There was a recent discussion on this lits concerning intelligent design. To those interesed in that topic, the post below, from another list, might be of interest.
Jeff Nagelbush [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>From: "Marc Washington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>As we are all a part of the evolutionary process and the Universe was >>either >>created or it was not, this book reviewed in Science, taking the >>controversy >>to a higher level, and on more solid-footing innovates the discussion: >> >> >> >> >>A review by Kevin Padian, Waiting for the Watchmaker, Science, 295:5564, >>pp. >>2373-2374, Issue of 29 Mar 2002. >> >>_____________________________________ >>Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Philosophical, Theological, >>and Scientific Perspectives >>Robert T. Pennock, Ed. >>MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001. 825 pp. $110, �75.95. ISBN 0-262-16204-0. >>Paper, $45, �30.95. ISBN 0-262-66124-1. >>_____________________________________ >> >> >>Intelligent Design (ID) is the cryptoscientific arm of a sociopolitical >>movement of conservative Christians who are upset about the displacement >>of >>their concept of God from institutional life in the United States and are >>determined to do something about it. Intelligent Design Creationism and >>Its >>Critics presents the arguments of ID advocates in their own words and >>provides closely argued critiques of the science, philosophy, and theology >>that underlie their positions. Robert Pennock, the editor, is a >>philosopher >>at Michigan State University whose previous book, Tower of Babel: The >>Evidence Against the New Creationism (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999), >>exposed the problems and pitfalls of ID, particularly in its logic and >>rhetoric. In the present volume, he has assembled two broad, >>well-qualified >>teams for what amounts to a wrestling-style "smackdown" that lays the >>current controversies bare. >>The vanguard of the ID movement has been the Center for the Renewal of >>Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank >>in >>Seattle. ID Creationism is more or less the brainchild of Phillip E. >>Johnson, a now-retired criminal law professor from the University of >>California, who in the early 1990s set out a "wedge strategy" for >>destroying >>materialism and reinstating Christian values in education and society. >>Johnson found like-minded friends and financial supporters, and today the >>Institute is better funded than many federal and nongovernmental >>organization programs in science education. >> >>The strategy Johnson developed seeks to undermine evolution and science >>education while rallying support for ID Creationism. In an excellent >>overview that begins the book, Barbara Forrest details the history and >>motives behind ID Creationism as well as its political and cultural >>underpinnings. ID itself recapitulates the late 18th-century middlebrow >>theology of William Paley, who famously argued that, just as the intricate >>design of a watch implies the existence of a watchmaker, the intricate >>design of nature forces us to accept the existence of a Creator who made >>and >>maintains it. Decades earlier, Hume had shown (not without sympathy) that >>this argument violated both logic and theology. But it persisted--even >>Darwin as a Cambridge undergraduate admired its rhetoric, if not its >>substance. It currently appears in the insistence of ID proponents that >>some >>biological structures are too complex and intricate to have any possible >>evolutionary intermediates. They conclude that these structures must have >>been "intelligently designed" by some supernatural force that they prefer >>not to name, obviously for fear of violating the U.S. Constitution's >>establishment clause. >> >>Yet on less secular stages the advocates of ID are frank about their >>fervent >>Christian beliefs and the crusade to restore Jesus as the center of all >>education and culture, including science. To do this, the wedge >>strategists >>have to demonize science and show that its naturalism excludes >>consideration >>of God philosophically as well as methodologically. Johnson continues to >>conflate these two forms of naturalism even after being called on the >>issue >>many times, but he has no choice. If he gives up the conflation, he has >>lost, because he cannot call naturalism a state-supported, established >>religion unless it explicitly denies the existence of God. >> >>The wedge strategy comprises three general approaches: scientific research >>and publication, publicity and opinion-making, and "cultural confrontation >>and renewal." As Forrest and many other contributors to the volume plainly >>show, the ID proponents have not made even a token effort at scientific >>research. They prefer instead the "creation-science" approach of >>distorting >>and attacking evolution and related fields. These advocates carry out >>their >>business in popular books and the proceedings of their own conferences; no >>article demonstrating ID has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. But, as >>Johnson admits, his goal is not about science at all, but about religion >>and >>philosophy. ID proponents have no intention of playing the game of >>science. >>Why bother, when you can simply walk away from the field, call a news >>conference, and declare that you've already won and that the game is >>invalid >>anyway? Forrest's expos� of the wedge strategy should be required reading >>for all scientists as well as for government officials and bureaucrats, >>who >>seem particularly gullible when terms like "viewpoint discrimination" and >>the "parental right" not to educate children are introduced. >> >>The ID supporters' other two approaches (opinion-making and cultural >>renewal) are squarely aimed at a public that is poorly educated in science >>and tolerant of their neighbors' religious beliefs. Their theological >>claims >>and the absence of scientific support for their positions would merit no >>scholarly attention if the movement were not achieving social and >>political >>successes. But because it is, all scientists should pay close attention to >>the arguments presented in this comprehensive anthology. >> >>In the volume's no-holds-barred matches, those who favor ID are hopelessly >>underpowered. Pennock nicely disposes of Johnson's critique of naturalism, >>removing every foundation and showing that Johnson's arguments depend >>entirely on misrepresentation. Johnson considers naturalism anathematic in >>any form because, as a creationist, he knows that "a supernatural Creator >>not only initiated this process [life] but in some meaningful sense >>controls >>it in furtherance of a purpose" and that "the world (and especially >>mankind) >>was designed, and exists for a purpose." What that purpose is, why it >>would >>be revealed most clearly to one Christian sect instead of more broadly, >>and >>why everyone should believe this purposefulness (instead of, say, some >>other >>people's belief that their God lives on a mountain and cares little for >>the >>ways of humans) are questions that turn the tables on ID proponents' >>charges >>of "viewpoint discrimination" against them. Pennock deftly demonstrates >>that >>Johnson's pleadings are rooted in religious intolerance, not religious >>freedom. >> >>As philosopher of science Philip Kitcher notes, some ID supporters are >>foxes >>(they know many things) and some are hedgehogs (they know only one thing, >>but it's important). If Johnson is a fox, then Michael Behe (a biochemist >>at >>Lehigh University) is a hedgehog, because he has made much of the notion >>that some biological structures are "irreducibly complex" and no >>intermediates from simpler functional forms are possible. As Kitcher >>shows, >>Behe is saying that because science has yet to solve (or, in some cases, >>even study) some problems, they are insoluble--even though many problems >>previously considered insoluble and gaps previously considered >>unbridgeable >>have been solved and bridged. Moreover, evidence of scientific ignorance >>is >>not evidence for creation, which Behe is unable to test in any empirical >>sense. Kitcher is equally good at showing how Behe's and Johnson's books >>are >>full of sophistries and cover-ups that deny the truly impressive evidence >>of >>evolution, specific claims of which are explained and vindicated in the >>chapter by Matthew Brauer and Daniel Brumbaugh. >> >>Another ID "hedgehog" is William Dembski, who claims to have invented a >>probabilistic "explanatory filter" that can distinguish among the >>increasingly improbable effects he interprets as caused by regularity, >>chance, and design. Dembski seems not to understand that in any attempt to >>explain the distribution of a set of phenomena, chance is the simplest >>(null) hypothesis, but this is the least of his problems. Even allowing >>Dembski most of his questionable propositions, Peter Godfrey-Smith still >>easily shows that Dembski's explanatory filter is merely a restatement of >>the fact that some events are highly unlikely to have arisen by chance, >>and >>evolution is clearly not driven by chance. Dembski's smoke-and-mirrors >>approach to causality (which he never effectively separates from >>statistical >>probability) is exacerbated by the confusion he generates with the >>meanings >>of "information." In information theory, the term can imply increasing >>predictability or increasing entropy, depending on the context. >>Godfrey-Smith also demonstrates that Dembski does not realize the concepts >>of "chance and necessity" that Fran�ois Monod discussed are merely >>metaphors >>and they do not adequately describe evolution (or any other life process). >> >>Pennock's book is an invaluable compilation for anyone who wants to learn >>about the scientific and philosophical failures of intelligent design and >>the long-term political and social strategies of its advocates. The book's >>principal shortcoming is that one-fifth of its length is spent on the >>arguments of and responses to Alvin Plantinga, a philosopher of religion >>at >>the University of Notre Dame. He seems neither fox nor hedgehog, and he >>has >>little to offer except assertions of "what Christians know"--as if other >>religious groups know nothing, and as if he could speak for all >>Christians. >>Plantinga's specious logic and his general ignorance of even basic >>scientific concepts reveal that he doesn't take science seriously enough >>to >>be considered seriously himself. People like Plantinga and Johnson claim >>the >>high ground without earning it, and so they seldom hold it long. Johnson >>believes that the more people learn about the philosophy behind evolution, >>the less they'll like it. Wait until they learn what's behind intelligent >>design. >> >> >> >> >>The author is in the Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of >>Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-3140, USA, and >>at >>the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, CA 94709, USA. >>E-mail: >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
--- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
