Does the Bad Astronomer Support Creationism?

[Brown]

In this thread, there is some general grumbling about dishonesty in creationist circles.

Is it possible that Phil Plait--the Bad Astronomer--is setting himself up to be abused by creationists?

In a blog entry entitled "The supernatural does not exist," Phil talks a bit about pseudoscience, then says:

And that’s what makes me even madder when I hear scientists or science journalists buy into the pseudoscience framing. How many times have you heard a scientist say, "We can’t test the supernatural"? The idea being that prayer, ghosts, what-have-you, are not subject to scientific scrutiny.

Bull.

The latest blurting about this comes from a scientist quoted in a book review. In the review, the science journalist says:

"As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science."

This is 100% wrong. Any claim, any explanation of an event, definitely falls within the scope of science. That’s because science is a method of investigation. (Bold and italics in original)

Let me start by saying that I think Phil is partly right: Testable claims fall within the scope of science. I don't disagree with his main idea.

Where Phil is wrong, however, is in misconstruing the quote, then taking issue with his own misconstruction.

First, let me track down who said what. Phil links to this page, which in turn links to this story in the New York Times (registration required). The Times story is headlined, "Scientists Feel Miscast in Film on Life’s Origin," and it recounts the tale of how Prof. Dawkins ended up being interviewed for the creationist film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." This story includes the following:

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are "not within the scope or abilities of science."

Second, let's identify who Phil thinks is wrong. Is it the Times? Is it PZ Myers, who quoted the Times? Or is it the Iowa State Scientists, who said that supernatural explanations are "not within the scope or abilities of science?"

It seems pretty clear to me that Phil takes issue with the scientists at Iowa State University, and it is they who are responsible for an assertion that Phil labeled "100 wrong." Myers, by the way apparently agrees with the ISU scientists, as does the science journalist. But it is the ISU scientists who are the source of the assertion with which the Bad Astronomer takes issue.

Before we get to why Iowa State scientists would say such a thing, a little history. Once upon the time, there was an assistant professor of astronomy at Iowa State named Guillermo Gonzalez. Prof. Gonzalez wrote a little book called "The Privileged Planet," in which he argued that the cosmos showed evidence of deliberate design. Prof. Gonzales made no bones about being a proponent of what he called Intelligent Design; he also allegedly began to incorporate it into his work and to advocate that it be taught at ISU.

Over a hundred Iowa State professors issued a statement, which you can find here: http://www.biology.iastate.edu/STATEMENT.htm. This statement is the source of the offending quote.

Gonzales was denied tenure at Iowa State, in part because of his stance on Intelligent Design. (Gonzales is now something of a poster child for the Discovery Institute.)

We discussed the Gonzales matter in this thread, and Gonzales also gets mentioned in this thread, too.

The controversy at Iowa State did not center around whether there was such a thing as "the supernatural" that could be tested. The scientists were not saying, as Phil seems to think they were, that supernatural claims ought not be tested. Rather, they were saying that claims that recite as a cause a supernatural creator are not testable and are not, by definition, scientific.

Advocates of Intelligent Design claim that the position of our planet and the complexity of particular life forms and processes are such that they may only be explained by the existence of a creator or designer of the universe. However, such claims are premised on (1) the arbitrary selection of features claimed to be engineered by a designer; (2) unverifiable conclusions about the wishes and desires of that designer; and (3) an abandonment by science of methodological naturalism.

Methodological naturalism, the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events, is the foundation of the natural sciences. The history of science contains many instances where complex natural phenomena were eventually understood only by adherence to methodological naturalism.

To sum up then, it seems to me that Phil has misconstrued what the Iowa State scientists have said.

I'm not saying he owes anyone an apology. Nor is he wrong in his essay about testability. But as things now stand, it appears that Phil Plait supports the creationists. He should issue a clarification, before his own remarks get taken out of context.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the creationists might issue a news release along the following lines?

Professor Guillermo Gonzalez, a noted astronomer who was persecuted by Iowa State University for bravely asserting that intelligent design was supported by science, and who was denied tenure by Iowa State because of his courageous stance, received support today from fellow astronomer Phil Plait. Plait asserted on his web site that Iowa State's rationale for refusing to support Prof. Gonzalez's intelligent design investigation was, quote, one hundred percent wrong.

Before anyone starts to say that I should take this matter directly to Phil, I'll just say that I tried. If you check the responses to the thread, you'll see that I submitted the first and fifth responses to Phil's blog entry. I also sent him an email.

I'm concerned that Phil, in his zeal to make a point, may actually find himself being misconstrued. I would not like to see that happen.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How much time has elapsed since you posted your responses/e-mailed him? I'd like to see if he has further comment as well.

This issue reminds me of the way the Catholic Church investigates miracles. The preists are basically tasked with finding a naturalistic explanation for the claim. In many ways that what skeptics do, the difference being we find things that are inconlusive (if that ever actually happens) while the Church says "God did it".

 

[blutoski]

Be mindful that 'guilt by association' is a logical fallacy. The most common example is: "Hitler believed in driving safely, therefore, advocating driving safely is supporting Hitler."

I agree with creationists about a lot of things. Doesn't mean I support Creationism.



Having said that, the thread is at risk of degenerating into semantics. "Science" is a loose word that can mean anything from a field of study in general to specifically the study of nature. Usually, when skeptics say they advocate science, they mean the natural sciences.

And that's where there is reasonable debate: I agree that Plait appears to be taking exception to the ISU scientists, who are using the word 'science' the way I would expect (as short for "natural sciences"). It's really a truism that natural science can't test supernatural claims, pretty much by definition. I'm unaware of any dipstick that can scientifically test for the existence of a soul. This is not just pandering to Gould's NOMa.

So, I agree with you Brown - Plait has confused things up a bit.

 

[Henners]

I think that the line that Dawkins took was something like...

Either God exists, or God doesn't. If God exists, then science - the best method that we have ever discovered for finding out about things that exist - should be able to investigate God.

There are some well-kown techniques for interfacing with God. (Some are allegedly recommended by God.)

We should therefore be able to pull on this end of the string and be able to derive some information about what it is tied to.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Good call , Brown.

It certainly looks like Phil may not know the whole story here.

Let's await his response.

 

[Beady]

Having said that, the thread is at risk of degenerating into semantics. "Science" is a loose word that can mean anything from a field of study in general to specifically the study of nature. Usually, when skeptics say they advocate science, they mean the natural sciences.

I believe it's in Why People Believe Weird Things where Shermer cites the decision in MacLean v Arkansas, 1981, one of the many "Creationism in the Science Classroom" cases, where the court decides against Creationists, that Science receives a legal definition. According to that decision, Science has five unique characteristics:

1. It investigates the physical world, only;
2. It seeks answers solely with reference to physical law;
3. It's propositions are testable;
4. It's propositions are falsifiable;
5. It's findings are tentative.

Since the courts are where these questions are decided, it only makes sense to adopt the legal definition, seems to me.

 

[Brown]

I agree with creationists about a lot of things. Doesn't mean I support Creationism.

This is a good point and worth a follow-up.

Creationists occasionally do get something scientifically right (although the "something" is often a matter that they have been grudgingly forced to admit) and to say that they are right on this point is not to say they are right on everything.

Similarly, one scientist can disagree with another without either one being a creationist. In particular, a scientist might legitimately think that Gonzales was treated unfairly by Iowa State, but that does not mean that the scientist supports creationism.

Nothing in Phil's blog indicates to me that he was opining about the Gonzales episode one way or the other. Yet the quote that Phil finds so offensive played a major role in the Gonzales controversy, and although it represents a major university standing up for principles of good science, Phil is on record as disagreeing with it in very strong terms.

True, he has expressed the reason for his disagreement (which I contend was a misconstruction of the statement's intent), and no reasonable person could look at Phil's blog and say that he was taking a pro-creationism stance.

But we are not talking about reasonable people here. We are talking about a group of organized deceivers and mountebanks who have a history of deliberately taking statements from reputable researchers out of context with the unmistakable purpose of trying to persuade others, under patently false pretenses, that science supports their unscientific position.

 

[fls]

I'm not sure that Phil misunderstood anything. I also strongly object to the way this phrase ("we can't test the supernatural") gets used, not because it isn't technically correct, but because it's application is rarely (if ever) correct. The phrase inevitably gets trotted out in order to hide a particular claim from inspection, or in order for scientists to appease those who recognize that their beliefs are under attack.

It's not that those scientists don't recognize the errors in the application (although some definitely do). It's that they continue to allow the phrase to be framed in such a way as to make its misuse easy, which is what Cornelia Dean did with the ISU statement.

The way it is phrased, it gives the impression that science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural because it can't. But the reality is that science doesn't concern itself with the supernatural because it is meaningless. The 'supernatural', by definition and in practical use, provides no meaning to our understanding of the world. By not making this distinction, it leaves the impression that there is some sort of legitimacy to the idea.

I think we should restate it as "science can't test meaningless explanations, such as the supernatural."

ETA: Or maybe "science can't be bothered to test meaningless explanations."

Linda

 

[Brown]

How much time has elapsed since you posted your responses/e-mailed him? I'd like to see if he has further comment as well.

My responses were posted within minutes (apparently) of the posting of Phil's blog entry. As of this writing, there are 92 responses. Mine was the very first.

And my responses seemed to get no attention from other respondents. Dozens of replies came in (including the usual mixed bag), but none of them seemed to see that Phil may have inadvertently stuck his foot in his mouth.

I composed an email to Phil a few hours later. I also resolved not to follow up until I had some indication that he had at least an opportunity to make contributions to his blog--and therefore an opportunity to review comments appended thereto. When he made four new contributions without a clarification, I decided to post here.

 

[Brown]

I'm not sure that Phil misunderstood anything. I also strongly object to the way this phrase ("we can't test the supernatural") gets used, not because it isn't technically correct, but because it's application is rarely (if ever) correct. The phrase inevitably gets trotted out in order to hide a particular claim from inspection, or in order for scientists to appease those who recognize that their beliefs are under attack.

It's not that those scientists don't recognize the errors in the application (although some definitely do). It's that they continue to allow the phrase to be framed in such a way as to make its misuse easy, which is what Cornelia Dean did with the ISU statement.

This was close to my initial reaction, too. In other words, my initial feeling was that it was the journalist, Cornelia Dean, with whom Phil took issue. It was Dean who misconstrued the Iowa State quote, and who used it to make a point to which Phil took exception.

The only problem with this line of reasoning, as I saw it, was that Dean was merely quoting the ISU scientists, and Phil did not argue that her error was in misconstruing what the scientists' statement. The implication was (and is) that Phil took issue with the Iowa State statement.

Phil's should have tried to track the quote to its source, to learn its context. (It took me less than ten minutes to find ISU's statement using a search engine.) It seems to me that if Phil had been on the ISU faculty at the time, he more likely than not would have signed his name to it. Yet he is currently on record as saying its rationale (as he perceives it) is 100 percent wrong.

 

[fls]

This was close to my initial reaction, too. In other words, my initial feeling was that it was the journalist, Cornelia Dean, with whom Phil took issue. It was Dean who misconstrued the Iowa State quote, and who used it to make a point to which Phil took exception.

The only problem with this line of reasoning, as I saw it, was that Dean was merely quoting the ISU scientists, and Phil did not argue that her error was in misconstruing what the scientists' statement. The implication was (and is) that Phil took issue with the Iowa State statement.

Dean didn't merely quote the ISU scientists. Her sentence surrounding the quote changes the meaning of the statement to something that Phil disagrees with. Now, is this the fault of Dean, the fault of the ISU scientists who framed their statement in a way that allowed for this miscontruction, or is it the fault of Phil that he took issue with the miscontrued statement. I don't know. I think your complaint is reasonable - it is not clear that this isn't merely a misattribution/misunderstanding on Phil's part. But, I also think it is reasonable for us to look at this as our fault for not framing this issue in a way that makes it hard for it to be (deliberately or not) misconstrued.

Linda

 

[Brown]

Gonzales was denied tenure at Iowa State, in part because of his stance on Intelligent Design.

Update from The Des Moines Register:

Iowa State University professor Guillermo Gonzalez's support of the theory of intelligent design damaged his prospects for tenure long before his peers voted on the job promotion, according to e-mails from at least one professor in his department to those who decided Gonzalez's tenure request.
...
The disclosure of the e-mails is contrary to what ISU officials emphasized after Gonzalez, an assistant professor in physics and astronomy, learned that his university colleagues had voted to deny his bid for tenure.

Folks in ISU's physics and astronomy department said that Gonzalez's "lackluster ability to raise money for research" was a main consideration for the denial of tenure. But it was also no secret that Gonzales wanted to bring creationism to the fore, and that he had written a book arguing that there had been some intelligent intervention in Earth's history. It was also no secret that several members of the university's science faculty felt that to give tenure to Gonzales would taint the reputation of the University (renamed in 1959 as Iowa State University of SCIENCE and Technology) as well as the reputations of the departments and the individual educators.

Folks at Iowa State would like to have it remembered that ISU is where George Washington Carver got bachelor's and master's degrees. (A statue of Carver, holding a peanut, stands outside Carver Hall near the center of the ISU campus.) They would not like to have the University remembered as a proponent of pseudoscience. The University is still stinging from an embarrassing episode from the late 1970s, in which psuedoscience was taught at Iowa State.

So if turns out that the ISU teachers were troubled by Gonzales's "science," not just by his fundraising or lack thereof, would that be a bad thing?

[Physics and Astronomy Professor Bruce] Harmon acknowledged in an interview Thursday that Gonzalez's support for intelligent design was part of the tenure discussions among his ISU colleagues. [Chairman of the ISU Department of Physics and Astronomy Eli] Rosenberg agreed with that statement in an interview Friday.

"It was a consideration, I think," Harmon said.
...
"Would you have somebody in a French department who said Spanish was French?" Rosenberg asked.

Curiously, there is some question as to how the refusal to deny tenure should be labelled. The Register article says that there are those who suggest that the denial was based upon something other than scientific qualifications. Some have said it was "political," and said the decision was because of his "advocacy for intelligent design." But it is also alleged that Gonzales was denied tenure "because of his religious beliefs."

So here are the horns of a dilemma: If ISU said something like, "Yeah, we don't want to grant tenure to a guy who proposes that the supernatural is science," what can the ID proponents do? Do they want to continue the charade that ID is science, or do they want to play the religion card?

 

[my_wan]

So here are the horns of a dilemma: If ISU said something like, "Yeah, we don't want to grant tenure to a guy who proposes that the supernatural is science," what can the ID proponents do? Do they want to continue the charade that ID is science, or do they want to play the religion card?

I like it . I figure they will go the conspiracy route .

 

[T'ai Chi]

, and that he had written a book arguing that there had been some intelligent intervention in Earth's history.

LOL. I'd sure hope that there's been some intelligence involved with Earth.

 

[Mercutio]

"And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
'cos there's bugger-all down here on Earth..."

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's propositions are testable;

Well in theory.

Typically a lot of cutting edge science is theoretically testable, or may be testable given future technology.

For example, multiverse hypotheses, the newest subatomic particle, strings, etc. etc.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well in theory.

Typically a lot of cutting edge science is theoretically testable, or may be testable given future technology.

For example, multiverse hypotheses, the newest subatomic particle, strings, etc. etc.

Nope. Not even here is Creationism valid.

When you include the whole set of characteristics, your favored Creationism fails miserably:

It investigates the physical world, only;

Creationism fails: It does not investigate, but postulate, based on a religious belief. Anything that doesn't fit the theory will be discarded, or made to fit the theory.

It seeks answers solely with reference to physical law;

Creationism fails: It does not seek answers with reference to physical law at all. It seeks answers solely with reference to a religious belief.

It's propositions are testable;

Creationism fails: It would be a test for an interventionist God, which, if such evidence was found, would render all science false.

It's propositions are falsifiable;

Creationism fails: Propositions are not falsifiable, as they rely entirely on the intervention of God.

It's findings are tentative.

Creationism fails: Findings are not tentative, but pre-asserted, based on a religious belief.

 

[Brown]

Nothing in Phil's blog indicates to me that he was opining about the Gonzales episode one way or the other. Yet the quote that Phil finds so offensive played a major role in the Gonzales controversy, and although it represents a major university standing up for principles of good science, Phil is on record as disagreeing with it in very strong terms.

The Bad Astronomer has set the record straight--sort of.

In a recent post on his web site Phil reports that the Iowa Board of Regents upheld the denial of tenure to Gonzales. (Actually, Phil made another boo-boo here, saying that Iowa State University denied Gonzalez's appeal by a 7-1 vote. The news report to which he links, however, says it was the Board of Regents who voted 7-1 to uphold the decision.)

Anyway, there should be no question about Phil's stance on the ISU issue (even though there may be a question about his fact-checking).

Discovery Institute is a "think tank" full of people who like to lie and say that creationism is correct. They whined and moaned when ISU told Gonzalez to take a hike. Gonzalez appealed to ISU, hoping that they would be foolish enough to say "Golly, maybe we should throw hundreds of years of scientific discovery out the window!"

They didn’t. In a 7-1 decision they told Gonzalez that his hike can still be taken.

As I said before, that is 100% the correct decision. Tenure is given for many reasons, but one criterion is how well the candidate will represent the University. Supporting Intelligent Design would reflect very poorly on ISU. They know that, so they dumped him. Well that, plus a host of other problems they had with Gonzalez.
(italics in original, links omitted)

It is curious that Phil uses exactly opposite terminology ("100% the correct decision" vs. "100 pecent wrong") to describe essentially the same rationale.... But at least now the record is straightened out. Sort of.

 

[Brown]

An update: Gonzalez got hired by Ball State. He is, according to the Des Moines Register, still associated with the Discovery Institute. And Ball State is currently looking into complaints that another of its instructors tried to teach religion as science.

 

[Brown]

An update: Gonzalez got hired by Ball State.

Cross-reference.