LeeBowman comments on Why I'm Staying On Bloggingheads.tv - Less Wrong

25 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 September 2009 08:15PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (96)

Comments (96)

Sort By: Best

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: LeeBowman 08 September 2009 05:26:14AM * 0 points [-]

I just registered here, since I agree with the 'rationality' premise. Rational thought is (hopefully) less wrong than a less rational position, the implication being that little that the human mind formulates is totally correct. Less wrong is a goal, and modification of a stated position is often a requisite of nearing a more correct position.

Anyway, back to the topic of Blogginheads (allowed topics), accomodation, and (related) a critique of Michael Behe. Oh, also the question of whether ID is essentially Creationism.

First, RW sets the standards. It's been said that the stardards are too loose, but some would argue that stricter standards might lead to disallowance of certain positions, a form of censorship. That would be my position. General 'objective' guidelines, but not enforced 'standards'.

'Accomodation', with the meaning 'acceptance' of one's religious position by a scientist, does not mean that debate could not be done. While I would agree that debating a YEC position at Boggingheads might be 'over the line', and indeed raises the hackles on the backs of scientists, discussing the merits of ID should not. The "appearance of design" equating to actual design is a viable question, and has not been settled in my view.

If this is off-topic, you can table the question, but I'll ask it anyway. In what way does ID equate with Creationism? First define both, then state the correlation.

Comment author: Torben 08 September 2009 07:45:37AM * 9 points [-]

In what way does ID equate with Creationism? First define both, then state the correlation.

ID arose as a way to circumvent the Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard which banned the mentioning of deities in teaching of secular issues.

The creationist text book Of Pandas and People which was being written at the time of the trial subsequently underwent CTRL-H editing to exchange "creator" for "designer," leading to the hilarious chimera "cdesign proponentsists."

The people endorsing creationism and ID are more or less the same. By far, most types of argument put forth by IDists have previously been used by creationists. "Irreducible complexity" is merely a restating of Paley's Watch or, indeed, Darwin's own rhetorical reservations regarding the complexity of the eye.

Further, the vast majority of IDists have explicit religious motivation (pdf) for their viewpoints, and the ID community uses the same tactics of quotemining, making lists of non-biologist skeptics, and appeals to authority.

Finally, the leading ID "think"-tank, the Discovery Institute, has stated its ultimate goal in an internal workpaper, The Wedge:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"

"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

Comment author: LeeBowman 08 September 2009 02:08:53PM * 0 points [-]

Again, what I'm asking for in simple terms is to define the basic beliefs of both camps, and where their beliefs correlate with each other. What are the conceptual differences between the two?

I.E., what does a Creationist believe (seminal concepts)?

What does a design theorist believe (seminal concepts)?

Comment author: Jach 09 September 2009 05:45:35AM 0 points [-]

I thought Torben explained well that there is no noticeable difference between the two camps, that they're essentially the same camp.

The people endorsing creationism and ID are more or less the same.

Comment author: LeeBowman 09 September 2009 10:42:21AM * 0 points [-]

That he did, as have Barbara Forrest and many others, but those conclusions consist of 'blanket statements', and are subject to scrutiny. Many times when a statement of that ilk is made, there follows a link to one of the Creationist trials (Dover most often), the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, a critique of Forrest's book, 'Creationism's Trojan Horse', or links similar to those provided by Torben. These are just a few of the plethora of evolution supporting references, but the question we're addressing here is simply the "more or less" issue regarding the two camps.

Blanket statements abound in the media, an example being "The US has the best health care system in the world", courtesy of Sean Hannity, and almost on a daily basis. Even given the fact that the US is advanced technologically in many ways, would you buy that statement carte blanch?

First you define a philosophical or evidence based position. Then you debate the validity of its tenets. At that point you can more objectively discuss/ debate the merit of the conflation issue. A complicating factor here is the possibility that there are actually more than 'two camps', or that adherents (of either) may have altered their 'consensus' positions compared to say a decade ago.

After defining the two groups' seminal tenets, we can THEN discuss Dover, Demski, the Wedge et al. Any takers?

Comment author: Torben 09 September 2009 08:59:51PM * 1 point [-]

After defining the two groups' seminal tenets, we can THEN discuss Dover, Demski, the Wedge et al. Any takers?

All right then. According to the Discovery Institute, ID states

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

and to the question "Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?," they state

[T]he dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." [...] It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges.

According to Answers in Genesis, creationism states that

evolutionary theory cannot account for life on Earth
God created the earth (exact method & age optional)
death was the result of the Fall
the biblical Flood occurred and was global
God caused languages to diverge at the Tower of Babel incident

...plus some Christian tenets

The latter three are demonstrably wrong and the latter two are not directly related to biology They go on to say

Most forms of creationism contend that an intelligence, not natural processes, created the universe and all life.

and

Creationists base all of their research and conclusions upon the biblical record. In other words, nothing in science (or any field) makes sense except in light of God’s Word. Where the Bible does not give specifics, creationists form hypotheses and models that accord with what the Bible teaches about the world and test these hypotheses against present data. Thus, hypotheses can be discarded, but the biblical record is not.

Creationism and ID agree that an intelligence created the universe and life, and that evolution cannot explain all of biology. Typically, the same arguments against evolution are used. What's left is the explicit deference to the Christian bible, and here we can either take DI's word for it, or we can see what they say to their peers when they think we're not listening. That's what the book Of Pandas and People, the pdf and the Wedge document illustrate. I mean, seriously, that book which was supposed to be a creationist textbook became an ID textbook. Authored by creationists (including YEC) who are also IDists. Further, do you really think Phillip Johnson or Bill Dembski would acknowledge anything that does not accord with what the Bible teaches? I don't.

So what's left to distinguish them?

Comment author: LeeBowman comment score below threshold [+] (10 children)

Comment author: LeeBowman 11 September 2009 02:31:43AM * -6 points [-]

On DI's 'General Questions' page, they make their general ID statement as cited above, which is a very general statement, that doesn't address the common descent question, where there is some divisiveness within the mainstream ID camp. But they do address the question further down the page.

Regarding that question, as well as ID's compatability with NDE, they state, "It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory." Given that statement, they now agree with common descent, although not necessarily a consensus view of its members in its early days.

They also state that ID is not Bible based, nor is it the same as Creationism. They state, "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism."

Answers in Genesis, AiG, is however Bible based, and their precepts (cited above) are definitely contra to science. Furthermore, Ken Ham does not endorce ID as a concept.

While Creationism and ID agree that an intelligence created life, the seminal ID concept only addresses biologic life, and not the universe 'in toto'. ID address biologic life, and the tenetative mechanisms for both adaptability (evolution), and novelty and complexity (gene tweaking).

Due to personal beliefs, there are obviously those within the ID community that believe by faith alone, that one God created everything, i.e. the Universe and everything in it. Some are YECs as well. But ID as a disipline is NOT grounded in, nor even REFERS to scriptural references for substantiation. It looks more at statistical probabilities, possible methods of alteration, and the existence of engineering principles (ligament attachment points and the geometry involved as one example).

Similarly, there are scientists that accept NDE as the sole cause of the phylogenetic cascade, but may accept theistic evolution, a vague concept that allows for an intelligence that set the stage, including for some adherents a preloading of biologic life, then left the theater.

But do those scientists employ their faith based concepts in the lab? No, nor do IDists who are objective inquiry based in their pursuit of design inferences. I am one of the latter, who sees design inferences on many fronts, and who has arrived at his conclusions by a study of the data, including the same data the evolutionsist look at. Simply differing conclusions regarding much of that data.

My predictons: Adaptive evolution, a function of the embryogenetic process, is a 'built in' function to adapt to environmental variables as well as to minimize extinctions. Extinctions do happen, many over vast time, but so what? When something no longer functions it is eliminated, or redesigned, take your pick. I further predict that adaptive genes are expressed due to a 'designed in' function to produce variability, rather than folding errors/ mutations. This may be a HOX gene process. Time will tell.

The variability from mutational occurences is accepted as the sole source of novelty and complexity, a concensus viewpoint held by 99.9 percent of scientists (if you want to believe dingbat Brian Alters' statement). The actual figure, if there was a way to detemine it, might surprise you. As a working biologic engineer, and even viewed through the 'rational thought' filter which I employ to assess ALL observable data, there had to be intelligent input, likely a form of genetic engineering, at strategic points in time.

By a god? Not necessarily, but more likely via cosmic spirit entities or design teams, either competitively or merely for something to do, or perhaps surogates of a supreme authority. Further, unless all life forms generate consciousness internally (a jump in logic), they exist as vehicles for spirit entities to inhabit, a kind of sabatical from the cosmic realm.

But feel free to conflate ID with Creationism, a sophmoric and frankly dated position to try to uphold the status quo by discrediting detractors of evolutionary theory as 'religious nuts'. But please, don't label it as 'rational thought'.

Cheers

Comment author: pjeby 11 September 2009 02:47:54AM 0 points [-]

As a working biologic engineer, and even viewed through the 'rational thought' filter which I employ to assess ALL observable data, there had to be intelligent input, likely a form of genetic engineering, at strategic points in time.

Until I got to this part of your comment, I was about to vote it up. And then I read the above, and decided not to.

Then I read the next couple of sentences about cosmic spirit entities, and decided to vote it down instead, as you'd by that point undermined the one interesting/useful point you had: the idea that there might be a way for genes to increase variability or decrease error correction, without needing some sort of external randomness.

It would probably be a good idea for you to read some of the past OB/LW corpus, particularly the bits on reductionism, optimization processes, and the mind projection fallacy, as you are committing rather big errors on all three fronts. (Specifically, you are positing ontologically basic mental entities, anthropomorphizing "design", and conflating intelligence with agency.)

Comment author: LeeBowman comment score below threshold [+] (1 child)

Comment author: LeeBowman comment score below threshold [+] (3 children)

Comment author: Torben 11 September 2009 09:09:20AM 0 points [-]

This is just a word game. If you sleep better not calling the IDists creationists, fine. It doesn't change reality, even if the ID movement do their best to make it so.

Longer answer below.

Comment author: Torben 11 September 2009 09:12:00AM 0 points [-]

They [the Discovery Institute] also state that ID is not Bible based, nor is it the same as Creationism. They state, "Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism."

I know perfectly well what the IDists claim to the public. The only question is whether this claim is genuine or whether it is an evasive tactic designed after Edwards v. Aguillard. I think the latter is more likely, because

they made a similar change of tactics after the Kitzmiller trial to now endorse the "teach the controversy" meme.
numerous sources (see posts above) point directly to the Christian culture war effort underlying the entire endeavour. The entire ID motivation is explicitly conservative Christian. Their conclusions are given beforehanded: to accord with Christianity's teachings.*
while e.g. Behe supports common descent, many IDists don't. To an allegedly scientific field regarding life's history on Earth, such discordance is simply disqualifying.
the exact same textbook that taught creationism turned into an ID textbook with barely any editing. The authors were: 1st & 2nd ed., Davis (YEC & IDist) & Kenyon (creationist & IDist); 3rd ed., Dembski & Wells (both IDists).
the designer agnosticism is completely indefensible in scientific terms and most obviously a tactical move. No genuinely scientific field would a priori rule out research into the designer's identity if not to circumvene the Establishment Clause.
even the Templeton Foundation, whose entire rasion d'être is to "reconcile" religion and science, disavows the DI as a scientifically vacuous PR front. As the Vatican has done.

In short, the DI's insistence on the non-committal to the Bible is a dishonest front. The same people, the same arguments, the same tactics, the same goals, the same lies, the same quote mining, the same books are involved. The difference between OEC and ID is the explicit deference to the Bible, and this difference can be fully accounted for by the DI's dishonesty.

Once the DI officially has endorsed any finding that contradicts central conservative Christian tenets, I'll grant them and you the benefit of the doubt. For now, they haven't earned it.

*: Also, Dembski:

"But there are deeper motivations. I think at a fundamental level, in terms of what drives me in this is that I think God's glory is being robbed by these naturalistic approaches to biological evolution, creation, the origin of the world, the origin of biological complexity and diversity. When you are attributing the wonders of nature to these mindless material mechanisms, God's glory is getting robbed...And so there is a cultural war here. Ultimately I want to see God get the credit for what he's done - and he's not getting it."

Johnson:

"The objective [of the Wedge Strategy] is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"

LeeBowman comments on Why I'm Staying On Bloggingheads.tv - Less Wrong

Article Navigation

Comments (96)

Nearest Meetups

Virtual Study Room

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Rationality Quotes

Recent Wiki Edits

Top Contributors, 30 Days

Recent Karma Awards

Comments (96)

Top Contributors, 30 Days

You'll need to login or register to do that

(Don't worry, it only takes a few seconds)

Create

Login