Intelligent design at the Institute of Biology

[Asolepius]

I don't know how many IoB members visit this forum - I know a few do. This is just an alert to the current issue of `Biologist' - look at the letters page. The debate sparked off by my leading article last year seems to have been hijacked by the ID fraternity. Now this is a very important development. ID outside the scientific mainstream is one thing, but here we have the premier professional association for biology in the UK apparently having ID proponents among its members. I'm particularly interested in the citations in support, as there has never been a single piece of ID research data published in a peer-reviewed journal. These are just books written by people with strange ideas - where is the critical review?

Although I am itching to reply yet again, I feel I should let someone else have a go.

[Soapy Sam]

ROLFE!

[Rolfe]

Yo!Originally posted by Asolepius
The debate sparked off by my leading article last year seems to have been hijacked by the ID fraternity.Les, it's only one guy. (Luke Randall.) Given that Roger Coghill is a member, I'd be surprised if there weren't one or two more members with something of a woo-woo bent, and here you seem to have flushed out a prime example. His references amount to three books and his own web site, as far as I can see. This may spark an interesting debate, and I don't think one letter is exactly evidence that the IoB is going down the woo-woo pan.

Actually, this illustrates something I've been concerned about for some time. There are holes in our understanding of the origin and evolution of life. Some of the explanations advanced to cover some of these sound to me more like specious reasoning desperately trying not to allow the creationists any foothold in the debate than rational or probable hypothesis. I do detect a degree of desperate defence of holy writ surfacing when anyone tries to discuss rationally any of the problems with evolutionary understanding as it is at the moment.

This current fad for "intelligent design" seems to me to be a very backward step. It is encouraging defensiveness among evolutionary biologists, rather than an open examination of the existing inconsistencies in current theory. Perhaps it's inevitable. If every admission that there is a question to which we do not yet have the answer elicits a triumphalist "told you so, Goddidit!" from the ID mob, then I can understand the defensiveness. But it seems to me that understanding will not be advanced until we can actually look at these probelms and inconsistencies, and admit that we don't have terribly good hypotheses to cover them. Only then will rational explanations for the apparent "gaps" that the ID types are whittling at be able to be advanced.

Maybe the answers to that letter will be interesting. However, to do that I fear one would have to read the books he's cited, which I don't really intend to do in the near future.

Rolfe.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by Rolfe

... There are holes in our understanding of the origin and evolution of life. Some of the explanations advanced to cover some of these sound to me more like specious reasoning desperately trying not to allow the creationists any foothold in the debate than rational or probable hypothesis. I do detect a degree of desperate defence of holy writ surfacing when anyone tries to discuss rationally any of the problems with evolutionary understanding as it is at the moment...

Rolfe.


I agree. Especially the question of origin of life. (OOL)

Mind you- there are holes in our understanding of friction and how to mix perfect concrete too. There just aren't enough loonies interested in concrete.

[Asolepius]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Yo!Les, it's only one guy. (Luke Randall.) Given that Roger Coghill is a member, I'd be surprised if there weren't one or two more members with something of a woo-woo bent, and here you seem to have flushed out a prime example. His references amount to three books and his own web site, as far as I can see. This may spark an interesting debate, and I don't think one letter is exactly evidence that the IoB is going down the woo-woo pan.

I'm not suggesting for one moment that the IoB is doing that. But in fact it's more than one letter - 2 this issue in support of a religious view, and another by Kim Matthews in March.


Actually, this illustrates something I've been concerned about for some time. There are holes in our understanding of the origin and evolution of life......
Of course there are gaps - what is science but the filling of them? Of course the origin of life is open to speculation. The difference between that and evolution is one of observation. We were not around to see life get started, but we can see evolution happening within our own short lifetimes.


Maybe the answers to that letter will be interesting. However, to do that I fear one would have to read the books he's cited, which I don't really intend to do in the near future.

Rolfe.
You don't have to. You just have to ask the question - is anything in the books based on research data published in a peer-reviewed journal? If the answer is no, then by definition it's not science. Better than that, do a citation listing search for `intelligent design' and see what you get.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Asolepius
I'm not suggesting for one moment that the IoB is doing that. But in fact it's more than one letter - 2 this issue in support of a religious view, and another by Kim Matthews in March.Actually, not. The second letter (Ivan Stockley) is merely criticising the assertion that religious belief is incompatible with being a scientist. A point I would actually agree with. He doesn't say anything about ID.

I think reducing the book references to a question regarding whether everything they say is supported by peer-reviewed research is simplistic. I know peer-reviewed papers which are so much total garbage. And when one is discussing points to which we do not know the answer it is going to be more difficult to provide such citations.

I'm going to Google the names of the authors of the books and see what I can dredge up.

Rolfe.

[Asolepius]

Originally posted by Rolfe
Actually, not. The second letter (Ivan Stockley) is merely criticising the assertion that religious belief is incompatible with being a scientist. A point I would actually agree with. He doesn't say anything about ID.
Quite right, he doesn't. But he misquotes me. I was trying to define 2 types of belief, one based on evidence and the other on faith. What I would like Stockley to tell us is, as a religious scientist, how does he decide which to use at any one time? At the risk of baring my soul (which I don't have anyway), for decades I was never able to reconcile the two, and I was a much worse scientist for it.

I think reducing the book references to a question regarding whether everything they say is supported by peer-reviewed research is simplistic. I know peer-reviewed papers which are so much total garbage. And when one is discussing points to which we do not know the answer it is going to be more difficult to provide such citations.
Quite right again - I review published papers for a living and seriously doubt peer review a lot of the time. But at least the journals provide the `Aunt Sally' option, whereby claims can be publicly debated and shot down if necessary. There is no regulation whatever of books, apart from the libel and intellectual property laws. But I am not demanding that everything must be supported by peer-reviewed research. I am just asking whether anything is so supported. The fact is, that Behe for example has not published one paper on his claims.

I'm going to Google the names of the authors of the books and see what I can dredge up.

Rolfe. For a useful critique of Michael Behe's book, go here. (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml)