Are there any PhD’s in ID?

[Daylight]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

I was surfing through some Intelligent Design web sites and noticed there are Scientists listed who believe in Intelligent Design, but the lists do not contain any Intelligent Design Scientists. Do they exist? What school do you need to attend to obtain a PhD in Intelligent Design? Is there a course syllabus?

[Yahweh]

You might find something useful at TalkOrigins - Suspicious Creationist Credentials (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html).

There are some creationists who have legitimate degrees in real sciences, but for the most part if you see someone who claims to have a PhD in Intelligent Design Biology, that PhD comes from a degree mill.

[ceo_esq]

Since ID, as far as I can tell, is mostly a philosophical preoccupation, I'm not sure it's possible to study "Intelligent Design Science" as such. If you were a scientist who wanted to get academic expertise in the area, I imagine you'd need to take some relevant philosophy courses. A hard science background would simply complement the philosophy, just as a scientific background is useful to understanding bioethical issues even though bioethics is a branch of philosophy rather than of science.

IMHO.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Daylight

I was surfing through some Intelligent Design web sites and noticed there are Scientists listed who believe in Intelligent Design, but the lists do not contain any Intelligent Design Scientists. Do they exist? What school do you need to attend to obtain a PhD in Intelligent Design? Is there a course syllabus?

It's not generally possible to get degrees in theories, even accepted ones.

I can get a degree in Physics, but not in Relativity.

I can get a degree in Biology, but not in Evolution.

I can get a degree in Geology, but not in Continental Drift.

I can get a degree in Mathematics, but not in the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.

[Daylight]

Thank you for the responses

What I find confusing is on the Intelligent Design websites, and in ID vs Evolution debates the pro ID side claims ID is a science. But, I haven’t been able to find any justification for this claim.

Yahweh: Thanks for the Talk.Origins link, very interesting. Do you know if established Sciences have the same amount of non-accredited PhD’s publishing papers as the ID Science?

ceo_esq: You bring up an interesting point. If ID is really better suited as a philosophy. Why do they keep pushing it as a science?

new drkitten: In your opinion, what branch of science would ID be part of?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Drkitten said:
I can get a degree in Biology, but not in Evolution.
Apropos, evolution is a topic you can get an doctorate in:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/epidemic/credits.html

http://hear.org/usgs-brd-pierc-hfs/index.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:IKmAf20pGmAJ:www.uleth.ca/sgs/researchAreas.html+%22doctorate+in+evolution%22&hl=en

~~ Paul

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Apropos, evolution is a topic you can get an doctorate in:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/epidemic/credits.html

http://hear.org/usgs-brd-pierc-hfs/index.html

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:IKmAf20pGmAJ:www.uleth.ca/sgs/researchAreas.html+%22doctorate+in+evolution%22&hl=en

~~ Paul

I was about to bring that up. A friend of mine has a bachelor's from UMass Amherst in Evolutionary Biology.

With it, he translates games for Sega of America.

(He minored in Japanese. And Astronomy!)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Daylight

new drkitten: In your opinion, what branch of science would ID be part of?

None, since (bad) theology is not a science.

If there were any evidence to support ID, it would depend upon the area from which the evidence were drawn. Most probably, since we're discussing the evolution and/or design of biological systems, it would be part of biology. But I could see someone working in chemistry or biochemistry trying to analyze various chemical reactions (proving that a particular autocatalytic substance could not have arisen by itself), or even a mathematician or computer scientist attempting to come up with a definition of "irreducibly complex" that will actually stand up to critical analysis for the length of a conference paper.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Apropos, evolution is a topic you can get an doctorate in:


Not quite. The pages you cite are guilty of sloppy phrasing.

It's common -- and actually quite useful -- for people to refer to
their "doctorate" in their research subspecialization. For example, Dr. X has a doctorate "in Mesoamerican tribal pottery."

Dr. X has no such thing. What Dr. X has is a degree, probably a "Doctor of Philosophy," in "Archeology" or perhaps in "Anthropology." She has taken a number of generalized archeology courses and a specialist seminar or two on Meso-america, and then done a four or five year (in the States) research project specializing in her pottery shards. But at the same time she was doing this, her office-mate was probably doing his multi-year research project on the sort of nails used to build ships in ancient Greece -- and he has a degree that is identical to her. They might even be competing for the same jobs.

In the context of the OP

The lists do not contain any Intelligent Design Scientists. Do they exist? What school do you need to attend to obtain a PhD in Intelligent Design? Is there a course syllabus?


... there is no school that offers a "Doctor of Independent Design," and none that I'm aware of that offers a "Doctor of Evolution." If you wanted to do a Ph.D. in applications of Intelligent Design theory to Biology, you would have to apply to a normal Biology department, take the standard biology core (which would almost certainly include at least one, probably several, courses in "evolutionary biology"), and then do your research project on ID theories. At the end of this time, if you were lucky, you would get a Ph.D. in Biology.

What would be more likely is that you would crash and burn at some point during the process. To start out with, if you can still hold on to your ID theories after being exposed to "real" courses in evolutionary biology, you're unlikely to be able to pass the classes. Even if you pass those classes, you're going to have the devil's own time passing the Ph.D. qualifiers, finding an advisor willing to supervise you on your proposed project, and begin able to put together a dissertation proposal acceptable to the department and to your committee. Unless you were absolutely brilliant and able to produce more evidence than than the entire Discovery Institute has been successful with, the theory
of ID simply cannot withstand the sort of scrutiny that is routine at the postgraduate level.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by new drkitten
...... the theory
of ID simply cannot withstand the sort of scrutiny that is routine at the postgraduate level. Which is the same basic reason accredited institutions don't offer PhDs in Evolution.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by hammegk
Which is the same basic reason accredited institutions don't offer PhDs in Evolution.

Utterly and completely false.

Accredited institutions don't offer Ph.D.'s in Evolution because there is (to the best of my knowledge) no department or program in "Evolution" offered at such an institution anywhere in the world. The Ph.D. that is offered would be in Biology or an allied discipline.

On the other hand, it's very easy to specialize in evolution as one's thesis research, and evolutionary biology is a widely-recognized and accepted subfield (with its own journals --for example, The Journal of Evolutionary Biology, BMC Evolutionary Biology, Frontiers in Zoology, Evolutionary Ecology, and so forth). I should point out that, of course, there are a number of vanity journals on ID -- but if you check the relevant impact factors and citation indices, you'll see that there are a number of "real" journals in evolutionary biology.

Almost every institution has a biologist or three on the faculty with a research specialization in evolutionary biology, and it's very easy to get an appropriate committee, advisor, and proposal together.

So if you want a Ph.D. in Biology with a specialization in Evolutionary Theory, I can steer you to about twenty or thirty places that can easily accomodate you.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Let's see:

http://www.eb.tuebingen.mpg.de/

http://www.zi.ku.dk/evolbiology/

http://www.uni-muenster.de/Biologie.EvoEco/Evolbio/

http://www.egs.uu.se/evbiol/index.html

http://www.unisi.it/ricerca/dip/bio_evol/dipartim_i.htm

http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/

And look, even in the US:

http://www.brown.edu/Departments/EEB/

http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/


~~ Paul

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos


http://www.brown.edu/Departments/EEB/

http://www.tulane.edu/~eeob/



You mean you really don't see the difference between "Evolutionary Biology" and "Evolution"?

[Daylight]

New drkitten

Thanks for the replies. Do you know if there any accredited Universities that teach ID? Does something need to be taught at an accredited University to be considered a science?

Hammegk’s post brings up another interesting point. The science of ID seems to focus a majority of the time discrediting Evolution. Can one science focus on discrediting another science (Evolution) instead of focusing on research (into ID) in its own field?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Daylight
Yahweh: Thanks for the Talk.Origins link, very interesting. Do you know if established Sciences have the same amount of non-accredited PhD’s publishing papers as the ID Science?
See QuackWatch - Degree Mills (http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/dm0.html).

Degrees from mainstream sciences are available just as widely. You wouldnt want a person with a fake PhD of law defending you in the court room, and you wouldnt want someone with a fake degree in structural engineering designing bridges, and its really scary when people buy fake health degrees related and then proceed to run a cosmetic surgery "clinic" out of their garage.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Daylight

Thanks for the replies. Do you know if there any accredited Universities that teach ID? Does something need to be taught at an accredited University to be considered a science?


Well, Dr. Behe (of the Discovery Institute) is a professor at Lehigh University in the Biological Sciences department, and Lehigh University is certainly accredited. I assume (although I can't find any hard evidence) that Dr. Behe has teaching responsibilities and would be able to teach "intelligent design," if nothing else, under the BIOS 391 "Undergraduate Research" course title. On the other hand, if you look at Dr. Behe's web page, he's rather explicit that his department does not support his theories (and he would probably be hard pressed to persuade them to add official courses on the theory of ID)

from Dr. Behe's web page
Official Disclaimer

My ideas about irreducible complexity and intelligent design are entirely my own. They certainly are not in any sense endorsed by either Lehigh University in general or the Department of Biological Sciences in particular. In fact, most of my colleagues in the Department strongly disagree with them.


So, first observation : note that Dr. Behe is a biologist, working in biological sciences -- any degrees that he superviseed would be awarded in biological sciences, not in ID.

Second, note that he is unlikely to get the necessary departmental support to award any such degrees, even an innocuous Ph.D. (Biological Sciences), on a research question with which "most of [his] colleagues in the Department strongly disagree."

Although it's not formally necessary that something be taught at an accredited university to be considered a "science," it would certainly be very unusual for a "science" not to be taught at any accredited university. The usual problem is exactly the opposite; accreditation is not an especially thorough gatekeeper, and all sorts of gaudy nonsense will typically slip in under the guise of individual researchers practicing "academic freedom." (Check recent examples of the "psychology" as practiced by Dr. Schwartz at the University of Arizona, as described in Randi's recent commentaries, for example.) Of course, just because a (sub)field is taught does not necessary mean that it will be reflected in the name of the department -- for example, until recently there were very few departments of "cognitive science" world-wide, although the field has existed for at least thirty years and arguably much longer. Similarly, no department (to my knowlege) of "information theory" exists (although Edinburgh does have a department of "Informatics"), and of course, there is no department of "Quantum Mechanics" as that's subsumed into the physics department.

Occasionally (very occasionally) a new development in science will quite legitimately be so new that no accredited university has had a chance to add it to its course curriculum. For several reasons, this is extremely rare. Any good, forward-thinking university faculty will as a matter of course keep up with new developments, and it's very easy to add a course -- particularly a research seminar of some sort -- to reflect new materials. I myself have taken courses focused on particular issues, methods, or findings before they were formally published (the instructor manged to get preprint copies of the relevant journal articles, and often was able to get the primary researcher to come and speak to the course). Second, of course, most research is done at accredited schools, and the school will be teaching the new material more or less as soon as it comes out. So the only likely way that good "science" would not be taught at an accredited school would be if the primary researcher were somewhere else and the results were so new that no one had yet been able to look at it in detail.

For "intelligent design," this rather obviously does not hold. Using poor Dr. Behe as an example -- his first book on ID was published nearly ten years ago, and it has been the subject of extensive analysis and criticism, including several volumes (e.g. Debating Design: from Darwin to DNA, Darwinism, Design & Public Education) focusing specifically on the controversy. Anyone who really wanted to teach ID has more than ample material and time to do so.

On the other hand, if you check for course descriptions involving the phrase "intelligent design," you'll see that they are, almost without exception, non-biology courses. Courses in theology, philosophy, apologetics, and such like abound. The only course I 've found in a biology department that addreses this issue is from Campell University, which explicitly subordinates scientific evidence to revelation in its mission statement (as follows):


tatement of Purpose of Campbell University (excerpt)

IV. The mission of Campbell University, as a community of Christian scholars, is to

A. provide students with a Christian world view;

B. bring the word of God, mind of Christ, and power of the Spirit to bear in developing moral courage, social sensitivity, and ethical responsibility that will inspire a productive and faithful maturation as individuals and as citizens;

C. transfer from one generation to the next the vast body of knowledge and values
accumulated over the ages;

D. encourage creativity, imagination, and rigor in the use of intellectual skills;

E. affirm the University’s commitment to the belief that truth is never one-dimensional but in wholeness is revelatory, subjective, and transcendent as well as empirical, objective, and rational, and that all truth finds its unity in the mind of Christ.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Drkitten said:
You mean you really don't see the difference between "Evolutionary Biology" and "Evolution"?
Within the context of biology? No.

Anyway, so it has to be called simply "Department of Evolution" to qualify. Does this count:

http://www.biosci.ohio-state.edu/~eeob/

Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology.

How about this:

http://pondside.uchicago.edu/ecol-evol/

Department of Ecology and Evolution. No "biology" in the title at all!

And:

http://www.egs.uu.se/

Department of Evolution, Genomics, and Systematics.

Or:

http://www.ucdavis.edu/search/faculty/f79.html

Department of Evolution and Ecology.

Of course, these may be departments within a division of biology. Nevertheless, they probably give PhDs in something like "evolution and ecology."

Look, a Department of Relativity and Gravity:

www.engl.physics.ksu.ru/pulpits/trg/

And one of Relativity and Particles:

http://www.abc.org.br/english/orgn/acaen.asp?codigo=jtiomno

Holy moley! A Department of Ontology and Epistemology. If those aren't theories, I don't know what is:

http://www.philosophybulgaria.org/en/Sekcii/Ontologia/index.php

And finally, someone calling it like it is, with a Department of Theory:

http://www.mcgill.ca/music/theory/


Anyway, I take your point, but it won't be long until there are PhDs in evolution, period. The reference to biology will be implied.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Daylight

Hammegk’s post brings up another interesting point. The science of ID seems to focus a majority of the time discrediting Evolution. .....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:


"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. ...


.....Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. .....

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's

These definitions are simply wrong.
Now the question is, which definitions are being presented in high school and introductory college level treatments. Anyone else see the problem many people have with 'teaching evolution'?


http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1365

The late Ernst Mayr was one of the most influential evolutionary biologists in America during the 20th century. Those interested in evolutionary theory would do well to understand the words penned by Mayr in his final book, “What Evolution Is,� published after over 60 years as a leading evolutionist. What follows are some highlights of the thoughts shared by Dr. Mayr in “What Evolution Is:�

It should be stated at the outset that Mayr is an evolutionist who believes the evidence for evolution is very great. Thus, to whatever extent I argue for weaknesses in evolutionary theory, I want to acknowledge that Mayr himself believed that evolution could overcome these alleged obstacles. As far as I can tell, Mayr remained a committed evolutionist to the end.

Mayr begins by revealing that part of his motivations for writing the book was an intent to challenge to believers in Genesis with the evidence for evolution:
“[M]y account is directed to those creationists who want to know more about the current paradigm of evolutionary science, if for no other reason than to be able to better argue against it. I do not expect to convert this kind of reader, but I want to show him or her how powerful the evidence is that induces the evolutionary biologist to disagree with the account presented in Genesis.� (p. xiii-xiv) ....


For those who accept Mayr’s views, it is apparent that the implications of evolution are very far reaching. Mayr believes the evidence shows that our behavior and thoughts are essentially completely determined by evolutionary processes:
“But the importance of this concept [evolution] goes far beyond biology. The thinking of modern humans, whether we realize it or not, is profoundly effected—one is almost tempted to say determined—by evolutionary thinking.� (p. Xiii)
If all human thinking and behavior has been “determined� by evolution, then Mayr is indeed correct that evolutionary theory has implications which go far beyond the science of biology. Yet Mayr concedes that his bold conclusions about evolution are not necessarily based upon strong empirical proof, because evolution is a mere historical inference:
“Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented. Evolution as a whole, and the explanation of particular evolutionary events, must be inferred from observations.� (p. 13)
....

Difficulties finding evidence for evolution are well illustrated in the case of the fossil record. Mayr explains that the fossil record is full of “gaps� where taxa “often appear quite suddenly:�
“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series. New types often appear quite suddenly, and their immediate ancestors are absent in the earlier geological strata. The discovery of unbroken series of species changing gradually into descending species is very rare. Indeed the fossil record is one of discontinuities, seemingly documenting jumps (saltations) from one type of organisms to a different type.� (p. 14)

Of course inferring descent from the fossil record might be easier if we had some independent basis to know that various extinct species were related. The concept of “homology� thus comes into play, where evolutionists argue that certain body structures in different organisms are historically related, as there was “partial inheritance of the same genotype from the common ancestor.� (p. 27) However, even homology itself is merely an inference:
“The claim that certain characteristics in rather distantly related taxa are homologous is at first merely a conjecture. The validity of such an inference must be tested by a series of criteria (Mayr and Ashlock 1991), such as position in relation to neighboring organs, the presence of intermediate stages in related taxa, similarity of ontogeny, existence of intermediate conditions in fossil ancestors, and agreements with evidence provided by other homologies. Homology cannot be proven; it is always inferred.� (p. 27)
....Mayr recounts the molecular revolution below:
“When it was discovered that the molecules that make up genes undergo evolution and have a phylogeny just like morphological characters, it was hoped that a definite phylogeny of organisms could soon be constructed; molecular evidence would enable a decision whenever the morphological data were ambiguous. Alas, things did not turn out to be quite so simple, for this reasoning ignored the phenomenon of mosaic evolution. Each component of the genotype can evolve somewhat independently of the rest of the genotype. Endeavors to construct phylogenetic tress on the basis of evolution of one particular molecule frequently produced results that were clearly in conflict with a massive amount of morphological and other evidence. For technical reasons the molecules that were first used for such analyses were ribosomal RNA and mitochondrial DNA. Unfortunately these molecules often went their own evolutionary way.� (p. 51)
What does it mean when molecules go their “own evolutionary way?� I can only take it to mean that they evolved in a pattern which we wouldn’t expect if common ancestry were the case.


Sometimes common descent is strongly challenged by the data. Mayr recounts that “Photosensitive, eyelike organs have developed in the animal series independently at least 40 times…� (p. 205) It is incredible that such complexity would evolve “independently�—again, similarity implies ancestry, except for when it doesn’t. Even more significantly, Mayr finds that some of the same genes are used in eye construction despite the fact that these eyes supposedly evolved in completely separate lineages:
“It had been shown that by morphological-phylogenetic research that photoreceptor organs (eyes) had developed at least 40 times independently during the evolution of animal diversity. A developmental geneticist, however, showed that all animals with eyes have the same regulator gene, Pax 6, which organizes the construction of the eye. It was therefore concluded at first concluded that all eyes were derived from a single ancestral eye with the Pax 6 gene. But then the geneticist also found Pax 6 in species without eyes, and proposed that they must have descended from ancestors with eyes. However, this scenario turned out to be quite improbable and the wide distribution of Pax 6 required a different explanation. It is now believed that Pax 6, even before the origin of eyes, had an unknown function in eyeless organisms, and was subsequently recruited for its role as an eye organizer.� (p. 113)
Mayr attempts to give a plausible evolutionary explanation for why so many types of organisms use the same genes – through completely independent evolution – to construct eyes. However, given that this identical usage of the Pax 6 gene supposedly evolved so many (40+) times in evolutionary history, it almost appears that life was “pre-destined� to evolve eyes in this manner. Mayr recounts that this independent evolution is not uncommon:
“That a structure like the eye could originate numerous times independently in very different kinds of organisms is not unique in the living world. After photoreceptors had evolved in animals, bioluminescence originated at least 30 times independently among various kinds of organisms. In most cases, essentially similar biochemical mechanisms were used. Virtually scores of similar cases have been discovered in recent years, and they often make use of hidden potentials of the genotype inherited from early ancestors.� (p. 206-207)
Mayr attributes the re-usage of the same parts in distantly related organisms to “hidden potentials of the genotype� but one must ask if this is consistent with common descent? ....



As to my personal adherence to ID, I profess none, over and above whatever linkage one might see between my belief in the Strong Anthropic Principle and Behe/Dembski etal.:)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Daylight

Hammegk’s post brings up another interesting point. The science of ID seems to focus a majority of the time discrediting Evolution. Can one science focus on discrediting another science (Evolution) instead of focusing on research (into ID) in its own field?

Well, that's part of the problem, innit? Neither "ID" nor "Evolution" are "sciences"! They are, at best, theories (which is part of the reason that you can't get a Ph.D. in "Evolution"), although in the case of evolution, it's a theory that has long since met the evidentiary standards usually demanded of a natural law.

But consider the implications of your statement. "Discrediting Evolution." Does it really make sense to discredit a science? I mean, how would I discredit "physics"? What would it mean to discredit "geometry"? "electrical engineering"? "Sciences" are fields of study, not individual theories that can be demonstrated to be true or false.

That's part of the reason why "evolution" isn't a science, any more than the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic is.

There are lots of instances in the history of science where proponents of one "theory" would focus huge amounts of time and attention on discrediting a rival theory; German opposition to Relativity Theory (which they dismissed as "Jewish Science") is a good example. Of course, Relativity theory is alive and well (and as far as we know, correct) today. To the best of my knowledge, no theory has ever been accepted without a large body of evidence in its own favor -- so if the ID proponents are running purely a "negative campaign," as it were, they are almost certain to lose. But I'm comfortable with this in the long run, since a) ID is almost certainly wrong, and b) there is as yet no evidence supporting ID that could be presented.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Drkitten said:
Well, that's part of the problem, innit? Neither "ID" nor "Evolution" are "sciences"! They are, at best, theories (which is part of the reason that you can't get a Ph.D. in "Evolution"), although in the case of evolution, it's a theory that has long since met the evidentiary standards usually demanded of a natural law.
The theory regarding evolution is called the Theory of Evolution. Evolution itself is a complete science: theory, evidence, hypothesis, experiment, application, etc. If that is not the case for evolution, then how does any field of investigation become science?

Perhaps when you refer to "science" you really mean "branch of science."

:D

~~ Paul