Pro-Intelligent Design Op-Ed in NY Times

Elektrix · 8th February 2005, 07:02 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/op...ce61fa&ei=5070

Curious what everyone's take is on this. This piece was written by:

Quote:

Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution."

-Elektrix

Ipecac · 8th February 2005, 07:11 AM

Nothing new here.

"Things are complicated. Therefore they must have been designed."

He assumes that complexity has to be the result of intelligence but doesn't offer any evidence. Just tries to poke holes in evolution.

Elektrix · 8th February 2005, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ipecac
Nothing new here.

"Things are complicated. Therefore they must have been designed."

He assumes that complexity has to be the result of intelligence but doesn't offer any evidence. Just tries to poke holes in evolution.

Yeah. Just curious if anyone has any more specific refutations of the specific things in this editorial. A creationist friend of mine sent this to me and I am sure he's going to want to debate it.

-Elektrix

Yaotl · 8th February 2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence.

Quote:

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life.

They both sound like "I don't believe you, so you're wrong."

Elektrix · 8th February 2005, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yaotl
They both sound like "I don't believe you, so you're wrong."

Are there any other logical fallacies at play here? I'm not sure, but it sounds like sort of an argument from ignorance (or maybe the inverse of that..... arguing that because we don't know how something could have happened without a designer, it must have happened with a designer). I can't put my finger on it, but it seems like there is some aspect of arguing that the design must be true because there is no other logical explanation for how such complex things came to be.

-Elektrix

drkitten · 8th February 2005, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elektrix
Yeah. Just curious if anyone has any more specific refutations of the specific things in this editorial. A creationist friend of mine sent this to me and I am sure he's going to want to debate it.

Just that I noticed quickly:

Behe's claim that ID is not a religiously-based idea is a flat-out lie; see the infamous "Wedge document" (published by the Discovery institute, where he is a senior fellow) for refutation. (Sample quote: "Discovery Institute's Center... wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.")

His four linked claims are simply gibberish.

First : "we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore." Unfortunately, we can also often mis-recognize the effects of nature as design (and vice versa); see New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountan for a rebuttal on one side, and the various Leakey artefacts for another.

Second: "the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology." This is simply wrong, and quoting 18th century clergymen doesn't make them so. Since we can't reliably recognize "design" when we see it, this entire point is little more than a restatement of the first fallacy.

Third: "we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence." This is wrong at two levels. First, we have several good explanations, but none that have been overwhelmingly proven to the satisfaction of the majority of scientists, which is why albiogenesis is still an active research area. Second, albiogenesis is not evolution; evolution (which in its core claims is simply "descent with modification, driven partially by natural selection") only deals with changes to life once it has begun. So he's erected a straw man and then misrepresented what we do know about the straw man.

Fourth, "in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life." This is simply an argument from ignorance. I could identically say "in the absence of any convincing non-fairy explanation, we are justifying in thinking that fairies were involved in life."

Misrepresentation of current scientific beliefs and argument from ignorance. Classic ID.

Rolfe · 8th February 2005, 07:44 AM

I think there is an element here of people who know they were told so often in science class that left to themselves things will always tend to become more disorganised (and indeed in day to day experience we observe that this is the case), when suddenly they're told to believe that the most extremely ordered structures we know about came about by chance, there's a "huh?" factor.

Maybe to ancient Babylonians were on to something after all....

Rolfe.

Elektrix · 8th February 2005, 07:48 AM

Awesome, thanks Dr. Kitten!

wollery · 8th February 2005, 07:52 AM

For my mind he's totally shot himself in the foot by admitting that evolution can and has occurred. If you admit that, then you must concede that it could have occured all the way from protobacteria, and then there's little room for ID. All that's left for the designer is abiogenesis, and almost all of your ID arguments are rendered useless, because protobacteria are, by definition, not very complex.

Matabiri · 8th February 2005, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elektrix
Are there any other logical fallacies at play here? I'm not sure, but it sounds like sort of an argument from ignorance

I call it "argument from personal incredulity", but I don't know if it has a better name...

Basically, "I can't believe/understand this, so it must be wrong."

Brown · 8th February 2005, 08:24 AM

Quote:

The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore.

Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.

What a curious use of the word "uncontroversial," and what a deliberate abuse of the word "design." If one uses the word "design" merely to imply an "arrangement," something that could come into being without intelligence, then the first two claims might be "uncontroversial." We can see and recognize that things are arranged in nature. Snowflakes and crystals are clearly symmetrically arranged, planets tend to be smooth and spherical (and their ring systems display obvious patterns), some volcanoes produce symmetrical cones, and wind can blow sand into pleasant wave-shaped patterns. These are hardly haphazard or confused structures.

But if one uses the word "design" to mean "a planned scheme," then the first two claims are far from "uncontroversial."

A typical dictionary or thesaurus lists both meanings for "design": an arrangement or pattern without the connotation of a designer, and a planned scheme or composition deliberately created by a designer. People can agree with Behe using the former definition, but Behe doesn't explain that he is really using the latter.

Quote:

The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell.

This is disingenuousness, pure and simple. Eugenie Scott spoke about this at length at TAM2. Behe wrongly and dishonestly equates evolution with Darwinism. The fact that scientists disagree with Darwin does not, by itself, mean that they endorse Behe's thesis. The business about "no research studies" is either wrong, or my university Biology professor was lying to me.

Quote:

The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization.

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious.

The illogic of this "simple argument" is stunning. First, it assumes what it is trying to prove, saying that we should take for granted that there has been intelligent design, unless there is "convincing" or "compelling" evidence to the contrary. Second, it is fundamentally unscientific. It assumes that we should throw up our hands and conclude that there is no natural explanation, rather than learn whether such an explanation may exist. In other words, it is a waste of time to try to find any "convincing" or "compelling" evidence. Third, it sets up a false dichotomy, namely, that if Darwin was wrong in any respect, then intelligent design must be right. Fourth, the whole argument is based upon ignorance. Intelligent design is not based upon affirmative evidence of design or the existence of any designer, but upon a lack of evidence that there was no intelligent design. When someone argues that he is right because of the lack of evidence supporting his position, it is a pretty safe bet that he is dead wrong.

Behe says that intelligent design is a "rival theory" to "Darwinism" (which he dishonestly suggests is the same as evolution). What nonsense. Intelligent design is not a "theory" in the same sense as evolution. Intelligent design is not subject to test, and makes no predictions. (Based upon principles of evolution, scientists--including Darwin himself--have made predictions and have subjected the principles to test.) Moreover, the "rivalry" is only in the religious and political arenas not in the scientific arena. In science, the "rivalry" is non-existent. Peer reviewed scientific journals do not recognize any such rivalry, and the vast majority of practicing scientists do not recognize any such rivalry.

Elektrix · 8th February 2005, 08:33 AM

Awesome, thank you too Brown.

-Elektrix

cbish · 8th February 2005, 08:34 AM

Elektrix

Thumb through this site: http://www.talkdesign.org/

Ladewig · 8th February 2005, 08:43 AM

As others on this board have pointed out in great biological detail, calling such a Designer "intelligent" is rather absurd. If the human body was the best that He could do, then He is rather amateurish.

headscratcher4 · 8th February 2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ladewig
As others on this board have pointed out in great biological detail, calling such a Designer "intelligent" is rather absurd. If the human body was the best that He could do, then He is rather amateurish.

Indeed, the appendix alone would seem to argue for either a very bad designer or the rediculousness of intelligent design...

Brown · 8th February 2005, 09:52 AM

As of this writing, the Times has not published any letters to the editor pertaining to Behe's column. There is a letter printed today in response to the stories and columns discussing reluctance by some teachers to discuss evolution. The author, a former psychology professor, argues that the effects could spread to other fields of science. He adds:

Quote:

But an even worse casualty would be the conceptual understanding of the scientific method, a procedure whose goal is to completely explain all of a discipline's phenomena. Creationism requires a creator and intelligent design requires an intelligent designer, both of whom intervene at any time to make an otherwise complete explanation moot.

For those who wish to do so, there may be an opportunity to write a brief letter to the Times taking some pokes at Behe's arguments. List your credentials if you have them (the Times gives weight to credentials). I doubt my own credentials are sufficiently noteworthy.

My post above is way too big to be the basis for a letter to the editor. You might use an idea or two, or try a different approach. For example, you might ridicule Behe's notion that design is "obvious." That same argument was used to "prove" (for example) that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth.

thatguywhojuggles · 8th February 2005, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elektrix
Awesome, thank you too Brown.

-Elektrix

It's nice having a think tank at your disposal, isn't it!

SpaceFluffer · 8th February 2005, 11:39 AM

Someone should write a rebuttal and send it to the paper.

Psi Baba · 8th February 2005, 11:44 AM

My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?

headscratcher4 · 8th February 2005, 11:45 AM

Everyone should write...just keep in mind that unless you are a major, known scientist (like Dawins) ..the Times is unlikely to publish anything longer than 150 words (and even that's a stretch). Pick one hole and call the bluff...don't try a sweeping rebuttal that answers everyting...they won't even look at it...

SpaceFluffer · 8th February 2005, 12:11 PM

OK, I wasn't intending to write anything, but that article got me pissed. I'd welcome comments on the following:

Quote:

Michael Behe's 'Design for Living' Op-ed that appeared on Feb 7th is misleading at best. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a religiously based idea. Even if a proponent of intelligent design accepts that evolution occurred, this does not make the idea that a creator had a hand in the process a scientific one. Intelligent design is a non-testable theory, one that cannot be rigorously examined and amended in the same way that scientific theories are. The only 'evidence' that ID has to speak of, is the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck' idea that Behe appeals to. Why should we believe that our everyday experience is a good basis for thinking about the very nature of our existence?

The analogy that Behe makes with Mount Rushmore - namely that it looks like it was designed, and we know it was, so anything else that looks designed probably is - only displays the author's misunderstanding of the basic ideas behind natural selection. The mutations that occur during the evolutionary process are indeed random, but only mutations useful to survival will tend to be carried on to the next generation. This process is highly non-random.

The human mind can be fooled, and is fooled on a regular basis. The method that science has developed is one that takes the fallability of the experimenter out of the picture, allowing the true nature of reality to shine through, unaffected by any bias or wishful-thinking on the part of the scientists. Just because most people think that life was designed doesn't make it so. Of course, if everyone were to think that life developed without a designer, that wouldn't make it so either.

The current polling numbers on belief in intelligent design simply reflect that fact that most people in this country have not been taught the scientific method adequately; if proponents of ID begin to win more courtroom battles in the future, this situation can only deteriorate.

Probably a bit long, but I felt like writing it...

69dodge · 8th February 2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck.

No. If it looks like a duck, and if we know that non-ducks don't look like ducks, then we may conclude it's a duck.

But that's the very question we're trying to answer: has the non-design process of evolution produced the living things we find around us? If it has, then life does not have the strong appearance of design; it has the strong appearance of evolution.

If we do not already know what non-design is capable of, we cannot say whether something appears to have been designed.

So the argument is quite circular.

Jorghnassen · 8th February 2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
OK, I wasn't intending to write anything, but that article got me pissed. I'd welcome comments on the following:

Probably a bit long, but I felt like writing it...

One little comment, which you are probably going to dismiss, but anyway, I really hate it when people talk about the scientific method, like there was a unique, precise (simplistic) recipe one must perform in order to do science. Just my 2 cents...

69dodge · 8th February 2005, 01:38 PM

Quote:

nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore

Now that's just silly. We know who designed Mount Rushmore. We do not know who designed life, or even whether anyone did.

Alternatively, it is useful to search for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore, and the explanation we've found is: people evolved and then some of them carved it.

alfaniner · 8th February 2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psi Baba
My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?

One I always wanted to ask is "What makes you think the Universe wasn't designed by a committee?"

BillHoyt · 8th February 2005, 01:43 PM

One has to wonder at the timing of the piece. Last time a battle like the one in Kansas was waged, the mocking laughter from other states caused a reversal and retreat from this idiocy. It looks like Behe wants to give the loonies a New York Times OpEd piece so they can all carry copies of it into the debate. See, even the Times says ID is good for you!

Meanwhile, U.S. schoolchildren keep dropping in ranking when compared with other nations. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, I always say. Yee-haw!

Excuse me while I toss my lunch.

headscratcher4 · 8th February 2005, 02:05 PM

I think that we should begin a movement to insist that Lysenkoist biology be taught as well....

hammegk · 8th February 2005, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by alfaniner
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Psi Baba
My questions for ID proponents would be:

Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"):
1. What does the present design tell you about the designer?
2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work.
3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs?
4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility.
5. Where is the designer now?
6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One I always wanted to ask is "What makes you think the Universe wasn't designed by a committee?"

1. Nothing
2. Reality
3. Unknown
4. Unknown
5. Location Unchanged
6. Natural

Why not? Define committee ...

Brown · 8th February 2005, 02:35 PM

My letter to the Times:

Quote:

Michael Behe's February 7 column, "Design for Living," purports to answer questions about Intelligent Design, ostensibly a "rival theory" to "Darwinism." This supposed rivalry certainly isn't present in scientific circles, as peer-reviewed scientific journals don't take this "rival theory" seriously. Scientists may debate whether Darwin was right or wrong in various respects, but that does not mean that they find any merit in Behe's thesis.

Behe argues that intelligent design is obvious. Funny, the very same argument was used to support the notions that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth.

By asserting that it is reasonable to accept intelligent design in the absence of evidence, Behe assumes what he's trying to prove. He advocates not engaging in a fruitless search for natural explanations. He suggests that scientific principles should be determined by opinion polls. Real scientists don't do these things.

The Times rules for letters are: "Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers." My letter has 145 words. I included my name, address and home and office phone numbers, and also my three college degrees.

Major Billy · 8th February 2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elektrix
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/op...ce61fa&ei=5070Curious what everyone's take is on this. This piece was written by: Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute'

I wonder, since so many red states are passing laws mandating that public schools teach "Intelligent Design", does that force schools to also teach Behe's other beliefs, that:

Quote:

For decades folks in white coats have confidently assured the public that shunning fatty foods â€“ bacon and eggs, butter, steak â€“ would make for longer, healthier lives. Well, guess what? "Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true,"

Quote:

My advice is, beware of scientists with stirred souls! If they can go off half-cocked to give you a healthy diet, they surely will do so to give you a healthy soul. The best reaction to such overweening concern might be to enjoy the many beautiful nature scenes in "Evolution" while eating a cheeseburger.

Dr Adequate · 8th February 2005, 04:49 PM

Behe writes:

Quote:

The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck.

But of course there is compelling evidence to the contrary: i.e. the fossil record, cladistic morphology, metabolism, genetics; we know perfectly well that species evolved. Any claim on Behe's part to win the debate by default is either childish or, indeed, mendacious --- for he must be dimly aware of the evidence which has so convinced scientists working in these areas.

Species, he says look like they were designed. They also look like they evolved. And if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and there is a massive amount of compelling scientific evidence that it's a duck, then it's a duck.

davefoc · 8th February 2005, 11:09 PM

Hi Brown,
We sat around waiting to go to dinner with you at TAM this year. It turns out you weren't going to the dinner we were and I was disappointed I didn't get to meet you.

If I had seen what you wrote about this subject I would have been even more disapointed than I was already at not getting to meet you. I thought your letter to the editor was about as good as could be done in 150 words.

Just a small personal note vaguely related to this issue:
Many years ago I wrote a computer program to play reversi. It just used a simple look ahead algorhthym plus my cut at positional evaluation after it had looked ahead about 8 layers. After I'd programmed the thing and was playing it our of the blue it made a move I would have never thought of. I felt like I was playing a creative human opponent. Of course the computer had no creativity or insight it just used a mindless highly repetetive algorythm to accomplish something that at first glance seemed to require intelligence.

SezMe · 8th February 2005, 11:32 PM

It was the last paragraph that had me running off to the thunder mug:

Quote:

Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.

He is implicitly aguing that science ideas can be judged by public polls. This part is also confirming evidence that this piece was written to help at the school board fight level.

Also, note the opprobrium he heaps on evolution by calling it messy while design is said to elegant. IOW, us IDers are fighting for truth AND beauty.

Personally, I think the concept of evolution and the many insights it brings to understanding our world is absolutely beautiful and inspiring. I find ID to be, well, sterile at best.

Ladewig · 9th February 2005, 03:32 AM

I sometimes wonder how all the IDers would react if a science teacher forced to include ID in a public school ciriculum said, "ID is based on the idea that everything is too complex to have arisen from natural methods; if everything really is that complex, then it must be too complex for a single designer, therefore it must have been designed by a group of designers." I cannot imagine IDers reacting well to that concept.

Psi Baba · 9th February 2005, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorghnassen
One little comment, which you are probably going to dismiss, but anyway, I really hate it when people talk about the scientific method, like there was a unique, precise (simplistic) recipe one must perform in order to do science. Just my 2 cents...

APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

Quote:

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

Brown · 9th February 2005, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by davefoc
Hi Brown,
We sat around waiting to go to dinner with you at TAM this year. It turns out you weren't going to the dinner we were and I was disappointed I didn't get to meet you.

I am sorry I disappointed. My apologies! Were you looking for me on Monday, by any chance? I was very sick that day and spent the entire day in my hotel room.

I note that the New York Times web site today includes eight letters in response to Behe's column. Some highlights:

Quote:

For me, the telling point is that the proponents of design cannot answer how it was supposed to have happened. Was it from divine intervention, visits by space aliens, magic?

Design will be a real science when we have testable answers for these questions.

Quote:

But the doctrine of intelligent design does not produce falsifiable (or disprovable) statements that are susceptible to testing. This rigorous testing process is the central element of the modern scientific method.

Quote:

I must have missed the concept of "if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck" in my studies of the scientific method.

Quote:

A century ago, the astronomer Percival Lowell described water-filled canals on Mars for the same reason. When confronted with the unknown, we first perceive it in terms of the known. Perception, however, does not make it so.

Quote:

He hastens to say that intelligent design says nothing about the religious concept of a creator.

But the designer, whoever she may be, must surely be infinitely more complex than the products of her creations.

One then wonders who designed the designer. And that line of questioning never ends.

Jorghnassen · 9th February 2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psi Baba
APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method

4 steps? Interesting, the following site says there's 11 major stages:

http://www.scientificmethod.com/b_body.html

Obviously at least one must be wrong...

OK, I won't bother pointing to the wikipedia link on scientific method mentioning the problems of trying to reduce the scientific process to a single recipe, or the paper by William McComas (a pretty interesting read) on misconceptions about science. But I really think it's a shame that so few people, even amongst scientists, ever touch the subject of philosophy of science.

You know, the scientific method I learned in high school had perhaps the most insightful first step which I haven't seen in any other "scientific method" description. I'll let you guess what that first step was...

Psi Baba · 9th February 2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jorghnassen
4 steps? Interesting, the following site says there's 11 major stages:

http://www.scientificmethod.com/b_body.html

Obviously at least one must be wrong...

I wouldn't say that either one is wrong, just that they break it down in different ways, but the point is that yes there is a precise process that one can or should follow to acquire knowledge in way that can be labeled science. In fact, the site you linked to basically says so:

Quote:

The research process is not just a collection of miscellaneous "scientific methods." Scientists and other researchers do not proceed in a haphazard fashion. Centuries of trial and error, research, discussions and debates have led to a realization of the general pattern of the scientific method.

The word "method" in the term, "the scientific method," is a collective term for the stages.

Then there is this (bolding mine):

Quote:

These are included in the SM-14 formula as ingredients rather than stages to help people understand "the method" and as an aid to teaching it to students and others.

Ingredients? So it really is a recipe after all!

BTW, that's a cool site. I've bookmarked it. Thanks.

Jorghnassen · 9th February 2005, 01:20 PM

Psi Baba, I'm glad you liked that link, here's a few more, I hope you like them too:

(Take a look at myth 4 in particular):

http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/sc...%20Science.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

From the above, emphasis mine:

Quote:

Attempts to systematise the scientific method were faced with the Problem of induction, which points out that inductive reasoning is not logically valid. David Hume set the difficulty out in detail. Karl Popper, following others, argued that a hypothesis must be falsifiable: that is, it must be capable of disproof. Difficulties with this have led to the rejection of the very idea that there is a single method that is universally applicable to all the sciences, and that serves to distinguish science from non-science.

http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth...fic-method.htm

I might just be sodomizing flies (yes, I know this isn't an expression in English), but the point is that scientific progress achieved by repeatedly following a simplistic recipe. Anyway, I'll stop nitpicking now.

nelsondogg · 9th February 2005, 02:18 PM

ID is just bizarre. How did stuff get designed in the first place? In a labratory of some sort? Where was this place? Why no physical evidence of this designer(s)? Did they stick around or keep coming back to add things? Are they still designing more stuff? If not why did they design anything in the first place? Are they going to come back and eat us or something? Are we emergency rations of some sort?

8th February 2005, 07:02 AM	#1
Elektrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: McLean, VA Posts: 295	Pro-Intelligent Design Op-Ed in NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/op...ce61fa&ei=5070 Curious what everyone's take is on this. This piece was written by: Quote: Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is the author of "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution." -Elektrix

8th February 2005, 07:11 AM	#2
Ipecac Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,852	Nothing new here. "Things are complicated. Therefore they must have been designed." He assumes that complexity has to be the result of intelligence but doesn't offer any evidence. Just tries to poke holes in evolution.
Ipecac Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,852

8th February 2005, 07:24 AM	#4
Yaotl Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 430	Quote: The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Quote: The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. They both sound like "I don't believe you, so you're wrong."
Yaotl Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 430	__________________ Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

8th February 2005, 07:44 AM	#7
Rolfe Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NT 150 511 Posts: 34,340	I think there is an element here of people who know they were told so often in science class that left to themselves things will always tend to become more disorganised (and indeed in day to day experience we observe that this is the case), when suddenly they're told to believe that the most extremely ordered structures we know about came about by chance, there's a "huh?" factor. Maybe to ancient Babylonians were on to something after all.... Rolfe.
	__________________ "The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

8th February 2005, 07:52 AM	#9
wollery Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs! Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Land of Eternal Hope Posts: 10,319	For my mind he's totally shot himself in the foot by admitting that evolution can and has occurred. If you admit that, then you must concede that it could have occured all the way from protobacteria, and then there's little room for ID. All that's left for the designer is abiogenesis, and almost all of your ID arguments are rendered useless, because protobacteria are, by definition, not very complex.
	__________________ "You're a sick SOB. You know that, Wollery?" - Roadtoad "Just think how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of them are even stupider!" --George Carlin

8th February 2005, 07:17 AM	#3
Elektrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: McLean, VA Posts: 295	Quote: Originally posted by Ipecac Nothing new here. "Things are complicated. Therefore they must have been designed." He assumes that complexity has to be the result of intelligence but doesn't offer any evidence. Just tries to poke holes in evolution. Yeah. Just curious if anyone has any more specific refutations of the specific things in this editorial. A creationist friend of mine sent this to me and I am sure he's going to want to debate it. -Elektrix

8th February 2005, 07:31 AM	#5
Elektrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: McLean, VA Posts: 295	Quote: Originally posted by Yaotl They both sound like "I don't believe you, so you're wrong." Are there any other logical fallacies at play here? I'm not sure, but it sounds like sort of an argument from ignorance (or maybe the inverse of that..... arguing that because we don't know how something could have happened without a designer, it must have happened with a designer). I can't put my finger on it, but it seems like there is some aspect of arguing that the design must be true because there is no other logical explanation for how such complex things came to be. -Elektrix

8th February 2005, 07:41 AM	#6
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Quote: Originally posted by Elektrix Yeah. Just curious if anyone has any more specific refutations of the specific things in this editorial. A creationist friend of mine sent this to me and I am sure he's going to want to debate it. Just that I noticed quickly: Behe's claim that ID is not a religiously-based idea is a flat-out lie; see the infamous "Wedge document" (published by the Discovery institute, where he is a senior fellow) for refutation. (Sample quote: "Discovery Institute's Center... wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.") His four linked claims are simply gibberish. First : "we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore." Unfortunately, we can also often mis-recognize the effects of nature as design (and vice versa); see New Hampshire's Old Man of the Mountan for a rebuttal on one side, and the various Leakey artefacts for another. Second: "the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology." This is simply wrong, and quoting 18th century clergymen doesn't make them so. Since we can't reliably recognize "design" when we see it, this entire point is little more than a restatement of the first fallacy. Third: "we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence." This is wrong at two levels. First, we have several good explanations, but none that have been overwhelmingly proven to the satisfaction of the majority of scientists, which is why albiogenesis is still an active research area. Second, albiogenesis is not evolution; evolution (which in its core claims is simply "descent with modification, driven partially by natural selection") only deals with changes to life once it has begun. So he's erected a straw man and then misrepresented what we do know about the straw man. Fourth, "in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life." This is simply an argument from ignorance. I could identically say "in the absence of any convincing non-fairy explanation, we are justifying in thinking that fairies were involved in life." Misrepresentation of current scientific beliefs and argument from ignorance. Classic ID.

8th February 2005, 07:48 AM	#8
Elektrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: McLean, VA Posts: 295	Awesome, thanks Dr. Kitten!

8th February 2005, 07:53 AM	#10
Matabiri Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,734	Quote: Originally posted by Elektrix Are there any other logical fallacies at play here? I'm not sure, but it sounds like sort of an argument from ignorance I call it "argument from personal incredulity", but I don't know if it has a better name... Basically, "I can't believe/understand this, so it must be wrong."
	__________________ "That's the kind of thing you can't look up on the internet, because it's the kind of thing you get taught at school." - Ashley Pomeroy

8th February 2005, 08:24 AM	#11
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,184	Quote: The first claim is uncontroversial: we can often recognize the effects of design in nature. For example, unintelligent physical forces like plate tectonics and erosion seem quite sufficient to account for the origin of the Rocky Mountains. Yet they are not enough to explain Mount Rushmore. Of course, we know who is responsible for Mount Rushmore, but even someone who had never heard of the monument could recognize it as designed. Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too. What a curious use of the word "uncontroversial," and what a deliberate abuse of the word "design." If one uses the word "design" merely to imply an "arrangement," something that could come into being without intelligence, then the first two claims might be "uncontroversial." We can see and recognize that things are arranged in nature. Snowflakes and crystals are clearly symmetrically arranged, planets tend to be smooth and spherical (and their ring systems display obvious patterns), some volcanoes produce symmetrical cones, and wind can blow sand into pleasant wave-shaped patterns. These are hardly haphazard or confused structures. But if one uses the word "design" to mean "a planned scheme," then the first two claims are far from "uncontroversial." A typical dictionary or thesaurus lists both meanings for "design": an arrangement or pattern without the connotation of a designer, and a planned scheme or composition deliberately created by a designer. People can agree with Behe using the former definition, but Behe doesn't explain that he is really using the latter. Quote: The next claim in the argument for design is that we have no good explanation for the foundation of life that doesn't involve intelligence. Here is where thoughtful people part company. Darwinists assert that their theory can explain the appearance of design in life as the result of random mutation and natural selection acting over immense stretches of time. Some scientists, however, think the Darwinists' confidence is unjustified. They note that although natural selection can explain some aspects of biology, there are no research studies indicating that Darwinian processes can make molecular machines of the complexity we find in the cell. This is disingenuousness, pure and simple. Eugenie Scott spoke about this at length at TAM2. Behe wrongly and dishonestly equates evolution with Darwinism. The fact that scientists disagree with Darwin does not, by itself, mean that they endorse Behe's thesis. The business about "no research studies" is either wrong, or my university Biology professor was lying to me. Quote: The fourth claim in the design argument is also controversial: in the absence of any convincing non-design explanation, we are justified in thinking that real intelligent design was involved in life. To evaluate this claim, it's important to keep in mind that it is the profound appearance of design in life that everyone is laboring to explain, not the appearance of natural selection or the appearance of self-organization. The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. Design should not be overlooked simply because it's so obvious. The illogic of this "simple argument" is stunning. First, it assumes what it is trying to prove, saying that we should take for granted that there has been intelligent design, unless there is "convincing" or "compelling" evidence to the contrary. Second, it is fundamentally unscientific. It assumes that we should throw up our hands and conclude that there is no natural explanation, rather than learn whether such an explanation may exist. In other words, it is a waste of time to try to find any "convincing" or "compelling" evidence. Third, it sets up a false dichotomy, namely, that if Darwin was wrong in any respect, then intelligent design must be right. Fourth, the whole argument is based upon ignorance. Intelligent design is not based upon affirmative evidence of design or the existence of any designer, but upon a lack of evidence that there was no intelligent design. When someone argues that he is right because of the lack of evidence supporting his position, it is a pretty safe bet that he is dead wrong. Behe says that intelligent design is a "rival theory" to "Darwinism" (which he dishonestly suggests is the same as evolution). What nonsense. Intelligent design is not a "theory" in the same sense as evolution. Intelligent design is not subject to test, and makes no predictions. (Based upon principles of evolution, scientists--including Darwin himself--have made predictions and have subjected the principles to test.) Moreover, the "rivalry" is only in the religious and political arenas not in the scientific arena. In science, the "rivalry" is non-existent. Peer reviewed scientific journals do not recognize any such rivalry, and the vast majority of practicing scientists do not recognize any such rivalry.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

8th February 2005, 08:33 AM	#12
Elektrix Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: McLean, VA Posts: 295	Awesome, thank you too Brown. -Elektrix

8th February 2005, 08:34 AM	#13
cbish Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Nevada City, CA Posts: 1,229	Elektrix Thumb through this site: http://www.talkdesign.org/
	__________________ You have to live it to believe it! If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for you!

8th February 2005, 08:43 AM	#14
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	As others on this board have pointed out in great biological detail, calling such a Designer "intelligent" is rather absurd. If the human body was the best that He could do, then He is rather amateurish.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

8th February 2005, 08:48 AM	#15
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Quote: Originally posted by Ladewig As others on this board have pointed out in great biological detail, calling such a Designer "intelligent" is rather absurd. If the human body was the best that He could do, then He is rather amateurish. Indeed, the appendix alone would seem to argue for either a very bad designer or the rediculousness of intelligent design...
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

8th February 2005, 09:52 AM	#16
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,184	As of this writing, the Times has not published any letters to the editor pertaining to Behe's column. There is a letter printed today in response to the stories and columns discussing reluctance by some teachers to discuss evolution. The author, a former psychology professor, argues that the effects could spread to other fields of science. He adds: Quote: But an even worse casualty would be the conceptual understanding of the scientific method, a procedure whose goal is to completely explain all of a discipline's phenomena. Creationism requires a creator and intelligent design requires an intelligent designer, both of whom intervene at any time to make an otherwise complete explanation moot. For those who wish to do so, there may be an opportunity to write a brief letter to the Times taking some pokes at Behe's arguments. List your credentials if you have them (the Times gives weight to credentials). I doubt my own credentials are sufficiently noteworthy. My post above is way too big to be the basis for a letter to the editor. You might use an idea or two, or try a different approach. For example, you might ridicule Behe's notion that design is "obvious." That same argument was used to "prove" (for example) that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

8th February 2005, 10:49 AM	#17
thatguywhojuggles Resident Juggler Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Asheville, NC Posts: 1,338	Quote: Originally posted by Elektrix Awesome, thank you too Brown. -Elektrix It's nice having a think tank at your disposal, isn't it!
	__________________ \/\/ALTER Juggler-Artist-Atheist My Portfolio/ResumÃ© "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? B.C. - 65 A.D.) "A lie goes half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get his pants on." - Winston Churchill.

8th February 2005, 11:39 AM	#18
SpaceFluffer Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 595	Someone should write a rebuttal and send it to the paper.
SpaceFluffer Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 595

8th February 2005, 11:44 AM	#19
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,183	My questions for ID proponents would be: Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"): 1. What does the present design tell you about the designer? 2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work. 3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs? 4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility. 5. Where is the designer now? 6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural?
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

8th February 2005, 11:45 AM	#20
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	Everyone should write...just keep in mind that unless you are a major, known scientist (like Dawins) ..the Times is unlikely to publish anything longer than 150 words (and even that's a stretch). Pick one hole and call the bluff...don't try a sweeping rebuttal that answers everyting...they won't even look at it...
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

8th February 2005, 12:11 PM	#21
SpaceFluffer Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 595	OK, I wasn't intending to write anything, but that article got me pissed. I'd welcome comments on the following: Quote: Michael Behe's 'Design for Living' Op-ed that appeared on Feb 7th is misleading at best. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is a religiously based idea. Even if a proponent of intelligent design accepts that evolution occurred, this does not make the idea that a creator had a hand in the process a scientific one. Intelligent design is a non-testable theory, one that cannot be rigorously examined and amended in the same way that scientific theories are. The only 'evidence' that ID has to speak of, is the 'walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck' idea that Behe appeals to. Why should we believe that our everyday experience is a good basis for thinking about the very nature of our existence? The analogy that Behe makes with Mount Rushmore - namely that it looks like it was designed, and we know it was, so anything else that looks designed probably is - only displays the author's misunderstanding of the basic ideas behind natural selection. The mutations that occur during the evolutionary process are indeed random, but only mutations useful to survival will tend to be carried on to the next generation. This process is highly non-random. The human mind can be fooled, and is fooled on a regular basis. The method that science has developed is one that takes the fallability of the experimenter out of the picture, allowing the true nature of reality to shine through, unaffected by any bias or wishful-thinking on the part of the scientists. Just because most people think that life was designed doesn't make it so. Of course, if everyone were to think that life developed without a designer, that wouldn't make it so either. The current polling numbers on belief in intelligent design simply reflect that fact that most people in this country have not been taught the scientific method adequately; if proponents of ID begin to win more courtroom battles in the future, this situation can only deteriorate. Probably a bit long, but I felt like writing it...
SpaceFluffer Muse Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 595

8th February 2005, 12:30 PM	#22
69dodge Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,607	Quote: The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. No. If it looks like a duck, and if we know that non-ducks don't* look like ducks*, then we may conclude it's a duck. But that's the very question we're trying to answer: has the non-design process of evolution produced the living things we find around us? If it has, then life does not have the strong appearance of design; it has the strong appearance of evolution. If we do not already know what non-design is capable of, we cannot say whether something appears to have been designed. So the argument is quite circular.
69dodge Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,607

8th February 2005, 12:35 PM	#23
Jorghnassen Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: The realm of ideas Posts: 3,881	Quote: Originally posted by SpaceFluffer OK, I wasn't intending to write anything, but that article got me pissed. I'd welcome comments on the following: Probably a bit long, but I felt like writing it... One little comment, which you are probably going to dismiss, but anyway, I really hate it when people talk about the scientific method, like there was a unique, precise (simplistic) recipe one must perform in order to do science. Just my 2 cents...

8th February 2005, 01:38 PM	#24
69dodge Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,607	Quote: nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore Now that's just silly. We know who designed Mount Rushmore. We do not know who designed life, or even whether anyone did. Alternatively, it is useful to search for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore, and the explanation we've found is: people evolved and then some of them carved it.
69dodge Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 3,607

8th February 2005, 01:43 PM	#25
alfaniner Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Sorth Dakonsin Posts: 11,397	Quote: Originally posted by Psi Baba My questions for ID proponents would be: Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"): 1. What does the present design tell you about the designer? 2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work. 3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs? 4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility. 5. Where is the designer now? 6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural? One I always wanted to ask is "What makes you think the Universe wasn't designed by a committee?"
	__________________ Science doesn't lie.

8th February 2005, 01:43 PM	#26
BillHoyt Enlightening rod Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Right behind you... Posts: 5,842	One has to wonder at the timing of the piece. Last time a battle like the one in Kansas was waged, the mocking laughter from other states caused a reversal and retreat from this idiocy. It looks like Behe wants to give the loonies a New York Times OpEd piece so they can all carry copies of it into the debate. See, even the Times says ID is good for you! Meanwhile, U.S. schoolchildren keep dropping in ranking when compared with other nations. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, I always say. Yee-haw! Excuse me while I toss my lunch.

8th February 2005, 02:05 PM	#27
headscratcher4 Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 7,749	I think that we should begin a movement to insist that Lysenkoist biology be taught as well....
	__________________ Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals ... except the weasel. -- Homer Simpson

8th February 2005, 02:07 PM	#28
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422	Quote: Originally posted by alfaniner quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Psi Baba My questions for ID proponents would be: Without quoting from the Bible (since Behe says " the theory of intelligent design is not a religiously based idea"): 1. What does the present design tell you about the designer? 2. Point to some other examples of this designer's work. 3. What processes did the designer employ in the creation of his designs? 4. Did the designer simply set things in motion and adandon (or step back to observe) the design, or is the designer actively continuing to design? What evidence supports your answer over the other possibility. 5. Where is the designer now? 6. Is the proposed designer natural or supernatural? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One I always wanted to ask is "What makes you think the Universe wasn't designed by a committee?" 1. Nothing 2. Reality 3. Unknown 4. Unknown 5. Location Unchanged 6. Natural Why not? Define committee ...
hammegk Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 8,422

8th February 2005, 02:35 PM	#29
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,184	My letter to the Times: Quote: Michael Behe's February 7 column, "Design for Living," purports to answer questions about Intelligent Design, ostensibly a "rival theory" to "Darwinism." This supposed rivalry certainly isn't present in scientific circles, as peer-reviewed scientific journals don't take this "rival theory" seriously. Scientists may debate whether Darwin was right or wrong in various respects, but that does not mean that they find any merit in Behe's thesis. Behe argues that intelligent design is obvious. Funny, the very same argument was used to support the notions that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits the Earth. By asserting that it is reasonable to accept intelligent design in the absence of evidence, Behe assumes what he's trying to prove. He advocates not engaging in a fruitless search for natural explanations. He suggests that scientific principles should be determined by opinion polls. Real scientists don't do these things. The Times rules for letters are: "Letters for publication should be no longer than 150 words, must refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days, and must include the writer's address and phone numbers." My letter has 145 words. I included my name, address and home and office phone numbers, and also my three college degrees.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

8th February 2005, 04:30 PM	#30
Major Billy Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Ioway Posts: 248	Re: Pro-Intelligent Design Op-Ed in NY Times Quote: Originally posted by Elektrix http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/07/op...ce61fa&ei=5070Curious what everyone's take is on this. This piece was written by: Michael J. Behe, a professor of biological sciences at Lehigh University and a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute' I wonder, since so many red states are passing laws mandating that public schools teach "Intelligent Design", does that force schools to also teach Behe's other beliefs, that: Quote: For decades folks in white coats have confidently assured the public that shunning fatty foods â€“ bacon and eggs, butter, steak â€“ would make for longer, healthier lives. Well, guess what? "Precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true," Quote: My advice is, beware of scientists with stirred souls! If they can go off half-cocked to give you a healthy diet, they surely will do so to give you a healthy soul. The best reaction to such overweening concern might be to enjoy the many beautiful nature scenes in "Evolution" while eating a cheeseburger.

8th February 2005, 04:49 PM	#31
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Behe writes: Quote: The strong appearance of design allows a disarmingly simple argument: if it looks, walks and quacks like a duck, then, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, we have warrant to conclude it's a duck. But of course there is compelling evidence to the contrary: i.e. the fossil record, cladistic morphology, metabolism, genetics; we know perfectly well that species evolved. Any claim on Behe's part to win the debate by default is either childish or, indeed, mendacious --- for he must be dimly aware of the evidence which has so convinced scientists working in these areas. Species, he says look like they were designed. They also look like they evolved. And if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, and there is a massive amount of compelling scientific evidence that it's a duck, then it's a duck.

8th February 2005, 11:09 PM	#32
davefoc Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: orange country, california Posts: 7,266	Hi Brown, We sat around waiting to go to dinner with you at TAM this year. It turns out you weren't going to the dinner we were and I was disappointed I didn't get to meet you. If I had seen what you wrote about this subject I would have been even more disapointed than I was already at not getting to meet you. I thought your letter to the editor was about as good as could be done in 150 words. Just a small personal note vaguely related to this issue: Many years ago I wrote a computer program to play reversi. It just used a simple look ahead algorhthym plus my cut at positional evaluation after it had looked ahead about 8 layers. After I'd programmed the thing and was playing it our of the blue it made a move I would have never thought of. I felt like I was playing a creative human opponent. Of course the computer had no creativity or insight it just used a mindless highly repetetive algorythm to accomplish something that at first glance seemed to require intelligence.

8th February 2005, 11:32 PM	#33
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,367	It was the last paragraph that had me running off to the thunder mug: Quote: Still, some critics claim that science by definition can't accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there. But we can't settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore. Besides, whatever special restrictions scientists adopt for themselves don't bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly, and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design. He is implicitly aguing that science ideas can be judged by public polls. This part is also confirming evidence that this piece was written to help at the school board fight level. Also, note the opprobrium he heaps on evolution by calling it messy while design is said to elegant. IOW, us IDers are fighting for truth AND beauty. Personally, I think the concept of evolution and the many insights it brings to understanding our world is absolutely beautiful and inspiring. I find ID to be, well, sterile at best.

9th February 2005, 03:32 AM	#34
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,827	I sometimes wonder how all the IDers would react if a science teacher forced to include ID in a public school ciriculum said, "ID is based on the idea that everything is too complex to have arisen from natural methods; if everything really is that complex, then it must be too complex for a single designer, therefore it must have been designed by a group of designers." I cannot imagine IDers reacting well to that concept.
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

9th February 2005, 07:59 AM	#35
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,183	Quote: Originally posted by Jorghnassen One little comment, which you are probably going to dismiss, but anyway, I really hate it when people talk about the scientific method, like there was a unique, precise (simplistic) recipe one must perform in order to do science. Just my 2 cents... APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method Quote: I. The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)