NYT: Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

[JLam]

From the New York Times

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.


On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.


The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.


"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.


"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

snip

Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: "I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I'm a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn't belong in science class."

Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. "But they are, and everybody knows they are," Mr. Davis said. "I just think we ought to quit playing games. It's a religious worldview that's being advanced."

Talk amongst yourselves

 

[Ducky]

Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Have they published ANY that weren't retracted later?

 

[ReFLeX]

It may be the case in the end that very few serious academics adhere to it, yet it continues be popular among fundamentalists, like, say, "micro-evolution."

 

[JLam]

Who cares if it's popular among fundamentalists? Those folks also think cavemen used to ride to church on dinosaurs

The great part is that most people are starting to see ID for what it really is. A load of bovine excrement.

 

[Spidey13]

From the article:

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Sorry about that.

Actually, I drive by this place on my way to the bar sometimes. Heh.

 

[juryjone]

The great part is that most people are starting to see ID for what it really is. A load of bovine excrement.

Would that that were true. However, I think you get the consensus opinion from the editorial pages of USA Today, where they find "Common Ground" on the issue:

Bob: That's a start. The scientific community has gone out of its way to depict intelligent design as a religious view. Most people have no idea that serious scientists believe there is a strong case for intelligent design. These scientists have been denied a forum, and a series of public debates would be educational and give the intelligent design researchers a chance to tell their side.
Cal: Surely C-SPAN would carry the debate if the scientists were prominent enough. Anyone opposing the debate would be rightly labeled a censor and anti-academic freedom. That should make the liberals choke. Sound like a good idea to you, Bob (except the part about choking liberals)?
Bob: I'm all for it. I just wonder if the Darwinists will show up.
Cal: Maybe we can offer them some bananas as an incentive. As they eat them, they can contemplate their heritage.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-30-common-ground_x.htm

Sigh. Despair.

 

[vbloke]

So, their basic argument is "I don't understand how it happened, therefore it must have been god".

Good thing they're not detectives.

 

[kmortis]

So, their basic argument is "I don't understand how it happened, therefore it must have been god".

Good thing they're not detectives.

Yeah, cause then God would have to defend himself in a multitude of court cases that the detectives had no clue who did it. He'd have no time left for governing the universe.

 

[R.A.F.]

From the USA article...

Cal:...why not have a series of televised debates so the public could make up its own mind?

Now there's a good idea...scientific "fact" decided by the majority opinion of a "public" that simply doesn't understand science...

I've always suspected it, but now it's confirmed...Cal Thomas is an idiot.

 

[Ossai]

Next on Unsolved Mysteries...
Goddidit

Show canceled.

 

[Mojo]

It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies.

...snip...

The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.


"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.


"From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said.

Why on earth does the NYT think that academics should have been the natural allies of a system that has not submitted its research for peer review and has failed to submit research proposals?

 

[Ipecac]

From the USA Today article:

Bob: Cal, I'm going to stray from the consensus liberal line on the issue of intelligent design. The Dover, Pa., school board had a good reason to allow the teaching of intelligent design as a scientific alternative to Darwinism in the school system's science classes. Despite the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that evolution is the sole explanation for all living things, these scientists have yet to prove the theory conclusively. Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will.
Cal: What I find curious about this debate, not only in Pennsylvania, but in Kansas and throughout the country, is that so many scientists and educators are behaving like fundamentalist secularists. Only they will define science. They alone will decide which scientific theories and information will be taught to students. That sounds like mind control to me, Bob. If their science is so strong on the issue of origins, why not let the arguments supporting intelligent design into the classroom where it can be debunked if it can't be defended? You liberals are always accusing us conservatives of censorship. It sounds like your side has picked up the disease on this one.

Sounds to me like they're both idiots. SHEESH!

I especially like (and by like, I mean hate) this: "the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will."

 

[drkitten]

From the USA Today article:

I think this is part of the problem. USA Today has never been particularly well-known for their balanced treatment of anything, and I suspect this entire "debate" has been staged to play to their primary right-wing focus.

I would also not consider it to be representative of anything except USA Today's editorial policies.

Yes, they're both idiots. But they were carefully selected idiots....

 

[drkitten]

Why on earth does the NYT think that academics should have been the natural allies of a system that has not submitted its research for peer review and has failed to submit research proposals?

Because academics, including scientists, have a long history of championing controversial theories in the teeth of the "establishment."

When Intelligent Design was first proposed, it was at least superficially no more ludicrous than the claim that atoms could be split, or that continents moved, or that -- well, pick your own controversial theory. At some point, even the best-establlished law of nature was simply someone's wild-eyed ravings. Part of the brilliance and glory of science is that scientists are usually willing to take wild-eyed ravings seriously enough to do at least an initial critical analysis, and perhaps run a few experiments or make a few observations to test them.

The problem is that the results of those early observations came back uniformly negative. For example, Behe proposed the concept of "irreducible complexity," and suggested that this might be a useful framework for discussion whether or not "design" could be detected. This suggestion was taken seriously -- seriously enough that Behe was able to write and publish Response to My Critics a few years later. He proposed, "science" (generally) investigated, and he was given the opportunity to either adjust his proposal in response to the feedback or to present new evidence in refutation of the feedback.

Behe chose to do neither. Instead, he's repeating the same flawed arguments in other contexts. This is where he chose to part company with his "natural allies," because he wasn't able to hold up his end of the alliance. If he were actually running experiments and seriously discussing these issues in the journals, there would possibly still be a genuine scientific controversy (albeit one-sided), because he would at least be producing new evidence that would need new refutations.

That's what the Templeton Foundation found. Lots of people wanted to play the political game, but no one wants to play the science game. I've seen no idea so stupid that science won't touch it if the proponents are willing to play the game -- see homeopathic medicinie for an example. Homeopaths run bad experiments, genuine scientists review them and point out the flaws, and in some cases even run better "replication" experiments and show that the results cannot be replicated. But at least they're playing the game. Behe won't even play the game.

 

[tsg]

I especially like (and by like, I mean hate) this: "the science crowd hasn't come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will."

Look not to religion for answers best provided by science, nor vice versa.

Science doesn't explain a lot of things. It wasn't meant to. That doesn't mean that what it does explain is wrong. That these people insist on holding beliefs that are demonstrably wrong is not the fault of science. It is the fault of their beliefs.

 

[Mojo]

Because academics, including scientists, have a long history of championing controversial theories in the teeth of the "establishment."

When Intelligent Design was first proposed,

By Paley?

it was at least superficially no more ludicrous than the claim that atoms could be split, or that continents moved, or that -- well, pick your own controversial theory. At some point, even the best-establlished law of nature was simply someone's wild-eyed ravings. Part of the brilliance and glory of science is that scientists are usually willing to take wild-eyed ravings seriously enough to do at least an initial critical analysis, and perhaps run a few experiments or make a few observations to test them.

The problem is that the results of those early observations came back uniformly negative. For example, Behe proposed the concept of "irreducible complexity," and suggested that this might be a useful framework for discussion whether or not "design" could be detected. This suggestion was taken seriously -- seriously enough that Behe was able to write and publish Response to My Critics a few years later. He proposed, "science" (generally) investigated, and he was given the opportunity to either adjust his proposal in response to the feedback or to present new evidence in refutation of the feedback.

Behe chose to do neither. Instead, he's repeating the same flawed arguments in other contexts. This is where he chose to part company with his "natural allies," because he wasn't able to hold up his end of the alliance. If he were actually running experiments and seriously discussing these issues in the journals, there would possibly still be a genuine scientific controversy (albeit one-sided), because he would at least be producing new evidence that would need new refutations.

And this is my point. They are not the "natural allies" of a theory put forward in the way that ID has been, and especially not the way Behe has approached it. His invocation of "irreducible complexity" is tantamount to throwing up his hands and saying "Goddiddit." It's certainly not an attempt to understand the nature of reality.

 

[drkitten]

By Paley?

No, I believe the term "intelligent design" dates to the mid 1980s, and the particular formulation are mostly due to Dembski and Behe from the early 90s. Of course, Paley's argument has been around for much longer -- and has been widely accepted by academics. Even Darwin himself was a Paleyan in his youth.

And this is my point. They are not the "natural allies" of a theory put forward in the way that ID has been, and especially not the way Behe has approached it.

But you're looking at this through the lens of hindsight. I't's obvious now that Behe had no intention of entering into a scientific, evidence-based discourse about the nature of irreducible complexity and intelligent design, but I don't believe that it was that apparent in 1992. An observer in 1992 -- such as, for example, the Templeton Foundation, who was responsible for funding much of the early ID work -- could have quite legitimately considered "intelligent design" to be a viable hypothesis, a proto-theory worthy of some minor investigation to see if this philosophical framework could actually hammer out something that might have some scientific consequences.

So they (Templeton) funded a few conferences and whatnot to put the people interested in the same thing into the same room. All very standard and often fruitful. I believe that's how the field of "cognitive science" happened, on Pew money.

It just so happened that when everyone got into the same room this time,.... nothing "scientific" happened.

Templeton didn't know that in 1992, which is why they were willing to spend money on it. Thirteen years later, Templeton is losing patience....

 

[Melendwyr]

Look not to religion for answers best provided by science, nor vice versa.

Only problem is that there's really nothing best dealt with by religion - unless you like arbitrary "answers" supported only by faith.

 

[tsg]

Only problem is that there's really nothing best dealt with by religion - unless you like arbitrary "answers" supported only by faith.

Things like morality and "why are we here" are not answerable by science but rather by philosophical disciplines, and religion can be a source for those answers. But, by their very nature, they can't be considered absolute. I have no problem with people turning to the teachings of ancient philosophers for guidance in moral dilemmas. Science can't tell you right from wrong.

 

[Melendwyr]

Things like morality and "why are we here" are not answerable by science

Why?

It seems to me you're starting out with the principle that those things cannot be investigated with science, but I see no reason to presume that's the case.

More to the point - if reason can't give you answers about a topic, why should I care what answers someone comes up with? Why should I care about the topic itself?