Pharyngula::Newman vs. Mooney

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Newman vs. Mooney

PZ Myers • 28 Comments (last page)

Chris Mooney has a succinct summary of Intelligent Design's stealth creationism strategy, the idea that they are the same old dogmatically religious creationists repackaged with a little chrome veneer to make them look more objectively "scientific", but underneath it all, they're still pursuing an exclusively religious agenda.

As he's said before, Nathan Newman dislikes this approach to criticizing the Discovery Institute. Motives shouldn't matter, just the methods and the results, and religion shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier.

I disagree with the Discovery Institute's evidence for their arguments, but I really have no problem with their meta-analysis of their approach, as articulated here. They don't have the evidence to back up their goals, but they have the right to try to convince people they do without having their core religious commitments used to discredit even their right to try to make the argument.

…and…

You may give research with an explicit agenda additional skeptical review, but, then, most research has an agenda of some kind, if these days usually based on corporate-funding more than religious belief. Either you take down the research on the evidence or not at all. In a religious country, it just seems like a loser argument to say that everyone whose work is motivated by their belief in God is automatically barred from standing to debate the issue.

Once again, I'm torn. There are good religious scientists, and if one were to say "I entered the field out of a desire to exalt the works of Jesus," that wouldn't turn their research into garbage. And it would be a loser argument (even if it were valid!) to discredit all of the scientific work of the religious. Of course, no one is proposing any of those things.

Nathan himself finds the real problem:

Many evolutionists disingenuously try to claim that science has no implications for religious belief. I happen to think that understanding evolution thoroughly means that most fundamentalist religion is therefore shown to be bunk. But while I understand that, I also understand why that would upset those fundamentalists.

This is something I agree with thoroughly, and have said it myself repeatedly. Most religions are harmless, but some are pathological and damaging to individuals and society, and especially to science. It seems a shame that we have one word, "religious", and we apply it to both people like Pat Robertson (delusional end-times freakazoid who dreams of a theocracy) and my sister (nice, caring mom and sunday school teacher.) And yes, Nathan, that brand of religion that is absolutist and literalist and fundamentalist is the antithesis of science. It is not compatible. Science has shown it to be bunk, and one really can't hold these particular beliefs and do good science.

In the end what damns the Discovery Institute is not that they are "religious," in the bland and general sense of the word, but that their documents reveal them to be adherents of ideology-takes-all, batshit-insane, anti-scientific cults. Their dogmas directly oppose the scientific approach, but they claim to be doing science. That is appropriate information to present to knock down their phony facade of being a scientific institution.

It's quite right that simply shouting, "They're religious!" is not a good tactic—that would also condemn several good Catholic universities near me. I don't think that's what Mooney was doing, though; here's a key paragraph.

But the Discovery Institute made a key tactical error. Somehow, a document that seems to bare the true soul of the institute leaked onto the Web. You can read it here, with Discovery's gloss on it. Unfortunately, not even the most consummate rhetorician could explain away lines like, "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Once it lets its guard down, anti-evolutionism hasn't changed a bit.

That clearly shows the DI doesn't even know what science is, and puts the lie to their claim of being a scientific organization with a scientific theory that deserves representation in a science class.

But maybe we should all try to be clearer that the reason we despise the Discovery Institute isn't that its members believe in God, but that they use that belief to justify destroying good science and good science education.

One other thing: another reason the religious motivations of the DI are often brought up is as an explanation. Why would anyone want to do bad science? In their case it's because they are bending it to the goals of their religion; on other cases, it might be because someone is funded by and supports corporate interests. We want to know for the same reason that it's worth knowing when a tobacco researcher is funded by Phillip Morris.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/1870/flYUsPsj/

Comments:

#14915: — 02/01 at 09:03 AM
I say this as a pretty devout unbeliever: if your sister still still has contact with you, she must be (dare I say it?) a saint.

#14920: DarkSyde — 02/01 at 09:13 AM
There really ought to be two different words. If you have someone who states sincerely that a young earth is a core aspect of their religion, and they've made the decision that that core aspect is more important than the science which contravenes it, that's fine, that's their choice. But it's then dishonest for them to advance scientific arguments of any kind for creationism, or push for creationism in schools as a scientific alternative, because they've chosen to turn their back on science, and science cannot resolve the issue for them.

#14922: — 02/01 at 09:26 AM
Am I missing something? Newman makes a couple of statements I find rather shocking:

"They don’t have the evidence to back up their goals, but they have the right to try to convince people they do..."

"You may give research with an explicit agenda additional skeptical review, but, then, most research has an agenda of some kind..."

In the first case, is he not therefore arguing that the creationists have the right to lie? I don't know what the philosophy and legality of falsehood in general is, but I would think that when it comes to influencing public policy and education, it is utterly unacceptable and ought to be illegal.

In the second case, I have no data on the issue...but I'm very disturbed by the attitude Newman seems to be presenting--that most science has an "agenda." And I'm concerned that this is a growing, general public attitude which is sadly strengthened by the bad examples of cigarette science, prescription drug scandals and creation science.

#14923: — 02/01 at 09:31 AM
If I read Newman correctly, he advocates engaging in good faith with the DI on the basis of their science; he is correct that in fair open debate in a scientific arena, descent with modification plus natural selection will beat intelligent design every time.

Newman's argument fails because the other side will not play fair, and the venue is not a scientific arena. Arguments that would cause any real scientist to change opinions will have no effect on DI-ers, because they are not real scientists. And the public will not understand their behavior until the big explanatory fact is revealed: that the DI is a fundamentalist Christian mission, which cares nothing for science and everything for winning souls by any means necessary.

#14924: Nathan Newman — 02/01 at 09:40 AM
So since evolutionists can't win the argument in the public debate, we should have the courts hand us the victory without a debate?

Which is then used by the religious to say, See, the evolutionists can't win their argument without using the courts. Ha, ha, they're hiding something, so we must have the truth.

And they then recruit more people based on populist politics.

Maybe the difference I have with a lot of folks is I think we CAN win the public debate, maybe not this year, but over time. But we have to engage in the politics of school boards and stop depending on the courts, since that just gives the evolutionists the excuse to stay shuttered in their labs, feeling all is right with the world because creation-science isn't being taught in the schools, even as most of the population continues to believe that evolution is false.

#14925: Orac — 02/01 at 09:43 AM
I agree with PZ that a religious motivation is not necessarily incompatible with being a good scientist. What being a good scientist who is also religious does require is an understanding of what science is contrasted to what religion is, something the fundamentalists who push creationism (and creationism's Trojan horse, intelligent design) do not have (or they refuse to recognize a difference). Non-fundamentalist religious scientists will often take the view that they are trying to understand the glory of God's creation. They consider their discoveries to be simply discoveries of small parts of the glory of creation. They do not usually base their research on the Scriptures. Even fundamentalism is not necessarily inconsistent with good science, provided the fundamentalist scientist is working in a discipline where his or her scientific findings are not likely ever to conflict with Scripture. Disciplines such as chemistry (with the exception of biochemistry, which is infused with the consequences of evolution) fit the bill.

One problem I've seen is when scientists in one discipline who happen to be religious decide to start addressing science in specialties outside of their area of expertise, like biology and evolution. (For example, in A Physicist's Perspective, I often see posts boosting intelligent design and criticizing the critics of ID.) Sadly, in my experience, I've also found that most scientists who've fallen under the ID spell tend to be just as intransigent as any other ID advocate.

#14927: — 02/01 at 09:49 AM
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”

The people at the Discovery Institute apparently use the word "science" to describe another form of Revealed Truth, and are thus taking advantage of the general public's view of science as a source of authoritative knowledge from mysterious sources (men in lab coats with letters after their names).

#14928: PZ Myers — 02/01 at 09:51 AM
Of course, what we have to start doing is engaging the public. There is no argument on this subject within science, so we've become lazy about getting the word out to the people outside our labs.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#14929: DarkSyde — 02/01 at 09:54 AM
BTW, Brent linked a pretty powerful article on Atheism this morning which kinda goes along with the header.

#14935: — 02/01 at 10:34 AM
Newman says…

They don’t have the evidence to back up their goals, but they have the right to try to convince people they do…

That giving a pass to blatant dishonesty, not that politicians don’t indulge in it occasionally. But it’s the very thing that the processes of science—e.g., honest peer review and the like—guard against.
He goes on to claim…

"…most research has an agenda of some kind…"

And in most cases that’s a better understanding of nature. But, to be fair, yes, there are abuses—tobacco "research", some drug research, and almost any research undertaken in support or defense of some lobbying goal—but they are aberrations. If properly pursued and publicly published, warts and all, science is impeccably honest. That’s not what the DI does or even attempts to do, even through slight of hand.
Newman then observes (using the creationist term "evolutionist")…

"…evolutionists disingenuously try to claim that science has no implications for religious belief…"

I can’t prove a negative, but I doubt most evolutionary biologists think that. But then one must look to the roots of all religions as an attempt to make sense of a confusing and mystifying world. Science has dispelled many of the myths about the world about us and will continue to do so for centuries to come. Intelligent religion (not "intelligent design") has made and will continue to adapt. The folks as the DI, and their allies at the ICR and elsewhere, will, of course, continue, to hold to their dogma unrelentingly with no willingness to let the motes be cast from their eyes (to use a biblical phrase).

Only loosely related, today’s NY Times contains three articles of interest. One, by Cornelia Dean, on evolution and creationism in education is right on (Chris Mooney has a pointer to it). The second one is an interview with James Cameron, film director or "Titanic" and other epics, who’s just released a documentary "Aliens of the Deep." a three-dimensional, Imax-scale exploration of geophysics and extreme biology at the bottom of the sea. He made 40 dives to the ocean floor, primarily the sutures between plates rich with "smokers" and strange life, using a crew of young biologists and geologists and his own two submersibles. In the course of the interview he also makes some pointed comments about science, education (and, yes, creationism and evolution), and society.
He also makes the pointe that…

"The deep ocean has the same surface area as all the continents of the planet put together. We've got five submersibles in the world that can reach those depths...That's like exploring all the continents of the earth with five Jeeps."

Unstated is the sheer potential. Can you imagine PZ waxing rhapsodic about the blue smokers and tube worms? The Cameron interview can be read at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/earth/01conv.html

The third article is a fascinating discussion of new work by avian biologist on the bird brain with a brief overview of new research on how bird brains are much like mammalian brains in intelligence by strikingly different physiologically. Evolution, of course, comes up as a central concept with the evidence pointing to avian brains having evolved rather differently from mammalian brains physically, while achieving much the same result intellectually. I found it fascinating.. You can read that at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/science/01bird.html

Cheers.

#14938: — 02/01 at 10:58 AM
An interesting set of articles, Keanus, thank you!

I should point out I'm not taking Mr. Newman to task, specifically, just objecting to the apparent implications of a couple sentences. As this discussion and PZ's latest post imply, the situation is very discouraging...we are losing this argument as a result of American political, religious and educational conditions and our poor response to those conditions.

Worse, we have a dominant political party that is encouraging a public image of science as a political tool of the opposition. How many people now believe that the science on controversial issues such as the environment is politically biased? And I wonder, how much of that is the fault of the "false equivalence" factor, wherein industries present opposing junk science and the general public assumes in one stroke that the "real" science is both equal, and equally political?

And I am further discouraged when I ask myself...WHY do these other countries not suffer our problems? How much of the difference is education, rather than politics and religion? I cannot help but wonder if the creationists are not indirectly right when they howl that evolution in the classroom is merely indoctrination. What if the extra 40% who accept evolution in these other countries do so merely because they were told to? What if they do not truly understand the science? Where does that leave us?

#14939: — 02/01 at 11:00 AM
I took a look at A Physicist’s Perspective. His rationale for supporting ID appears to be that he believes that it is possible (inevitable?) that science itself will determine that magic did the creating bit (a lot packed into that one word "creating"); therefore, it's ok to believe now that magic exists. In my reading he seems to believe in microevolution, but I didn't persist enough to discover where he draws the line, which clearly he does.

Now this is an interesting problem in terms of pedagogy. I don't think I could convince any believers of my acquaintence why this is wrong. (It's just a form of wishful thinking, but of course that's what faith is) And I probably would run into problems with the more naive liberal types because this formulation certainly looks like a framework for toleration, which of course all of us squishy liberal types embrace. I mean, we all have open minds, right? So what's wrong with giving ideas like this fair play? So the paradox here is you can't be a moral relativist if you're going to be strictly rationally consistent, i.e., illiberal. And the problem here is that most folks can sense this, and they don't trust it, coming as it does from generally liberal types.

#14940: Stephen Stralka — 02/01 at 11:12 AM
I don't see why this has to be an either/or thing. Surely refuting intelligent design on its merits (or rather, total lack thereof) is not incompatible with exposing the religious agenda of its advocates.

How is it unfair or irrelevant to bring up the fact that these guys are simply lying when they claim they've reached their conclusions for purely scientific reasons? The Discovery Institute people do indeed have the right to try to convince people based on the evidence, without their core religious commitments automatically invalidating their arguments. However, if they're going to try to pass off their religious commitments as science, the rest of us have the right to call them on it.

#14943: RH Stephens — 02/01 at 11:34 AM
PZ- thanks for the updates. At some point, this could become an issue with just about any school board in the country. It helps to be armed.

You said "...they use that belief to justify destroying good science and good science education." I think the problem is more that, given their beliefs, they do not mind spending huge amounts of time trying to resolve scientific questions in political arenas. History has shown that they will prevail unless we, likewise, devote considerable energy to counter their claims. And given the basis of their claims, most of us consider such service to be an enormous waste of time – necessary, but totally non-productive.

There are no arguments that will change the view of a literalist; there are plenty of arguments that will change the views of the political bystanders who believe themselves incapable of rendering a scientific judgment. If we can be convincing enough for people to understand that this is not about science, perhaps we can avoid endless hours at pointless public meetings and trials. Unfortunately, we are much more in danger of wearing down than they.

#14949: — 02/01 at 12:28 PM
I think a number of people, including Nathan Newman, are missing the point. Of course it is perfectly OK and legal for creationists to try to convince the public that their religious belief should supplant science. But it is absolutely wrong and unconstitutional for them to have their religious beliefs taught in public schools. That is what they are trying to do, and that is what should not be allowed. Let them argue in their pulpits and on their silly TV shows all day long, but the US Constitution forbids the establishment of religion. It is there that the religious motivations and beliefs of the IDers enters into the debate. It is the height of disingenuousness (to be generous) for them to argue that religion is not the motivator for ID, and that they do not believe that the "intelligent designer" is their particular religion's god. So, engage them in debate if you want to, and if you have the time to waste, but don't let them into public schools. You should prevent that without arguing the merits of their position, simply by showing the the religious foundation of ID.

#14950: David Mobley — 02/01 at 12:31 PM
David of A Physicist's Perspective weighing in, since my blog was mentioned on here.
To Orac: I do work in biology, although my Ph.D. is in physics. I attend research talks relating to biology, evolution, etc. I'm not sure what qualifications you think I need to have to be able to speak about evolution versus intelligent design -- perhaps only people with Ph.D.'s in biology or related topics are qualified? I'm qualified to publish papers relating to biology in peer reviewed journals -- but I'm not qualified to comment publicly on the subject?

To Russell Carter: In the post you're referring to, I was offering a hypothetical. I don't really believe that science will prove that God created -- but I was arguing the following: Suppose science DID prove God created (hypothetically) -- would it still violate the establishment clause to teach Intelligent Design in schools? I'm simply trying to find out why exactly people think this violates the establishment clause; I don't think it does, and I thought this hypothetical helped illustrate why. I think most people's fundamental concern is with the science: Most of you on here think the science supports evolution, not Intelligent Design, and Intelligent Design therefore shouldn't be taught. What I was trying to say is this: If you think Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught because it's bad science, that means your issue is with the evidence, not with the establishment clause. And if you think Intelligent Design shouldn't be taught no matter what the evidence says, because it violates the establishment clause, that seems really strange.

#14957: — 02/01 at 01:02 PM
Speaking as a Democrat I think Nathan Newman's proposed appeasement stategy is about as dumb as strategies get. Nathan Newman refused to acknowledge that he obviously did not know enough about creationist double-speak to avoid using their own anti-science terminology. And then he deleted comments to his blog which addressed that fact. I call that chickenshxt and pathetic.

Now he says

"But we have to engage in the politics of school boards and stop depending on the courts ..."

To the extent that Newman is arguing we shouldn't use the courts to stop the creationist peddlers, that is stupid. We win in the courts every time. And those court victories are surely effective at preventing many other school boards from engaging in similarly illegal shenanigans.

To the extent that Newman is arguing that those opposed to the anti-science Johnsonite Christian sect should work harder to educate the public about why evolution is for real and why "ID theory" is not science, that is obvious, that is not a new idea, and I wish Newman would admit that.

Furthermore, step 1 in that education process is to understand how the anti-science charlatans use rhetoric and obfuscation to achieve their goals. As of a couple weeks ago, it was not clear to me that Nathan Newman had taken this step.

"Maybe the difference I have with a lot of folks is I think we CAN win the public debate, maybe not this year, but over time."

Wow, what a bold claim, Nathan! Are there really "a lot of folks" who believe that there is something about the drinking water in America that will prevent more than 60 or 70% of the population from understanding that creationism is bullcrap?

Of course not. We all agree that over time we can educate a greater percentage Americans about evolutionary biology.

But before that can be done we -- scientists and non-scientists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, Buddhists -- need to educate Americans about the fundamentalist scum in this country and their vile bullshit.

Nathan writes

"Many evolutionists disingenuously try to claim that science has no implications for religious belief."

Try to be clear, Nathan. The fact is that science has no implications for religious believe *per se*. In other words, if one has an understanding of science and an appreciation of its utility, that does not mean that one can't be a devout member of a religion.

That is what "many evolutionists" say and they undoubtedly correct because many of them are deeply religious!

Then Nathan says

"I happen to think that understanding evolution thoroughly means that most fundamentalist religion is therefore shown to be bunk."

Here we see Nathan at it again. He simply does not get it. Understanding ANYTHING thoroughly reveals fundamentalist religion to be "bunk."

And Nathan, most Americans already know this. Americans do not like fundamentalism. That is why fundamentalist Christians don't like to be called fundamentalist Christians.

PZ hits the nail on the head:

"In the end what damns the Discovery Institute is not that they are “religious,” in the bland and general sense of the word, but that their documents reveal them to be adherents of ideology-takes-all, batshit-insane, anti-scientific cults."

That is the message Nathan that you should be posting on your blog EVERY TIME you write about this subject. It is vehement, assertive and it is correct.

Here we have a scientist who is doing exactly what should be done. Why don't you start regularly linking to PZ's posts on this subject and similar posts on the Panda's Thumb and Joe McFaul's website. Then you would be "spreading the word", Nathan.

That way when inept journalists or school board administrators poke around the internet looking for information they won't find posts like yours which have suggested that atheism is a religion and that there is a genuine "scientific debate" to be had with creationists about their bogus claims.

#14960: — 02/01 at 01:06 PM
Mobley, an alleged Ph.D. physicist who "attends lectures in evolution" writes

"I’m not sure what qualifications you think I need to have to be able to speak about evolution versus intelligent design"

You need to know what "intelligent design theory" is for starters, which you obviously do not.

Since you're a Ph.D., I assume you know how to use the Internet. Do some reading and educate yourself. There's also these things called "books" which you might enjoy.

Hint: the people who peddle "intelligent design theory" can't even agree on what it is, so I wouldn't spend too much time at creationist web sites.

#14962: — 02/01 at 01:16 PM
"And if you think Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught no matter what the evidence says, because it violates the establishment clause, that seems really strange."

David, you are speaking as if "science" had already somehow determined that a god exists and designed the physical world. If that happened, I missed it. Most scientists and most religious people believe that a god is a supernatural being that is not subject to physical laws and whose existence is not subject to physical investigation. How exactly is "science" supposed to prove the existence of such a being? Until that happens ID is religion, and the Constitution does not allow government to teach a religion in public schools. The arguement has to go no further than that. It's really that simple.

#14966: — 02/01 at 01:25 PM
"If you think Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught because it’s bad science, that means your issue is with the evidence, not with the establishment clause. And if you think Intelligent Design shouldn’t be taught no matter what the evidence says, because it violates the establishment clause, that seems really strange."

You're assuming that the evidence for ID is scientific, when in fact it's religious. So, in the first case, the Establishment Clause is an efficient technique for keeping religious beliefs such as ID from adulterating science education. In the second case, there is no valid evidence, thus your hypothetical is irrelevant.

Note that your question can be rephrased more simply: Why isn't ID accepted as science?

re: my original comment. I apologize for misinterpreting what you believe; if I am reading you right, you believe there is scientifically valid evidence for the existence of magic now. If so there is no need to contemplate the practical effect of Millian paradoxes, as I did in my previous comment.

#14967: Orac — 02/01 at 01:27 PM
OK, I wouldn't have been as rough in my response to Dr. Mobley as the "Mysterious Alien Being" was, but I do agree that, if he does research in biology (and a PubMed search reveals a few papers in biophysics journals on modeling protein structure--so I stand corrected in characterizing him as only a physicist), his posts on his blog on intelligent design imply that he nonetheless does still seem to have a hard time distinguishing the difference between religious belief and science. Given that he calls himself a physicist, it is not unreasonable to assume that his predoctoral training was in physics, not biology (unless he tells us otherwise). I also get the feeling that he did not internalize evolutionary theory or have a particularly deep exposure to the evidence for it, as he would have if he had trained primarily as a biologist.

Certainly, Dr. Mobley has every right to believe ID and to argue for it as a "scientific theory," if he so desires. However, it is a straw man that he builds up when he implies that I meant that one needed to have a Ph.D. in biology to enter the debate. I was merely making the observation that scientists whose primary training is not in biology who fall under the ID spell can be just as intransigent as lay people under the same spell. Dr. Mobley himself is evidence of the truth of what I said.

#14972: — 02/01 at 01:42 PM
Pretty much in a rephrasing of what was stated above:

ID violates the establishment clause because the motive behind it is firmly religious. It is not science...it has no supporting evidence. The only reason for its existence is religion, despite the protests of the IDers (anti-establishment conspiracy buffs excepted.)

I do concur with the suggestion that we cannot win this fight in the courts. Yes, we CAN win court battles and hopefully will, but in the long run it MUST be the public opinion that changes. The establishment clause can be changed, as can the authority and composition of the courts. There are many who would like nothing better.

#14975: — 02/01 at 02:02 PM
I just read Nathan Newman's post and it is probably the worst thing he has ever written on the subject. My theory is that the guy is an unapologetic jerk and because he was proven so utterly wrong with his earlier posts, he has burrowed himself in deeper.

Truly pathetic.

Also, he has banned me from posting at his site so that should tell you something else about his ego.

Below is the text of my "forbidden" entry:

Nathan Newman writes

"Aargg-- My sympathy for the religious right increases by the day, since folks who claim to value evidence won't take the time to parse a sentence for meaning."

Why don't you take the time to write coherently Nathan?

And why not take the time to thank people like Kenneth and PZ Myers for educating you on this subject? At least with respect to PZ he has been engaged in educating the public about this issue in a very real way for quite some time. You should spend more time listening and reading and less time pontificating.

You write

"[the Discovery Institute charlatns] have the right to try to convince people ... without having their core religious commitments used to discredit even their right to try to make the argument."

That is absurd. There is no such "right" to not have your "core religious commitments" discredited when you make arguments for the obvious purpose of spreading your religious beliefs.

And that is a major problem with the public discourse in this country when religious leaders (formerly "preachers" or "prophets") get involved. If a politician makes an argument, his logic and rationale and his "agenda" are unquestionably fair game. But when a preacher makes an argument ("gays are bad"), it's just taken a face value. The actual Biblical passages and their meaning and the existence of contradictions are virtually never addressed.

What are the "core religious commitments" of the HIV-denying fundamentalist jerks at the Discovery Institute and the lying frauds who apologize on their behalf?

"Many evolutionary scientists like to argue they are above such ideological blinders,"

Nathan if you have evidence than a living evolutionary biologist is doing scientific research that is suspect because he is motivated by ideological blinders then let's hear it.

If not, then you should recognize that, in fact, many scientists are honest when they argue that "they are above such ideological blinders."

And then you go right back to engaging in classic creationist anti-science rhetoric:

"eugenics is an all-too-recent movement to claim that scientific research is never driven by such meta-beliefs."

First, who made the claim that "scientific research is never driven by such meta-beliefs" Nathan???

Second, what does this have to do with the fact that the basic principles of evolutionary biology are undoubtedly correct and "ID theory" is obviously pure garbage intended to float the fundies' boats?

"In a religious country, it just seems like a loser argument to say that everyone whose work is motivated by their belief in God is automatically barred from standing to debate the issue."

That is a loser. But your claim that such people have a right not to have their motivations questioned when their arguments are obviously bogus is a bigger loser by far.

"If a group claiming to be anti-racist had supported research to refute that claim, would their science be automatically illegitimate?"

Nope.

If their research was shown to be obviously and clearly illegitimate and that view was held by the vast majority of evolutionary biologists, should we sit back and let the racists teach their views to kids in their public school classrooms, Nathan? Are you such an uncreative racist apologist Nathan that you can't think of a legal way to stop such toxic people from making a mockery of scientists in front of schoolchildren?

Thankfully, in the case of creationists we don't need to be creative because we have this awesome little passage in the Constitution called the First Amendment.

#15020: — 02/01 at 10:27 PM
A response to Dr Mobley:

I appreciate the hypothetical. If there were suddenly incontrovertible evidence for the existence of the Christian God, many, many things would change. For one thing, something would have to be done about the Establishment Clause. We are in agreement, of course, that this evidence will likely never materialize. Even if the hand of God split the sky, you could never get everyone to agree on the meaning of what they saw.

As for the thrust of your argument:

Let's say that there are two kinds of reasons to believe that Intelligent Design "works": religious reasons and scientific reasons. The religious reasons include the argument that ID lends some credence to a religious assumption, namely that God exists and that he created the universe. The scientific reasons are delineated in Dembski's books. So, in a sense, ID can be called a religious theory and a scientific theory.

If the scientific reasons lack rigor, does that not reduce ID to a religious theory? Wouldn't ID's advocates be trying to get the government to establish the teaching of a religious theory in its public schools? This seems like a violation of the EC.

Of course, you are free to argue whether the scientific reasons for believing in ID lack rigor. It should go without saying, however, that anyone who believes the scientific reasons lack rigor also believes that ID violates the EC.

#15021: — 02/01 at 10:35 PM
Hey, Orac, there's more to biophysics than just protein folding!

Sedimentation, chromatography, electrophoresis, nucleic acid and protein structure, X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, FRET, circular dichroism, and the biologically relevant parts of P-Chem all have deep roots in physics. Neat stuff, all.

I'm not knocking ya, just letting you know.

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Next entry: We're losing, you know

Previous entry: As requested, my statement on the Iraqi elections

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

Newman vs. Mooney

Info