I liked the article you gave in an attempt to prove Meyer’s article was fit for ridicule. The article doesn’t ridicule it at all from my view. It simply analyzed the science and made arguments against the research. Instead of dismissing it out of hand, the article informed people as to the specific problems with Meyer’s research Talking details is always a much more productive endeavor than making sweeping statements of ridicule. I would hope the future research and debates over Intelligent Design would follow the same path.

And this…

Try this, instead: “I happen to think that I personally have regular conversations in my head with what may be the God who may have created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point and I’m insulated from changing my mind.”

Do you truly think so little of people that they would come to a sincere belief and real relationship with God on the basis of hearing voices in their heads? I’ve never had a conversation in my head that I know of. If I do, I’ll be sure to mention it and seek appropriate counseling.

rather than engage in a ‘Summer Glau‘ style reply, just a few points:

Even a casual search reveals this debate is still raging at every level. The documentary Expelled wouldn’t generate this much furor if ID was eminently dismissable. Can you give me some details that show the idea of ID is not worthy of anything more than ridicule? Other than your opinion? If it’s merely your opinion, then that’s fine too.

The guy on the street is ‘debating’ it, sectarian school boards are ‘debating’ it, ill-informed governors are ‘debating’ it – science is not. The so-called debate over ID is a public relations campaign to provide fodder for the ‘teach the controversy’ angle – the controversy is manufactured.

The ‘furor’ over Expelled was predominantly howls of laughter – Expelled, by almost all accounts, is a terribly made film built on ad hominem attacks, false links to Hitler (a move that rightly disgusted a lot of people), and documented falsehoods. (Again, check out the Expelled Exposed site.) What wasn’t laughter was annoyance, irritation and anger that this rubbish, that has been dealt with in everyone’s eyes but the publics’, is refusing to die.

The paper you kind-of-almost referred to contains plenty of evidence itself for why ID is fit for ridicule. Read the paper, then read this: http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers_hopeless_1.html

And I am sure upon a passingly-careful re-reading that you would notice I never claimed to have taken “a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves.” I said I interviewed a science journalist. That’s it. He wasn’t giving me HIS opinions based on HIS research. Why did you assume that?

I assumed nothing of the sort – please try to read for comprehension. Of course you weren’t quoting a journalist’s research, for goodness sake! You mentioned this journalist in the context of explaining who you meant when you say phrases like, “a scientist said”. You also made it clear that these ’scientists who said’ justified your doubts about the consensus opinion of science. My point stands: you take the opinion of a journalist as a justification of your doubts on the work of the scientists themselves.

I wasn’t citing the paper, nor did I quote from it. In some respects, I was just tired of defending every jot and tittle. I apologize if you felt disadvantaged by my lack of a bibliography section.

Silly sarcasm presented as faux politeness. If you say you have evidence it’s incumbent on you to show it.

On the points of peer review and the Us Office of Special Counsel: first, Sternberg himself said, “As managing editor it was my prerogative to choose the editor who would work directly on the paper, and as I was best qualified among the editors I chose myself.” Sternberg was the only reviewer – a paper advocating ID was reviewed by an ID advocate only. Sternberg’s claim to be the best choice is also false – his relevant training is in systematics, the paper is about invertebrate paleontology. There were actually many people on staff at the PBSW better qualified to review the paper, three of whom were actually experts in the very cambrian invertebrates discussed in the paper.

Sternberg’s religious discrimination case was actually dismissed by the OSC, and the remarks you highlighted above are not borne out by the material in the appendix to the report. If you are interested and open to being challenged, you may want to check here and follow some of the links presented there.

I happen to personally know the God who created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point.

So, an upfront statement of certainty and a priori bias – a complete conversation stopper and evidence blocker. Ah well…

Try this, instead: “I happen to think that I personally have regular conversations in my head with what may be the God who may have created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point and I’m insulated from changing my mind.”

Bit more honest.

I can’t say the same for your choice to insult a vast and diverse field of scholarly inquiry about which you are profoundly ignorant.

Is it insulting to say God exists and was the Intelligent Designer behind the formation and development of Creation? That’s all I’m saying Sheri. Did you expect different from a pastor?

If I have profound ignorance, enlighten me with details. I applaud you for at least going back to the Bible earlier in the conversation though. I didn’t mean to insult you by disagreeing with your assertions there either.

you claim to be a pastor, which puts you in a position of molding impressionable minds, and you abuse this position by offering poorly informed opinions about a contentious and complicated topic.

Such as? I mostly repeat what scientists have written or said to me personally when speaking of science. I do that mainly just here because anytime the word evolution gets used around here, I get attacked for being a skeptic of it.

The vast majority of the time, I teach and study the Bible. And believe me, where science may disagree with the Bible, I’ll still be sticking with the Bible. Science usually catches up with it eventually. At least, that’s the case historically.

You used the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to duck my main point, that all of the passages in question were interpreted in times past exactly as I characterized them (even by such a brilliant intellect as Sir Issac Newton, author of one of the Bible chronologies) and many are still interpreted as literal truth by millions of Christians.

You’re right that Issac Newton was brilliant, but one can find all sorts of “interpretations” of the Bible right this minute and they can’t all be correct.

Anyway, I didn’t realize I ducked your main point. I just tried to show that’s not what the Bible is actually saying, (flat earth, stationary earth, center of the universe) and particularly with the age of the earth, the Bible doesn’t specifically address it, -although as I said, people do infer an age. And those who infer it are inferring the time since man was on the earth. As it so happens, on that issue, current science theory and the Bible aren’t nearly as far apart either.

It’s important that we don’t mischaracterize the Bible, but instead take note of what it DOESN’T say as much as what it DOES. The primary reason I’m quick to be careful with the Bible is it simply isn’t fair to claim it says this or that, when in fact, that is not necessarily the case. I don’t want someone to have their faith shipwrecked because of a misunderstanding. The stakes are too high. As a teacher of the Bible, isn’t that what I should be doing?

I’m relieved to know that you don’t view the Bible as a science textbook, but there are millions of people, including clergy, who do. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has built quite an empire for himself on the ignorance and gullibility of these sincere believers.

True. Although, to be fair, Ken doesn’t believe in a flat earth, stationary earth, or the earth as the center of the universe. Ken does believe in a 6000 year old earth I think, although a great many scientists who believe God created the universe, still believe in a much older age. Ken also tries to argue science with science and most guys and gals like Ken are available for public debates. I find it to be interesting stuff. Hovan and his $250,000 offer to anyone who can show proof of evolution (ie.. any change that adds new genetic information) is entertaining. I don’t believe Hovan or Ham are right on everything by any means, but especially, I don’t like the way a lot of those guys go about disagreeing. A person can still believe in Evolution and believe in God. They might be right or wrong, but in the end, who cares? It’s not the most important thing. God will not judge us for how much we figured out scientifically. If Hovan or Ham create an us versus them mentality over science issues, then they are forgetting what is really important. Belief in Christ and repentance of sins.

I know lots of Christians who are wrong about some peripheral issue. I’m sure I’m wrong on plenty. Finally we agree right?

If we don’t rein in this idiocy, we risk having our entire nation dragged backward into the Dark Ages, and we know how that worked out for Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Oh now. Any world view taken to an extreme by power hungry people will result in dark ages. Disagreement is fine, it’s when we say disagreement is not allowed that we’re in trouble.

You’d have to undertake a second education in biology to understand just how profoundly you’ve erred in your remarks, but at the very least I hope you’ll undertake to educate yourself on “intelligent design.”

Again, details. Give me an error of what I’ve said that a degree in biology would fix.

The term as its coiners use it doesn’t mean what you think it does. What the Discovery Institute and related organizations are trying to wedge into public schools is nothing more than Biblical creationism hiding behind vague language in hopes of sneaking past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This isn’t just my opinion – it was the finding of a Bush-appointed federal judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, based on ID textbook passages entered into evidence.

Kitzmiller v. Dover may have been correct on the textbook, (I don’t remember the specific passages) but they were wrong to generalize all of Intelligent Design from it. It is intelligent design to believe God used and directed evolution. To push the very idea of ID out because someone promoted creation science with it, is the same as pushing out the very idea of evolution because someone promoted atheism with it. And that happens every day.

I personally believe God created the universe from nothing without the help of many aspects of evolution. That would be in regards to origin of life. As life developed, there are many aspects of evolution in play since God, in His wisdom, created life with the ability to adapt to changing conditions. But I don’t believe evolution was the cause of the origin of life any more than I believe my particular car caused global warming all by itself.

I also believe that a strict reading of Genesis that doesn’t add into the text, is true in the sense that someone could describe what happened exactly the way it was described. But it was from the writer’s perspective, not a scientific article published in a journal. It is a layman’s summary, and a brief one at that.

A strict reading has to admit the earth itself can be very old, or could be much younger. It simply doesn’t detail it. It does, however, make God the primary cause of everything that came to be.

Actually, based purely on your own words, I do know how ‘fringe’ they are – you are referring to individuals who have made comments to you that deny/question/cast doubt on the overwhelming consensus. By definition they are ‘fringe’ elements.

It just seems like name-calling though because of the connotation of calling someone a “fringe element.” Yes, I understand the “by definition” thing, but it has a larger connotation. My question to you then becomes: Any scientist who disagrees with the majority is worthy of being dismissed as a “fringe element?” How big of a majority would that take to officially be considered fringe? Does this apply to every theory in science? Shall we give them the same respect we give other “fringe” groups such as the KKK or Al Queda? Just trying to get parameters on the precise meanings of your labels.

And the final line of that paragraph is just a restatment of the ‘they laughed at Galileo’ defence – very thin and silly.

Is it? Because I wasn’t thinking of Galileo, although he was a Christian. I was thinking that instead of engaging in discussion, you were throwing generalizations around and showing contempt. For the record, I quit drinking diet coke and diet mtn. dew yesterday and was working on a monster headache. Maybe I was still annoyed up over the “fringe” thing and condescending view of my “sciency” friends as you put it. At any rate, I do believe you are very intelligent and appreciate your thoughts.

It denies the simple fact that the ‘good points’ and ‘good questions’ from ID have been asked and answered many times now and found to be not that good at all. It is no longer a case of ridiculing or dismissing a fresh, exciting new idea – the idea is stale, unproductive and eminently dismissable.

Even a casual search reveals this debate is still raging at every level. The documentary Expelled wouldn’t generate this much furor if ID was eminently dismissable. Can you give me some details that show the idea of ID is not worthy of anything more than ridicule? Other than your opinion? If it’s merely your opinion, then that’s fine too.

Your implication that I think science journalists are not worth reading is just a very silly non sequiter

lol I simply warned you about reading them since you did say that MY speaking to a science journalist was “nothing short of hilarious.” I was just looking out for you brother.

(and actually, I’ve read plenty of science journalists, some good, some awful). The point, as I’m sure you might notice upon a passingly-careful re-reading, is that to take a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves is laughable and absurd.

And I am sure upon a passingly-careful re-reading that you would notice I never claimed to have taken “a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves.” I said I interviewed a science journalist. That’s it. He wasn’t giving me HIS opinions based on HIS research. Why did you assume that?

it’s common practice and basic politeness for the person citing a paper to be the one who provides the references to it…

I wasn’t citing the paper, nor did I quote from it. In some respects, I was just tired of defending every jot and tittle. I apologize if you felt disadvantaged by my lack of a bibliography section.

You seem to have found it with no ill effects however. Yes, of course it was the Meyer paper. Was it peer reviewed or not?

Hmmm…. you say he subverted the peer review process…

The U.S. OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218
Washington, D.C. 20036

said this:

….They could not fathom that they Meyer article had been peer-reviewed and, if it was, it could only have been reviewed by “like minded individuals.” In fact, there was a serious effort by some to take the drastic step of piercing the veil of peer review, an unprecedented and unethical act within your field. They assumed that you violated editorial regulations of the Proceedings because you were the primary editor of the article. These comments were made to and by SI and NMNH managers and were published to several outside organizations. It was later revealed that you complied with all editorial requirements of the Proceedings and that the Meyer article was properly peer reviewed by renowned scientists. As an aside, the information received by OSC does not indicate that any effort was made to recall or correct these comments once the truth was made known…..

Now Lee, as a non-scientist, but as a human being, I’m left with believing I’m hearing one side of the story from you and another side from the scientists who claim mistreatment for supporting Intelligent Design.

As a general rule, one can never totally believe either side. So I’m left with this…

You guys can fight it out all you want, and claim any scientist who disagrees with you is “fringe” and claim there’s no way any peer reviewed article would have ever supported the idea of Intelligent Design. You can fight over this until your heart is content.

I happen to personally know the God who created the universe, so to me it’s a moot point.

This concerns me deeply because you claim to be a pastor, which puts you in a position of molding impressionable minds, and you abuse this position by offering poorly informed opinions about a contentious and complicated topic. It was particularly absurd for you to question the “hardness”of the life science, especially after telling me in great detail why “my” interpretation of Scripture is wrong. You used the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to duck my main point, that all of the passages in question were interpreted in times past exactly as I characterized them (even by such a brilliant intellect as Sir Issac Newton, author of one of the Bible chronologies) and many are still interpreted as literal truth by millions of Christians. I’m relieved to know that you don’t view the Bible as a science textbook, but there are millions of people, including clergy, who do. Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has built quite an empire for himself on the ignorance and gullibility of these sincere believers.

Some scientists would probably prefer to follow the advice given in Matthew 15:14: Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Unfortunately, the “blind” are leading the “blind” not into some ditch of obscurity where they belong but straight into school board meetings, state capitols, and science classrooms. If we don’t rein in this idiocy, we risk having our entire nation dragged backward into the Dark Ages, and we know how that worked out for Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

You’d have to undertake a second education in biology to understand just how profoundly you’ve erred in your remarks, but at the very least I hope you’ll undertake to educate yourself on “intelligent design.” The term as its coiners use it doesn’t mean what you think it does. What the Discovery Institute and related organizations are trying to wedge into public schools is nothing more than Biblical creationism hiding behind vague language in hopes of sneaking past the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This isn’t just my opinion – it was the finding of a Bush-appointed federal judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, based on ID textbook passages entered into evidence.

Your concept of ID may conform more closely to Progressive Creationism or the more scientifically consistent Theistic Evolution or Guided Evolution, which many scientists find reconciles their beliefs with the reality they see in the world and universe we live in. Here’s a convenient primer on this and other “competitors” to the creationist brand of ID, all of which have exactly as much supporting scientific evidence as ID:

The Other Intelligent Design Theories by David Brin

A note of caution: You may find some of these ideas uncomfortable to contemplate.

BTW, Expelled is getting panned in Canada, too.

LOL. Ok pot calling the kettle slightly grey… You know nothing of who I’ve spoken to, what I’ve read, or how “fringe” anyone is. Doesn’t matter who anyway, it matters WHAT. Either it’s a good point, a good question for science, or it isn’t. Belittling the skeptic does not prove the skeptic wrong, just makes the belittler look less intelligent.

Actually, based purely on your own words, I do know how ‘fringe’ they are – you are referring to individuals who have made comments to you that deny/question/cast doubt on the overwhelming consensus. By definition they are ‘fringe’ elements.

And the final line of that paragraph is just a restatment of the ‘they laughed at Galileo’ defence – very thin and silly. It denies the simple fact that the ‘good points’ and ‘good questions’ from ID have been asked and answered many times now and found to be not that good at all. It is no longer a case of ridiculing or dismissing a fresh, exciting new idea – the idea is stale, unproductive and eminently dismissable.

Your implication that I think science journalists are not worth reading is just a very silly non sequiter (and actually, I’ve read plenty of science journalists, some good, some awful). The point, as I’m sure you might notice upon a passingly-careful re-reading, is that to take a science journalist’s understanding of the scientific questions over that of the scientists themselves is laughable and absurd. I guess the journalist’s opinions just happen to mesh with or support your own, so consensus be damned…

Look brother, do your own research, (although don’t read anything written or said by a science journalist, wouldn’t want that) look up the published peer reviewed study that suggested ID as an alternative explanation to the Cambrian explosion yourself. Google it. I can’t do all the work for you my man.

Er, actually you haven’t done any work for me, unless you consider replying to comments on your blog to be some kind of favour…

I’ve simply lost track of how often I’ve seen this crap being pulled during creo/evo discussions: “I’ve got this paper that blows your position away!” “Where?” “Find it yourself – meanwhile, trust me. The evidence I’m not showing you just blows you away!”

Anyway – the paper most likely to match the one you may have read is:

Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239.

In this paper, Meyer argues that ID is a better alternative explanation for the emergence of new taxa in the Cambrian explosion. This is the paper that supposedly got Richard Sternberg ‘Expelled’ – actually he had already given notice at his unpaid voluntary editor position at the PBSW. The only reason this was published at all is that one of Sternberg’s final acts at the PBSW was to dishonestly bypass all review procedures so as to insulate this paper from criticism and publish it anyway. Of course, quality and fact checking don’t matter to most cdesign proponentsists – all they wanted was to be able claim a publication in a peer reviewed journal. The peer review part of that was too difficult for them so they did an end run around it.

Is this the paper you’re referring to? Do you recognise it by the title, or have you in fact never read it and have only heard about it? I’m not going to waste my time on its deficiencies if it’s the wrong paper – which is, of course, the reason why it’s common practice and basic politeness for the person citing a paper to be the one who provides the references to it…

Didn’t you jump on me earlier for a little comment that assumed something about you? You know nothing of who I’ve spoken to, what I’ve read, or how “fringe” anyone is. Doesn’t matter who anyway, it matters WHAT. Either it’s a good point, a good question for science, or it isn’t. Belittling the skeptic does not prove the skeptic wrong, just makes the belittler look less intelligent.

As for the rest, do your own research, (although don’t read anything written or said by a science journalist, wouldn’t want that) and look up the published peer reviewed study that suggested ID as an alternative explanation to the Cambrian explosion yourself. Google it. I can’t do all the work for you my man.

I also talk to scientists and academics from time to time, have friends in the field, plus read books etc… I’ve interviewed a man who was at the time, one the science reporters for the Boston Globe and I think the Wall Street Journal, too. I’ve interviewed a former NASA scientist as well. I reference all of them in conversation when I say a scientist said this or that.

Okay – so you’ve read a few polemics, got a couple of ’sciency’ friends who are part of the same circles you are in, and an engineer. Sorry – that’s not gonna cut it. Why are these probably-fringe elements enough for you to countermand the larger scientific consensus of thousands? (The inclusion of science journalists in this list is nothing short of hilarious…)

The Cambrian Explosion was a “problem” for evolution, as a peer reviewed study published in a scientific journal examined. I noticed you made the old claim that ID never submits anything to peer review but that isn’t true. Especially not any more. And that’s the reason why I referenced the Cambrian Explosion, was because it WAS examined in a peer reviewed study that promoted intelligent design. Millions of years isn’t much time in evolution as you know and evidently the time frame and the complexity of the development of life for that period was demonstrated to be difficult to reconcile.

References please – saying ‘I heard of’ just isn’t good enough. How old is the paper? Has it been superceded? Have you read the paper you are referring to – or are you actually just repeating someone else’s opinion of what the paper said? Misquoting/misreading scientific papers for an audience that will never check the original is a common tactic of the ID crowd. (And since we are talking Cambrian Explosion, I really hope you are not just referring to Gould and punctuated equilibrium – that would be really dissapointing).

Which papers have been published by cdesign proponentsists? Where? When?

Sorry to seem so prickly and needle-ing but I come across such claims all the time, and they have always turned out to be worthless on closer inspection.

Can you clarify? Are you speaking of evidence of the existence of God, or evidence that God created not by evolution but by some other means? I’m finding it hard to follow exactly what issue you’re addressing, but I’ll admit I’m kind of just skimming the comments now.

I’ve certainly read and heard appeals to history and the prophetic record when speaking of the existence of God, but not in any way related to evidence (or lack thereof) of evolution.