intelligence behind complex genetic information? I expect we’d have heard of it, were you not simply lying through your teeth.
There are rules that evidence must be used in the literature. Apparently you are complaining about that fact.
I had hoped that the mainstream scientific profession could be persuaded to consider objections to Darwinism that rely solely on empirical evidence and logic and were directed only to the adequacy of the Darwinian mechanism
Consider yourself to have one a round there. To be sure, it wasn’t you and it existed well before you began writing such terrible lies, however scientists do consider empirically based objections all the time. Made-up “science” like that of Behe and Dembski are still ignored by intelligent and educated thinkers, however.
This was not to be, however. Darwinists, including many in positions of authority in science, reacted by stigmatizing the concept of intelligent design in biology as “creationism,” as if it were another attempt to defend the literal creation chronology of the Book of Genesis,
No, obtuse liar, we have repeatedly stated that it is creationionism like in John 1, much as Dembski preached. Can you even read what we write, or do you simply refuse to do so?
rather than a scientific movement that relies only on scientific evidence and logical analysis.
Yes, we continue to ask for both evidence and legitimate analysis. Why don’t you provide some?
Although the IDM did not identify the designer as anything more than a source of biological information, there was little doubt that believers in the Christian God, including me, would find scientific acceptance of ID highly encouraging.
Ya think?
Blah blah, Sternberg. Poor picked on baraminologist who had nothing in mind except good science.
The goal of the Intelligent Design Movement is to achieve an open philosophy of science that permits consideration of any explanations toward which the evidence may be pointing. This is different from the current restrictive philosophy that rules out of consideration the possibility that a creator may be responsible for our existence, even if the evidence is pointing in that general direction.
Why are you so stupid and don’t know it? Of course a creator may be considered, you just need some actual evidence, not the bald claim that what we see is just what we’d expect from said creator (we’ve seen no creators produce anything like animals, particularly in their non-rational “design”).
Although naturalistic dogma has dominated public education for a half century,
Unfortunately, you don’t even know what “naturalistic” means. Mostly it is an old term which was used to “split off” what we see from what we don’t see, the empirical realm from the non-empirical. Unfortunately, the Anglo-American world has mostly continued to use this metaphysical split as a sop to religion, thus perpetuating the illusion that we could know anything without evidence, or what some call, “natural evidence”. Cut out the terms “natural” and “supernatural”, and yes, religion has no evidence and no substance.
It seems to have been a mistake to define science as not encroaching on religion, since ignoramuses like Johnson don’t recognize that “natural” only means “evidence-based” in today’s science (in the broader sense, that is).
its mandarins have failed to convince the American public to embrace the dogma, and I see many signs that dissatisfaction with evolutionary naturalism is spreading throughout the world. One of these signs is the many languages into which some of my own books have been translated, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, Korean, Chinese, Czech, Finnish, and Macedonian. I receive regular inquiries even from some of the world’s most thoroughly secularized nations that indicate skepticism toward evolutionary naturalism. Clearly, reports of the death of God have been greatly exaggerated. With the worldwide growth in theistic religion, especially in regions where the birth rate is growing rather than declining, it is only a matter of time before the case for an intelligent designer makes its way into scientific and academic discussions
Wow, religious apologetics sells (we knew that, moron), and birth rates might shove aside honest science. That’s a major case against evolution indeed (does this guy really know jurisprudence?).
Or in other words, he has no more of a case than he had when he first demanded that magic be accorded equality with science.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Johnson mentions
Glen Davidson was thereby provoked to write,
And TalkOrigins CI001.4 says,
It’s really tiresome to see the same nonsense trotted out again with so much fanfare!
I know it’s been said before but I can’t help thinking back to a couple different Monty Python scenes every time the DI or ones of this PR people (lots of PR zero science) makes some grand proclamation about how ID is winning the war.
It’s either the “I’m not dead yet” or the “Help Help I’m being oppressed” scenes. While those are funny the first couple of times, now they’re just tiresome.
Okay, since you advertized that post of mine, I’ll take advantage and point out a followup I did on Johnson’s “science envy”:
http://dododreams.blogspot.com/2007/02/deadly-sins.html
The claim that evolutionary science has discovered and verified a mechanism which can account for the origin of biological information and complexity by involving only natural (unintelligent) causes is supported by an immense extrapolation from limited evidence of minor, cyclical variations in fundamentally stable species.
Just to point out the obvious, once more:
ID has never even made a claim to have discovered, much less verified, a mechanism for the origin of anything; it has shown no interest, perhaps even an aversion to such an idea. And it has been pointed out for over 2000 years that “design” has no such mechanism, as in Cicero’s “On the nature of the gods” (Book I, 8.19):
If it is thought to be a deficit in evolutionary biology not to have a demonstrable mechanism for something-or-other
(assuming, for the sake of argument, that that is true), why is it not a deficit for ID not to have any mechanism for anything? It has the appearance of idle theorizing rather than real research.
P Myrs s frd. H prtnds tht ths s scnc blg, nd yt t s ctlly frnt fr thstc pltcl rnts.
Lts f ht, lttl scnc.
Nw whn th sy cms tht ths blgs r cncrnd pr rvwd pblctn, h nd gys lk Jsh Rsn, flnkng t hr, wll hv t md.
“PA Myers” may be a fraud, but his twin PZ has written an awful lot about science!
Ah, creationist trolls. Always cursing the light. That’s the, er, spirit. From what I’ve seen of them, they’re more phew-reviewed than peer-reviewed.
Ho hum. To me, it sounds more like an old man farted.
Not suggesting a “School of Law” farimation in reply are you? One with real farts this time? (That is to say, farts like Behe, Dembski, Wells, and Johnson displaying their trademark verbal flatulence.) As I said, Dembski’s little flash anime didn’t have any real farts in it, and then he took away the sound effects. What he needed to do was keep the sounds and add the appropriate visuals.
Thanks for the additional info, Blake.
PA Myers is a fraud. He pretends that this is a science blog, and yet it is actually a front for atheistic political rants.
Actually, he pretends that it’s his blog, and as such it is atheistic, scientific, and political. Trouble for you is, he’s right that it’s his blog.
I don’t know the procedure (I hate newsgroups when they actually fill my in-box), but you can receive blogs on science without PZ’s blogs on religion, etc. If you want to do that, do it and quit whining.
Now when the say comes that these blogs are concerned peer reviewed publication, he and guys like Josh Rosenau, flunking out I hear, will have it made.
You drunk, or just incoherent in general?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39o
Oh, I should have made clear that after responding to Blake I then responded, sans segue, to “Belushi”. Was trying to write one post instead of two, and ended up having to write another after all.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/35s39s
Rev. BigDumbChimp wrote:
I still laugh at those, but only when I’m watching the Pythons do it. It’s only truly tiring for me when someone repeatedly immitates it – as a cheap attempt to invoke a guaranteed laugh. It is a prime example of ‘crying wolf’.
The IDiots’ portestations are particularly annoying because in addition to ‘crying wolf’, they’re also ‘crying science’…and both are just polite euphemisms for ‘lying’.
Glen D:
You’re welcome!
I for one am getting tired of seeing ID/creationist articles bubbling up out of the muck which look for all the world like they were created by concatenating claims debunked in the TalkOrigins Index. Seldom have I seen an FAQ cover so many of the arguments raised. It’s almost as if (perish the thought) people were repeating what they heard without consideration or scrutiny.
Johnson: This version of the story omits the beaks’ return to normal, etc., blah, yak.
“Return to normal”? Is he serious? What a twit. No wonder people believing him have brain damage.
The funny thing about the creationist troll is that he compains about “PA”‘s supposed neglect of science for religion and politics- but according to Johnson and the rest of the IDiots, IDiocy is science, which in fact would make this a science post! Oh the irony…
Off topic:
this is what Conservapedia now has to say about “faith”:
I didn’t do it.
It is so sad what religion does. Look I’ll throw out some statements here — quickly — in my frustration and sadness .. and I’ll not support them here … but I know I am right — I see it for real in action and empirically so so often. I bet you all do too.
Religion (god belief.. reliance on faith .. reliance on “priests” to do your thinking and judging) so stifles us. I’ve not seen where it has made good people better … but I’ve seen it make potentially good and smart people abandon reason and do counterproductive and down-right stupid and even mean things.
I know I know – apologists will say “Aunt May’s faith got her through her daughter’s illness.. it is what kept her strong… etc.” … but SO WHAT … you don’t think others might say the same for alcohol, drugs, secular support groups, friends, sex, hobbies, etc. etc. Religion is UNnecessary in a modern world .. but beyond that it is downright DANGEROUS. Sure (and fortunately) most believers only do it lip service. For most it’s more a cultural, social, and peer pressure thing (very compartmentalized and with really restricted influence in their lives). But for the 30% in the USA who actually THINK they really believe and thus take the junk seriously in public … well.. well… let’s just a body with 30% malignancy is sure having a SUPER BAD day!!!!
Mr. Johnson apparently loves to read his own writing, because he wrote about 10 more paragraphs than he needed. Perhaps it’s all that lawyering he does.
As expected, it’s the usual victim complex, but with better spelling. His preference for the Biblical God is beyond obvious, and he intimates that he is certain Mr. Flew will eventually see the same “light” that Johnson subscribes to. Johnson’s bias is all over this thing. And, more to the point, he misses the hypocritical nature of his position, while writing about it.
He thinks evidence points to a designer, but then uses his painted perception to steer the discussion in that direction. On that note, I would actually like Johnson to explain – if he really thinks the Biblical God is the true designer – how the designer orchestrated the birth of his divine Son through the natural causes he instituted here. If God is the designer, then there should be a way for us to explain the miracle of Jesus, no?
` My window is stuck! Could somebody help me get the ID gas outta here? It’s making me nauseous!
Those interested in the full, muddled story on Flew’s conversion should read Richard Carrier’s articel on the subject, which includes analysis of some puzzling baffling video footage which seems to suggest memory problems on Flew’s part.
Thanks, Chris Hallquist! The description of a “muddled story” is an accurate one. . . .
When Flew said that he believed that a creator god may exist, I remember commenting that Christians would quickly distort the situation into ‘atheist becomes believer, you should too’. Not surprisingly, they leave out the fact that Flew continued to claim that the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god was equivalent to a “cosmic Saddam Hussein”.
I heard Flew interviewed at the time, and he was quite clear that it was remote Aristotelean deity he then believed in, not much like the conventional churchy God.
As to even that qualified “conversion”: would it be uncharitable of me to note that old people are known to let down their critical guard and fall for cons? I know that my Dad in his 80’s, fell for a couple of sales pitches for which, in his prime, he would have drop-kicked the shyster right across the front yard (fortunately nothing outrageously expensive).
BC,
Do you have a link to that quote by Flew?
Johnson has showed us qiute clearly here, that ID is not a positive argument, that the purpose is to show that evolution is inadequate. It is. Evolution is inadequate in that we have not worked out the details – but it is not inadequate in principle, which is what they’ve been trying to conclude whenever they find gaps in our knowledge.
After all that effort trying to say that ID is not a negative argument in court, Johnson confirms that it is, indeed, negative argumentation.
To borrow DaveScot’s use of words,
That’s the sound of ID exploding.
Google Books just served up this result, from Does God Exist?: the Craig-Flew debate (Ashgate Publishing, 2003).
In trying to learn a little bit more about this “Craig–Flew debate”, I found that William Lane Craig wrote an article entitled “The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the Universe” (2002). I reproduce the conclusion here, as those with a cosmological bent might enjoy pulling it apart, which is not terribly difficult to do.
The sloppy thinking necessary to arrive at this conclusion set my teeth on edge, but when I hit the final sentence, my tension exploded in a cathartic guffaw.
Awwwww, c’mon and give Johnson a break. It’s part of the lawerly canon to do the best for your client. If it means grasping at straws, you grasp. If it means obfuscating about the evidence, you obfuscate. If it means ignoring the evidence, you ignore. Or “…if ya ain’t got nothin’, ya got nothin ta lose…”
He has done his pitiful best, so give him some kudos.
Thanks Bob Z.
While I know you’re probably not serious, that isn’t the case. In Darwin on Trial, he did not present himself as an attorney representing a client (or even just keep quiet about it) but, instead, he claimed he was an objective observer uniquely suited to judge the issue by his legal training. That’s a cardinal sin within the profession and disingenuous intellectual discourse in general.
That said, there is no doubt that he’s done a highly effective job with what he had to work with. But I suspect that he has seen the writing on the wall and is now speaking only to fellow believers, rather than trying to make the case to the world at large.
Blake:
1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
Not a demonstrable assumption. If the statement goes that: “Whatever exists has an antecedant” it would be somewhat better, probably up to the point of the Big Bang, then all bets are off.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe…
The *external ground* is a baseless assumption, note the *If* at the beginning. Also, if there is an external ground [a creator], what does *personal* mean about the creator? And couldn’t a creator will itself out of existance? Does the creator have to be timeless etc.? It’s only an assumption. There could be a creator that was created, such as a demiurge in Gnostic Christianity, which would necessitate an ultimate creator.
If you have an “If …” then all consequant arguments are contingent on the *If* being true, therefore 5 cannot be categorically true.
natural cynic:
Or (as Basilides proposed) a series of 365 successive demiurges, stemming from the original Abraxas and possessing diminishing divinity as one travels down the chain. The last one of these, with the smallest portion of divinity, was the Lord God of the Old Testament.
One might well say that Ockham’s Razor dispatches such a long and involved sequence of causes. . . but then again, wouldn’t the same logic eliminate two out of three persons of the Trinity? Or does the Athanasian Creed’s assertion that each person is “Incomprehensible” negate the Razor’s usefulness? In which case, all bets would be off.
Disco uploaded two of the speeches up on YouTube. Be sure to catch their Dodo flick too, if you missed it before. Casey is shlo shlexy.
Gas-Bag #1
Gas-Bag #2