#30260: Matt Ficke — 06/28  at  09:22 PM
The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum.

George Will seems, shockingly, to get right to the heart of the issue here. A rather good explanation of why ID isn't science, I think. Weird.

#30261: coturnix — 06/28  at  09:36 PM
Found on the side-bar of the Will article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8174498/

#30262: Matt McIrvin — 06/28  at  09:37 PM
Will's said things in support of evolution before, usually so that he can compare some liberal idea or other to creationism. He's at least consistent about it.

#30264: — 06/28  at  09:51 PM
A couple of years ago, back when I read the smarter conservatives, I remember a column Will wrote which was just kind of a celebration of how grand our very old and very large Universe appeared thanks to the work of the astronomers and their fantastic tools. I was pleasantly surprised.

Like Derbyshire, they are conservatives, but not mouth-breathers. Much of the time.

#30265: — 06/28  at  09:56 PM
btw, Ficke, yeah, that part shocked me. That's of course the crux of the matter. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable, so not even a hypothesis. But if I weren't in the sciences, I probably wouldn't know enough to know that.

#30275: Matt West — 06/28  at  11:51 PM
PZ is right to say this is a fluke. George Will is a right wing hack, as regularly documented by Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/archives/search.html?topic=George+F.+Will So excuse me if I am a bit wary of anything Will says. As regularly documented on this site and a myriad of others, all of the attacks on evolution by IDers are just plain wrong. It would be nice to see him write that in a column, but you have to live with what you get. Also, I think there needs to be thorough discussion of Popper's concept of "naive falsificationism" which is bandered about quite often by both sides of this "shouting match." Falsification, as a demarcation criterion has a number of huge holes. But again, its nice to see a little sense seeping into the wingnut community.

#30283: indiancowboy — 06/29  at  04:22 AM
Startin to get annoyed PZ. You'll still be a daily visit, but snide remarks like the one you made abt George Will today will continue to annoy the piss out of me.

I've been a conservative since I was old enough to remember riding to school with Daddy and Limbaugh playing in the background. I've been an evolutionist even longer. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because many conservatives are creationists does not mean conservatism is creationist. A further look would show you that christians tend to be creationist and also tend to be conservative. A correlation, NOT a causation.

You're a scientist, you should know better. Most of the sociobiologists I know are either libertarian or republican. There's a correlation I KNOW a causational link is behind.

#30284: PZ Myers — 06/29  at  06:36 AM
Umm, I made a snide remark about George F. Will, not all conservatives. I didn't extend a remark about an individual to categorize all conservatives, you did.

#30291: paperwight — 06/29  at  09:50 AM
Most of the sociobiologists I know are either libertarian or republican. There's a correlation I KNOW a causational link is behind.

Yeah, big shock there. People who adhere to a political philosophy which makes sociopathological selfishness the highest virtue also subscribe to a scientific hypothesis which provides a deterministic rationalization for that sociopathological selfishness, quite neatly absolving them of any moral culpability and relieving them of the onerous burden of actually considering alternatives.

Trackback: Almost Real Content (TM) Tracked on: The World Wide Rant - v3.0 (63.247.140.66) at 2005 06 29 07:33:04
George Will: closet godless liberal?The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but...

#30292: PZ Myers — 06/29  at  10:06 AM
Although...I have a hard time imagining EO Wilson voting for Bush. Are you sure you aren't confusing Evolutionary Psychologists with those old-time sociobiologists?

#30295: paperwight — 06/29  at  10:20 AM
PZ - I refer to the vulgar conflation of the two which generally forms an apologia for the worst behaviors in humans.

#30297: SweettP — 06/29  at  11:00 AM
Oh come on....tell them the truth about us...you all know that they are right and we have been lying to the creationists for far to long.....

The Assembly of the Ladder Day Evolutionist (Reformed) is now recruiting members.

We do fun things such as reenacting the assent of man and we also lay on the floor pretending to be in the primordial soup and then emerge as life forms. Two of our high holy days celebrate the publication of our Bible the "Origins of Species" and the other in honor of the birth of our messiah Charles Darwin.

We also sacrifice virgins to the god of plate tectonics, Mr. Volcano. As a liberal organization we have trouble finding virgins amongst our own, we all know what conservatives say is the truth, that all liberal women are lesbos, sluts and/or whores. So there are none among us suitable for sacrifice. So we look toward the conservative element to appease Mr. Volcano.

Do you know any conservative virgins suitable for sacrifice to appease our god of plate tectonics? Please bring them along to our worship service next Tuesday night at your neighborhood Taco Bell. See you there!!

#30298: indiancowboy — 06/29  at  11:04 AM
PZ...suuure. You definitely did not mean to imply a generalization whatsoever...Anyway, I'll drop it, this is your site after all.

I too have a hard time imagining Wilson votin for Bush. I certainly didn't vote for him...probably for many of the same reasons you didn't. Bush, especially now, does not speak for all conservatives.

Paperwight, sounds like you're talking about Evolutionary Psych...not Sociobiology, at least as I learned it. The prob with EP is that hardly anyone in it has any formal training in evolutionary bio. They think everything is 'adaptive'. In fact EPs tend to have a dogmatic desire to study ONLY the bad in society...they're untrained morons looking for publicity and nothing more.

One of the most interesting aspects of sociobio in my opinion is how innately selfish beings nevertheless can cooperate extensively. I'm doing my master's thesis on why marmosets and tamarins are cooperative breeders...how selfishness led to that.

Once i've failed to get that published (lol), my next step is another South American monkey, Cebus, and why unrelated males form such strong friendships, including alpha males who openly tolerate lower ranking males mating with females. Then why males are so intensely tolerant of infants. Then why the alpha male frequently puts himself in a position of danger (when he wasn't before) in order to save other individuals of the troop. All these actions are done for imminently selfish reasons, yet what we see is tolerance, friendship, and even selflessness (paradoxically).

I don't think there's any defensibility in teh position that humans are NOT ultimately selfish beings. What I think IS defensible is the proposition that cooperation is ultimately a facet of complex competition. That's what interests me and that's what i love to see: cooperation arising from competition.

#30300: — 06/29  at  11:15 AM
News flash!

Tom Cruise agrees vehemently with foundational assumption of "intelligent design theory"!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/06/29/cruise.aliens.reut/index.html

"Hollywood actor Tom Cruise not only battles creatures from outer space in his latest film "War of the Worlds", he also believes aliens exist, he told a German newspaper on Wednesday.

Asked in an interview with the tabloid daily Bild if he believed in aliens, Cruise said: "Yes, of course. Are you really so arrogant as to believe we are alone in this universe?"

#30304: — 06/29  at  12:03 PM
GWW: Perhaps I am failing to see the obvious, but I don't understand how Cruise talking about aliens (presumably intelligent) relates to Intelligent Design (ID). Have any of the ID potentates even discussed the idea of aliens?

#30305: Daniel Newby — 06/29  at  12:04 PM
"The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: ..."

Not so. Mix simple chemicals (that can reasonably be found in a supernova remnant) in a closed container and expose it to an energy gradient. If life appears spontaneously, an intelligent designer is unnecessary. QED.

The real problem with ID is that it makes no useful predictions. Even if God did invent bacteria 4000 years ago, that wouldn't explain the observed fact that they become resistant to antibiotics. Learning the theory (assuming it was correct) would give you no advantage over ignorance.

#30307: Hank Fox — 06/29  at  12:10 PM
Indiancowboy, "evolutionist" conservatives aren't really going out of their way to argue much with their dumber brethren, though, are they?

One reason might be that if you argued with them, you'd immediately be branded a librool.

Try to make a point about separating christian monuments from schools and courthouses: librool. Suggest that it might be a good idea to regulate the sale of automatic weapons: librool. Just hint that individual women should have some say in reproductive choices: librool baby killer. Argue that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not have oil rigs in it: librool environmental terrorist. Disagree with the president about the war on Iraq: librool traitor.

Conservatism has been hijacked by the brainless godder types, and the extreme compression of viewpoints within the conservative camp IS COMING FROM THE CONSERVATIVES THEMSELVES.

If somebody makes a statement regarding some aspect or other of the PACKAGE DEAL of conservatism, surely it can't be that unexpected?

I think you’re angry at the wrong people. Go read what Rove and Scott McClellan just said about librools, and tell me why you don't agree with it. And then tell me what you've DONE to provide the least little smidgen of public backpressure to that kinda thing, to somehow distinguish yourself, an "evolutionist," from them.

BTW, just out of curiosity, how long have you been using the word "evolutionist"? And what do you suppose is the hidden significance of the fact that you’ve begun using it?

#30309: coturnix — 06/29  at  12:22 PM
Conservatism is hierarchical.
Christianity is hierarchical.
Creationism is hierarchical.
Genocentrism (Evolutionary Psychology) is hierarchical.
Aggressive SuperPatriotism (nationalism) is hierarchical.
Homophobia is hierarchical.
Xenophobia is hierarchical.
Male Chauvinism is hierarchical.
Femiphobia is hierarchical.
Racism is hierarchical.

All of these appeal, to some extent that varies between individuals, to people who were RAISED in a hirerachical family in which Father is the boss.

#30310: coturnix — 06/29  at  12:28 PM
Also, see the difference between Evolutionary Psychology and evolutionary psychology here:
http://mixingmemory.blogspot.com/2005/06/evolutionary-psychology-vs.html

#30311: indiancowboy — 06/29  at  12:33 PM
Yeah, actually we are. Well I am at least. I got two extended AIM convos going on about it right now. Isn't the first time i've argued it and won't be the last.

The reason we'd be branded liberal is because of various attempts by liberals conflating anti-evolutionism with conservatism. Head to my blog and see what i'm talking about. Liberals have failed to distinguish being evolutionist from being liberal adequately, thus politicizing it. It's a bit of a chicken/egg argument. And i guess the truth is that both sides are guilty here.

Lots of cons i know, even deeply religious ones, agree with separation of church and state/school/whatever. I'm one of the biggest RKBA people you'll meet. I think abortion is murder from conception on, after a certain point in gestation, it scientifically and medically is. I think a woman's right to reproductive choice occurs when she decides she wants the penis. I argued against ANWR, yes. Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, was the greatest conservationist president we've ever had. I agree with the Iraq war, although i believe it's being executed poorly due to the politicians not listening to the generals, but that's been true of nearly every war fought since generals and politicians were not the same thing. You just made the mistake of I mentioned in my first paragraph...implying that a belief in evolution has anything at all to do with the other issues.

Can't argue that next point. It's a big beef with me and one of the reasons i didn't vote Bush. Even National Review, Townhall etc, are picking up the 'conservative=christian' viewpoint.

I'm sayign creationism wasn't always part of the 'package-deal of conservatism' and that liberals helped to reinforce that view by using conservative and creationist interchangeably. Heck, half my regular blog readers (all 6 of them lol) are evolutionist conservatives.

And actually I happen to agree with what Rove said, had he only applied the statement to democrat politicians and the moveon.org bunch. He painted with too broad a brush. But so do you guys everytime you insist that conservatism=creationism. As to what i've done? Was politically active at the campus level for years and have actually urged conservative boycotts of 'christian right' organizations on our campus. I did what could be expected of a teenager, if you ask me.

I've been using the term 'evolutionist' to describe myself ever since I got into the philosophy of evolution. Not philo of bio in the Ernst Mayr sense of how we think about biology, but rather about how what we know abt biology affects the way we think.

Been writing a book (off and on for the past 2.5 years) about evolutionary epistemology and ethics. Been calling myself an evolutionist for a little bit longer than that. (Since High School, about 4 years). FYI, i think atheistic humanism, such as what most of you prolly believe in, is just as much a crock of crap (maybe moreso) than theistic humanism. Humanism is unjustifiable to anyone who also propounds a belief in evolution.

Fun discussion, guys.

#30312: Alon Levy — 06/29  at  12:33 PM
Actually, genocentrism is the opposite of hierarchical. To the degree that it exists - for instance, Dawkins is far from the genocentrist Gould and Lewontin say he is - it is extremely individualistic. The idea in hierarchy is that everything flows from the top, so analogizing that to biology means that society controls the individual and the individual controls the genes inside him. Saying that genes determine human behavior is analogous not to conservatism but to liberal democracy.

But of course, all that has nothing to do with whether sociobiology or evolutionary psychology has any merit. Otherwise you'd have to pretend that eusocial insects don't exist.

#30313: paperwight — 06/29  at  12:54 PM
Liberals have failed to distinguish being evolutionist from being liberal adequately, thus politicizing it.

This has got to be one of the dumbest accusations I have ever heard levelled at liberals. It's actually dumber than (though almost identical to) "Liberals are responsible for the invasion of Iraq because they couldn't convince enough people it was a bad idea."

This is purely the default Republican hack position of "when in doubt, blame liberals, not just for the things they *actually* do, but for all the things they couldn't convince others to do". It's the paradigm for unfalsifiable faith claims. There is literally nothing which can't be blamed on liberals (or anyone else) under this model.
And I remember when self-proclaimed conservatives claimed that they were the holders of the moral high ground on personal responsibility. O, how the mighty have fallen (or maybe they didn't fall -- we're just seeing the reality now).

#30315: — 06/29  at  02:46 PM
VKW

"GWW: Perhaps I am failing to see the obvious, but I don't understand how Cruise talking about aliens (presumably intelligent) relates to Intelligent Design (ID). Have any of the ID potentates even discussed the idea of aliens?"

Of course they have.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/william-a-dembski

"Dembski's position on intelligent design's relationship with Christianity has been somewhat inconsistent. He has suggested that the "intelligent designer" was not necessarily synonymous with God: "It could be space aliens. There are many possibilities." (San Francisco Chronicle, March 17, 2002)"

I think Bill has re-stated his space aliens assumption.

Besides, if it wasn't space aliens who "intelligently" designed all the life on earth, then who did it? Humans from the future in time machines?

#30316: — 06/29  at  02:49 PM
Here's more from Bill "Risky Business" Dembski:

" Tomorrow space travelers show up loaded with unbelievably advanced technology. They tell us (in English) that they've had this technology for hundreds of millions of years and give us solid evidence of it (perhaps by pointing to some star cluster hundreds of millions of light years away whose arrangement signifies a message that confirms the aliens' claim). Moreover, they demonstrate to us that with this technology they can atom by atom and molecule by molecule assemble the most complex organisms.



Suppose we have good reason to think that these aliens were here at key moments in life's history (e.g., at the origin of life, the origin of eukaryotes, the origin of metazoans, and the origin of the animal phyla in the Cambrian). Suppose further that in forming life from scratch the aliens would not leave any evidence (their technology is so advanced that they clean up after themselves perfectly -- no garbage or any other signs of activity would be left behind). Suppose, finally, that none of the facts of biology are different from what they are now. Should we think that life at key moments in its history was designed?"

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.10.23.Sober_indep_evid_req.htm