#37103: davidm — 08/23  at  11:27 AM
One would think that such content hardly offers support for ID or demeans evolutionary theory in the least, but I suppose some people are reading these articles in a parallel universe or something, where every word means the opposite of what it is generally thought to mean.

#37106: Dan S. — 08/23  at  11:35 AM
Kenneth, it seems to me that people without a good awareness of science and the state of current research might well come away from the article with some sense of the 'debate,' but not the best feel for how much of a (unsupported) minority position ID is in. You have "mainstream" and "many", which is good, but I don't know if the average reader is going to walk away understanding that virtually the entire scientific community considers ID to be roughly on a par with the most recent Elvis sighting.
Abnormal Interests says it better: "How many other mathematicians? Which other mathematicians? We are not told. The whole thing makes it sound like a few, perhaps renegade, mathematicians are holding out, when in fact it is just the opposite." (http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2005/08/scientists_or_c.html)

Normally I'd be impressed at how much you have in such little space, but given the context . .
Maybe I'm wrong about this. I hope so.

#37107: — 08/23  at  11:36 AM
The problem with the article is that it's written like an article about a dispute within science, when this isn't a dispute within science. This isn't a disagreement between scientists, where each side is intepreting data in different ways, it's a political attack on science. If you render it in the standard statement-refutation, he-said-she-said style of science reporting, it's going to be unconscionably biased. It would be a great article if it was reporting on a dispute within science, but it's not.

I thought there was interesting tension brought out in the article though. Compare these statements:

"[M]ainstream scientists, design proponents say, are unwilling to look beyond the material world when it comes to explaining things like the construction of an eye or the spinning motors that propel bacteria."

"'Call it miracle, call it some other pejorative term, but the fact remains that the materialistic view is a truncated view of reality'."

"Mainstream scientists say that the scientific method is indeed restricted to the material world, because it is trying to find out how it works."

The problem here is that there's nothing in scientific practise that restricts science to a "material world" distinct from some larger context. That is a philosophical position and one that, while still accepted by most scientists, has become increasingly hard to defend within philosophy. But the stakes are high here: if we don't keep this form of scepticism, then science really does imply (very strong) atheism. So the counter claim, that science should allow for non-material causes, is a neat way to oppose that, even if it is ridiculous.

#37109: — 08/23  at  11:37 AM
Has anyone read the third installment yet? What exactly was it's point? It's basically a big hugfest between scientists and religion.

If they were trying to point out that many believing people are scientists, then fine, I don't have a big problem with that. But they don't really go a long way (other than a nice Dawkins quote) to explain how the practice of science is different from the practice of religion.

This quote, in reference to Joseph E. Murray, for example:

...when he was preparing for the first ever human organ transplant...he and his colleagues consulted a number of religious leaders about whether they were doing the right thing. "It seemed natural," he said...When you are searching for truth you should use every possible avenue, including revelation..."

WTF? Revelation? Why do we continue to pretend that, just become some idiot aligns himself with religion, that his opinion is the end all, be all of moral or ethical thought?

There's some discussion of Gould's NOMA concept, which I realise a lot of people (myself included) find lacking, but they then go on to say that science and religion are inextricably linked because of implications science may have for religion, or the way moral questions direct research--which completely misses Gould's point. So why even bring it up?

Firstly, ethics influence how, or what type of research may be conducted. Not morals. Ethics have diddly to do with religion. Secondly, whatever implications a discovery may have for religion, is religion's problem, not science's (which Gould explained pretty clearly in his book). The point, which the Times failed to make, is that, although believers may be scientists, they do not look to religion to direct or inform actual investigation.

For all the talk that the NYT isn't adressing the scientifically informed audience, but is simply explicating an issue for the unitiated (and of course, they're sure that nobody will come away with the impression that science and religion are on equal footing), I think it's telling that the third installment ends with this:

...some scientists were simply unwilling to confront the big questions religion tried to answer. "You will never understand what it means to be a human being through naturalistic observation," he said. "You won't understand why you are here and what the meaning is. Science has no power to address these questions - and are they not the most important questions we ask ourselves?"

Lame. In the same issue, Verlyn Klinkenborg answers these exact questions in an editorial:

The essential, but often well-disguised, purpose of intelligent design, is to preserve the myth of a separate, divine creation for humans in the belief that only that can explain who we are. But there is a destructive hubris, a fearful arrogance, in that myth. It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.

Klinkenborg also includes this very succint and accurate summing up of the evolution/ID "debate", which doesn't take up a lot of room, and would have greatly benifitted the earlier articles, if they were serious about accurately representing the issue.

But what we prefer to believe makes no difference....Evolution is a robust theory, in the scientific sense, that has been tested and confirmed again and again. Intelligent design is not a theory at all, as scientists understand the word, but a well-financed political and religious campaign to muddy science. Its basic proposition - the intervention of a designer, a k a God - cannot be tested. It has no evidence to offer, and its assumptions that humans were divinely created are the same as its conclusions. Its objections to evolution are based on syllogistic reasoning and a highly selective treatment of the physical evidence.

I hope PZ tears into this installment,too.

#37111: — 08/23  at  11:39 AM
Kenneth,

I see your point that you were trying to tell a story about this issue and also explain that ID is not accepted. I think the disconnect here is that we scientists have (or should have been) fighting this battle for some time and to us it seems appropriate to state that ID is crap and intelectually bankrupt. But that wouldn't have made an interesting story for the NYT, and it would have alienated many of the readers.

So from me - I think you did pretty well with a tough issue, but it would be better if you gave less credence to the crackpots in future articles.

Cheeto

#37112: — 08/23  at  11:43 AM
Does Kenneth Chang have any sort of tertiary science qualifications?
If yes, then the article does his training no justice.
If no, then a claimed 475-word precis of the central organising concept of modern biology for the the scientifically naive reader is an insult to both them and any scientists reading it.
I have the minimum recognised biology training of 3 years and there is no way that I could give Kenneth Chang marks for either brevity or clarity in his muddy beat-up of what is essentially a long-buried theory. Paley's been dealt with precisely and buried many times over before the DI dredged it up again.

The better NYT employee to have over for a comment would be Kenneth Chang's editor; to ask them why set such a confused dog on the rabbit.
I have not a skerrick of animosity towards Kenneth Chang but the article is a beat-up.

Here's my take-home message for what it's worth: Kenneth Chang says
As for whether the article succeeds or not, I point to it sitting at #1 on the NYT Web site's "Most E-Mailed Articles" list for most of the past day. That of course just means that people are reading it and telling others about it. Maybe it's you all emailing each other saying, "See a disaster this article is!"

Much more likely is that the DI is doing what it does best: rolling its bots into action, using its favourite political pressure tool of highlighting favourable references in respected journals (who doesn't respect the NYT?). "See, the NYT can't be wrong - it says ID is a theory and that there really is a debate!".
Most readers of Pharyngula wouldn't be inclined to use the clumsy email tracing javascript on sites like the NYT, instead preferring to copy the article's url to use with their own mail client.

I look forward to a NYT analysis of the Discovery Institute and its funders sometime soon.
However I'm not holding my breath because, quoting from the first article:

John Calvert, the managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, based in Kansas, said the institute had the intellectual and financial resources to "lead the movement" but was "more cautious" than he would like. "They want to avoid the discussion of religion because that detracts from the focus on the science," he said.
Of course they want to avoid the discussion of their central agenda and it seems that the NYT was happy to leave it at that.

Shame on NYT.

#37113: — 08/23  at  11:49 AM
Kenneth,

Take the "they say" out of this, and most of the other sentences you quote, and then you will have made a declarative statement.

And in that quest, they say, there is no need to resort to otherworldly explanations.

There is a difference between "It is true that a scientist said this", and "What this scientist said is true".

#37114: — 08/23  at  11:49 AM
Kenneth,

What your article fails to mention - indeed what most articles on the ID/Evolution controversy fail to mention - is that Intelligent Design is merely a euphemism for God creating life.

Many people have pointed out the delicious irony that creationism has, well, evolved over the last 25 years. Creationsists know that they cannot simply argue for religion being taught in school science classes, so they have had to come up with an indirect, euphemistic approach to promoting their religion. The current approach is called intelligent design.

By treating the issue as a scientific controversy - even if you correctly state that the bulk of evidence is against ID - you are simply missing the point.

The real points you should be bringing out are:

1. ID logically leads to a supernatural creator. If life is too compicated to have evolved on Earth, then it was either designed by God or space aliens. And who designed the space aliens?

2. The leading lights of the ID movement are funded by an organization devoted to destroying the "naturalistic worldview" which they claim has led America to its current parlous state.

3. The leading lights of the ID movement have made numerous public statements in which they link the Designer with the Christian God, and but go to great lengths to disingenously deny that when pressed. They paper over possibel disputes with young Earth creationists, by disingenuously claiming that they have "no opinion" on the age of the earth, or whether humans and chimps share common ancestry.

4. Almost all the ID conferences to date have been sponsored or supported by religious organizations.

5. The strategy of the ID movement is laid out in their Wedge Strategy, which clearly shows how journalists like you are being used as pawns in their game instead of them having to resort to doing actual science. They are, in other words, trying to do an end run round the nromal practice of science, and appeal to the public directly.

That is the story. Science is not the story. There is no ID science to discuss. So why are you bothering to try?

#37115: — 08/23  at  11:50 AM
As a mathematician, I was disappointed by the he-said/she-said presentation of the mathematical arguments presented in Kenneth Chang's article. After carefully explaining pro-ID arguments involving visually intuitive concepts like Mt. Rushmore, Mr. Chang simply reports that other mathematicians disagree, possibly creating the impression of a legitimate scientific or mathematical dispute where there is none.

It would have been very easy to present within the article the simple counter-argument that eviscerates the ID position. This argument appears, but at the very bottom of the annoyingly titled pop-up "What's Wrong With Evolution?"—"a cell that had the faces of four presidents on it, while other cells did not, would no doubt prompt scientists to look for a designer."

The problem with ID mathematics is that it is pseudoscientific gibberish used to obfuscate risibly poor arguments like the Mt. Rushmore example, not to quantify and illuminate good ones. ID math is either spectacularly ill-defined and misapplied, or it is flat-out wrong and reveals pathetically shoddy scholarship.

Look, when the mathematician on which you base your arguments says that your work is "written in jello", this goes above and beyond mathematical disagreement. And when the selfsame disputant says about information theory that

intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory,

and that he wants to squeeze confessions out of evolution-accepting scientists and posts pictures of a tortured little Charles Darwin doll with his head in a vice, it's time to draw some conclusions, even for an even-handed NYT reporter.

For anyone interested in the overwhelming support of evolution given by sound mathematics, I suggest quickly reading R.A. Fisher's biography , or consulting a mathematical population geneticist.

#37118: ekzept — 08/23  at  11:51 AM
the Verlyn Klinkenborg editorial quoted by mothworm:

It sets us apart from nature, except to dominate it. It misses both the grace and the moral depth of knowing that humans have only the same stake, the same right, in the Earth as every other creature that has ever lived here. There is a righteousness - a responsibility - in the deep, ancestral origins we share with all of life.

addresses another part of this matter, that this ID comes from a decidedly WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) perspective, a throwback to notions and the time of manifest destiny and such. in fact, there are many deep religious traditions who believe humankind's role ought to be one of healing nature and the world, not dominating it. those perspectives were missed. i think someone else observed something similar in another Comment on a similar subject.

#37119: — 08/23  at  11:56 AM
Reed,
Sorry but what you said re: homologous DNA recombination doesn't jive with my understanding of the topic. Mutation does not, to my knowledge, initiate or mediate crossover events. I'll send something to your blog email inbox soon.

#37120: ekzept — 08/23  at  11:57 AM
y'know, as a point of comparison, consider the Times treatment of Drosnin's Bible code book. Drosnin had mathematicians and comparable folks on "his side", too, and his book was a best seller.

#37126: — 08/23  at  12:15 PM
Mr. Chang, why don't you write an article about people like PZ Myers? Evaluate the veracity, honesty, scientific, and educational skills of the intelligent design peddlers at the Discovery Institute and compare them with PZ Myers' honesty and scientific credentials. Compare the ACCURACY of Mr. Myers' claims about the Discovery Institute and the charlatans who work there with the claims those charlatans have made about the "crisis" in evolutionary biology.

If you are not interested in writing such an article, could you explain why, Mr. Chang?

Since when does the job of journalists not include investigating and reporting on the veracity of statements made by proponents of conflicting views?

The reason people are pissed off and rightfully so is because, to date, the mainstream media including your employer has done a terrible job of reporting on creationist LIES.

That is the story, Mr. Chang: creationist LIES. People who LIE and sow confusion in order to further their religious beliefs. People who behave HYPOCRITICALLY to further their their religious beliefs.

That is what PZ Myers does here at his blog. He presents the work of genuine scientists and he presents the work of pseudoscientists.

Your readers who aren't scientists are NEVER going to understand all of the details of evolutionary biology.

But they can understand which group -- scientists who aren't associated with the Discovery Institute versus those who are -- includes a far greater proportion of cranks who have contributed NOTHING to the science of evolutionary biology.

They can understand that, Mr. Chang, if you can educate yourself and find the courage to WRITE THE DAMN SENTENCE.

#37128: — 08/23  at  12:27 PM
This whole thing stinks of a hoary generational group-think that will hopefully waste away with the next wave of young journalists who will be specifically educated in science writing. I believe that reporters brought-up in the old-school style of political reporting have been indoctrinated to present each side in a fair and balanced format regardless of the validity and verification of either sides arguement; the we report, you decide mentality.
What we're left with is the politicalization of science.
That's fine, I suppose, if you're science-minded enough to make the smart decision. But science isn't democratic, and, ideally, the next generation of science writers, free from the shackles of politics, will do more than report the views of each side.

#37134: — 08/23  at  01:10 PM
Chang has also "buried the lead." It isn't until the ninth paragraph that the biologists get their say. By this time, most readers have moved on to the crossword puzzle and all they have seen is the ID point of view.

An objective journalist would have led off the article with "Despite a total lack of support by the mainstream scientific community, proponents of intelligent design continue to wage a political battle to get their faith-based belief inserted into public school's science curriculum."

Note I said "objective," not "balanced." Balance is not, in and of itself, a desirable quality in journalism. Sometimes objectivity demands balance, but often--and especially in articles about science--it does not.

#37137: — 08/23  at  01:13 PM
The entire framing of this issue has been incompetent within most of the MSM. Why do we hear about the Evolution Wars from Time and the Evolution Debate from the New York Times when no such "wars" or "debate" exist in evolution (that is within the domain of science)? The *real* war and debate is over whether religion (posing as science) is taught in the science classroom of public schools, and nothing more. A better title would be The Theocracy Wars/Debate.

I don't understand why a small group of pseudoscientific theocrats get the privelage of being portrayed as nothing less than a daring minority scientific viewpoint. The major media is helping to manufacture the image of the same phony "debate" that the DI is banking on for their popular political support.

#37139: — 08/23  at  01:18 PM
Given the teeth-grinding job they're doing now, imagine if the Times does some meta-reportage on the series. Here's my guess for their head:

"SCIENTISTS ANGERED BY COVERAGE OF COMPETING THEORY"
Only One View Should Be Reported, They Say

#37141: Dave Carlson — 08/23  at  01:51 PM
Kenneth,

Thank you for taking the time to stop by here to defend your article. You didn't have to do that, and I appreciate your effort to address the concerns that were presented. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Dave

#37142: — 08/23  at  02:02 PM
It should be pointed out that the efforts of the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy to get ID into the public eye have been enormously successful. How many of the general population knew about ID five or even three years ago? Now the President is talking about it. Sorry Kenneth, but articles like yours simply help the DI's media campaign. The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

#37153: — 08/23  at  02:32 PM
Not every opposing point deserves to be taught or given equal time. It is often recognized that one side or the other in many disputes is full of crap. In politics not every whack-job candidate from every “party” gets his or her opinion printed in the paper or staged in the debates.
There is an argument that the NY Times has an obligation to present both sides in any argument so that the public may decide which of two equally weighted positions to adopt. These sides are not equally weighted and presenting ID as though they are gives credence to voodoo science. Besides, the Times had no problem ignoring the feelings of the Pastafarians.
The paper needed to decide what the story was going to be: ID versus evolution or the battle over ID and evolution. They are two very different stories and very different approaches would be needed to cover them. ID versus evolution is not a story. ID has no serious rational scientific support.
The battle over ID and evolution is the story. The attempt was made to cover both angles in one story and a disservice was done to both.
An editorial decision should have been made that ID is not based on science, verifiable research or testing. The reporter may argue that making such a decision would require the NY Times to take a side. So? When the Flat Earth Society meets do they make an editorial decision or simply report to educate their readers that beyond this point there be dragons?
Once the decision was made that ID is religion in a lab coat then the fact that several states and Dubya are supporting it does become news, but the story is different. Proponents of ID should be forced to define their specific position citing research. It must also be noted that unanswered questions in evolution are equally unanswered in ID unless you fill in the blank with “God.”

#37157: — 08/23  at  02:40 PM
Steve Sullivan

Your 1:18 post is simultaneously depressingly accurate and truly hilarious.

What Mr. Chang doesn't understand is that the sort of thing the Discovery Institute is doing has serious consequences if journalists continue to lazily bend over and recite the garbage the DI hands them.

If Mr. Chang isn't careful, he'll soon find himself facilitating liars who are volunteering for a different conservative think tank with the goal of, e.g., spreading disgusting lies about, e.g., a presidential candidate. By the time the "public" sorts the truth out from Mr. Chang's "balanced" reporting it will be too late.

That is a truly horrible thing to contemplate happening in the future, isn't it, Mr. Chang?

Thankfully your newspaper did such an incredible job reporting on 'Whitewater,' the 'invention of the Internet' and the 'Swift Boat' affair that we haven't had to worry about that possibility yet, Mr. Chang.

How old are you anyway, Mr. Chang? Too old to learn something new?

I sure fucking hope not.

#37159: — 08/23  at  02:49 PM
Perhaps Mr. Chang can write an equally informative article about the amazing research being done which proves that the Holocaust never happened, that aliens have visited the earth numerous times and the government knows about it, and that the lunar landing was faked.

Don't the Times readers deserve to hear both sides of these fascinating controversies, fairly presented and emphasizing the most compelling arguments for each?

Or is it necessary for a bunch of rich religious bigots to put the proponents of such theories in nice suits and haircuts before the Times is motivated to quote them without explicitly impeaching them first?

#37161: — 08/23  at  02:54 PM
This sort of agenda-ignoring drives me a little nuts..especially when the supposedly 'liberal' press does the ignoring. For example, NPR has Cato Institute droids on its talk shows frequently spouting libertarian dogma on a variety of topics, but rarely by way of introduction do the hosts ever do more than name-check the institute. Whereas listeners might have a *much* better idea of where the talker comes from, if they were told what Cato's focus is, its funding, its ideology, and its connections to power.

#37165: — 08/23  at  03:09 PM
This isn't by any means the first time that there has been a bogus "debate" between science and non-science, and in fairness to journalists, they are always writing for an audience which is poorly equipped to understand, or to judge, the scientific merits of such a debate.

When I was an undergraduate, back in the sixties, there were still a few hold-outs against special relativity, even among the science faculty. Imagine trying to write an article for lay-people explaining why the famous "twins paradox" isn't really a paradox.

Fortunately, there are indirect ways for scientists to win a debate, and that is not to debate the theory, but the results. Once it could be shown that time dilation, etc., can be directly observed, the argument was over, not because the public understood relativity any better, but because they do understand the argument "If this theory is wrong, we would not be observing the following".

Debating the process of evolution in front of a lay audience is a losing game, because they can't tell who's winning the argument. But find concrete observations that are predicted by evolutionary explanations, and are not predicted by ID, and you are on to something.

And if you think you have already done that, I don't think you have. Att least, not so effectively that a NYT reporter can write "ID says this, but observations X, Y, Z contradict ID"

#37166: davidm — 08/23  at  03:14 PM

Chang has also "buried the lead." It isn't until the ninth paragraph that the biologists get their say. By this time, most readers have moved on to the crossword puzzle and all they have seen is the ID point of view.

Not contemptuous of the public much, are we?

When speaking of "elitism," the charge of elitism does not lie in suggesting that people who know what they're talking about should be ignored, as one poster said. It lies in stuff like this: a total contempt for the intelligence of ordinary people. What you don't get is that The Times (ironically so often accused of elitism) does not share the contempt for the intelligence of the public that oozes up through this blog, and believes instead that most readers will be able to sort through the competing claims in the ID/evolution article in a reasonable manner. Maybe that belief is wrong. But, if it is, then here is the point: Nothing that the Times wrote on this subject would have made the slightest difference to people's beliefs.

It's also amusing to watch Arthur Silber babble on about how "reality is real." This is just the sort of juvenile comment that Ayn Randroids kid themselves into believing is profound, like, "things are as they are." Is Silber an Objectivist?