withallyourmind.net

One of the most controversial aspects of the recent movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is the attention given to the alleged link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. I think that this link is legitimate. No one that I’ve heard, including those interviewed in Expelled, actually believe that all Darwinists are Nazis or that Darwinism inevitably leads to such horrific deeds such as those perpetrated by Hitler. In fact, this point is made clear in the movie. Berlinski, in Expelled, rightly points out that Darwinism was not a sufficient condition for the Nazi atrocities, but it was a necessary one.

Tom Gilson has an excellent discussion of the issue in his post: Darwin-Nazi Link: Fundamentally Wrongheaded? He responds to a charge that this whole linkage is unimportant. He raises a few major points:

1. It is important not to ignore this link because it is important to learn from history. He suggests that the potential for similar consequences are present in a number of contemporary issues.

2. It’s not quite true that there is only a historical link and no philosophical link from Darwin to Hitler.
a. Naturalistic Darwinism, if taken to be the sole explanation for all of life, erases all ethical requirements.
b. There is an ontological implication in Darwinism: humans are the same kind of thing as animals.

Hitler treated humans like animals; Darwinism says that’s what we are.

3. Ideas matter. They have consequences.

4. Influencers certainly can be blamed for the actions of others that follow. In this case, Darwin opened an ideological or ethical door which would not otherwise have been opened.

Here is Angus Menuge’s powerpoint presentation for his recent debate with P.Z. Meyers. It is titled, “Does Neuroscience Leave Room for God?” It is a nice resource with some interesting quotes pertaining to the subject. Among them is this one which causes one to question the materialistic commitment of many modern scientists:

“[A] rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth if those kinds of truth were really there, would be an irrational rule.” - William James, The Will to Believe.

HT: Dangerous Idea

This is the final post in a series of blogs looking at the question of whether intelligent design is merely religion masquerading as science as so many critics charge. I’ve answered several assertions so far, and today, I turn to one final objection - that intelligent design wishes to ban the teaching of Darwinian evolution from the public schools, replacing it with religious dogma. This may, at first glance, seem legitimate because the term “intelligent design” has been used by some groups in some local school systems to advocate the teaching of young earth creationism using the Bible as a text, but most advocates of the intelligent design movement don’t hold this view.

For example, the Discovery Institute, perhaps the leading intelligent design advocate, does not advocate that schools should cease to teach Darwinism. Instead, they contend that…

… evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned.

Presently, Darwinism is taught as if it has no weaknesses and is universally accepted. ID critic, BarbaraForrest states:

There is no controversy in the mainstream scientific community about either the fact of evolution or the major aspects of evolutionary theory.

This begs the question, since to make such a claim one must classify anyone who doubts Darwinism as a scientist out of the mainstream. It also commits the fallacy of consensus gentium. However, truth isn’t decided by a majority vote.

Although one would not think so based on the rhetoric of intelligent design opponents, the major intelligent design organizations actually recommend the teaching of Darwinian evolution, including both its strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, however, The Discovery Institute’s policy emphasizes that there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntary discussion of the scientific theory of design in a classroom, and that teachers should not be persecuted or harassed if they choose to discuss the scientific evidence for design.

The Dover decision of December 2005 which classified intelligent design as religion, not science, perpetuated the confusion that intelligent design is identical to creationism. Michael Behe, in his response to that decision, sums up the issue well, stating that the courts mistaken ruling was premised on…

… a cramped view of science; the conflation of intelligent design with creationism; an incapacity to distinguish the implications of a theory from the theory itself; a failure to differentiate evolution from Darwinism; and strawman arguments against ID.

This is the 5th in a series of posts considering the charge by ID critics that ID is nothing more than camouflaged religion. I’ve already considered several assertions offered in support of this claim. Today, I look briefly at another, specifically - Does the observation that a theory may have religious implications mean it is nothing but religion disguised as science?

Critics reject intelligent design as science because of its religious implications. It is certainly true that intelligent design may have religious implications, but so does the science of Darwinism. It is unfair to criticize intelligent design as unique in this. The Big Bang has religious implications, but that does not disqualify it as a scientific theory. Michael Behe, in his testimony at the Dover, PA intelligent design trial, made reference to an editorial in the prestigious scientific journal Nature which…

… carried the title “Down with the Big Bang”, and called the Big Bang a ‘philosophically unacceptable’ theory which gave succor to “Creationists.”

Science should proceed to investigate and explain the natural world without regard to the theological or philosophical implications which may follow. Some critics of modern science think that a dogmatic commitment to certain philosophical underpinnings and a distaste for certain philosophical implications is detrimental to the quest of better understanding the natural world. If one excludes an entire subset of answers a priori, one runs the risk of making the data conform to the wrong explanation. As Alvin Plantinga has observed:

If you exclude the supernatural from science, then if the world or some phenomena within it are supernaturally caused — as most of the world’s people believe — you won’t be able to reach that truth scientifically.

Next, I’ll consider a final objection critics offer in their efforts to paint ID with the brush of religion.

This is the 4th in a series of posts considering the objection of ID critics that ID is nothing more than religion. In my last post, I answered two assertions put forth in support of this claim. What about a third, that is, that because some intelligent design scientists are religiously motivated in their work, their work must be considered religion.

The claim that intelligent design is religious rather than scientific because intelligent design scholars might have religious motivations for their work is found everywhere. In fact, opponents typically spend much time publicizing the Christian beliefs of many of the leaders of the intelligent design movement when attempting to discredit intelligent design.

But, if one’s religious beliefs are enough to disqualify one as a scientist, then wouldn’t the public have to dismiss much of the progress made during the scientific revolution? Many great scientists of the time, including Galileo and Newton were motivated by religion do their work. Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton state that…

… the driving impulse of Newton’s scientific work was… to defend Christian faith against what he saw as an encroaching mechanistic explanation.

Others were also overt in the role their Christian faith played in their scientific discoveries. Morris Kline states that science was a religious quest in which…

… the search for the mathematical laws of nature was an act of devotion which would reveal the glory and grandeur of (God’s) handiwork.

Instead of trying to refute the arguments of intelligent design scholars, opponents commit the genetic fallacy and reject the claim on the basis of their suppositions that its origins are religious.

Additionally, all scientists have some philosophical and religious commitments in their lives. Atheism, after all, is a philosophical supposition about the nature of the universe. Should we reject science performed by an atheist because of his religious worldview? Of course not. We judge the science on its own merits and do not discount his work because of his religious views.

Next, I’ll consider another objection by ID critics attempting to equate ID with religion.

This is part 3 of a short series examining the question, “Is Intelligent Design nothing more than disguised creationism?” In this post I will consider another assertion made by ID opponents who wish to equate ID with creationism.

A related criticism to the one considered in the last post is that ID is a religious movement, not a scientific one. Forrest argues that…

… intelligent design (is) a term that is essentially code for the religious belief in a supernatural creator…

and that…

… it represents an attempt to promote religious belief.

Much of my answer to the previous objection would be applicable to this criticism. Nonetheless, it might still be possible that intelligent design is a religious movement even if it does not espouse young earth creationism. I will make three further observations in response to this objection.

The initial observation, and perhaps the most important, is that intelligent design is based on science, and not on any religious text or teaching. Intelligent design scholars do not appeal to the Bible, nor do they start with any sacred text and look to nature for support. Intelligent design scientists attempt to empirically detect evidence of design in nature. The starting point is observations in nature. Arguing that intelligent design is not science, the American Astronomical Society claims that…

Intelligent Design fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views.

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore just what counts as “science,” it is important to note that there is and has always been much disagreement among scientists and philosophers of science as to what is scientific and what is not. Del Ratzsch states that there is “no standard, accepted definition.” Intelligent design is at least as scientific as Darwinism unless one arbitrarily excludes intelligent agency from science. The dual concepts of irreducible complexity and complex specificity, along with the informational content present in the cell, are rigorously defined and are subject to empirical verification.

The next observation is that many special sciences employ the scientific methodology of intelligent design. For example, archaeologists assume that one can differentiate between artifacts of intelligent beings and the results of blind material forces. Similarly, the goal of forensic science is to determine whether someone’s death was caused by the actions of an intelligent agent or from natural causes – they assume that one is able to differentiate chance from design. Also, artificial intelligence, cryptography, and the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) assume that humans can recognize design. Scholars and educators assume the same in order to detect the actions of intelligent agents in fighting plagiarism and data falsification. The underlying scientific methodology of intelligent design is the same as that used by many other modern sciences.

In my next post, I will make a third observation concerning the assertion that ID is a religious movement and not a scientific one.

This is the second in a short series examining the question of whether intelligent design is “creationism.”

Yesterday, I introduced the subject and defined some important terms like “intelligent design,” “evolution,” and “creationism.” Today I look at the first charge of ID opponents concerning this issue.

First, critics of intelligent design often charge that there is no distinction between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design has been called “creationism’s Trojan horse,” “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” and “a slightly sophisticated version of biblical creationism.” Philosopher Barbara Forrest claims that intelligent design is…

… the newest variant of the traditional creationism…

and…

… barely camouflaged creationism.

Is there any reason to believe that the critics are correct? It is certainly true that many Christians are supporters of intelligent design. It is also true that some of those Christians are young-earth creationists. It may even be true that some of those young-earth creationists have misunderstood the intelligent design movement as supporting young-earth creationism. Therefore, it is certainly possible for one to think that creationism and intelligent design are the same thing. This is not, however, the actual case.

Intelligent design scholars do not consider intelligent design to be a form of creationism, despite the insistence of critics to call the movement “intelligent design creationism.” Many intelligent design scholars would not identify themselves as creationists in the sense referred to by the critics (young earth creationists). Some are even agnostic as to the existence of God. Others are non-Christians. Many, although Christian, acknowledge the universe as being approximately 15 billion years old, the earth as 4.5 billion years old, the common ancestry of all complex life, and even the evolution of life from simple to complex. Certainly, it is incorrect to call these individuals “creationists” with the usual connotations of young-earth biblical creationism.

Perhaps more importantly, the two most prominent (young earth) creationist groups, Answers in Genesis (AIG) Ministries and Institute for Creation Research, are highly critical of the intelligent design movement because it does not seek to defend the biblical account of creation. AIG specifically objects to intelligent design because it refuses to identify the designer with the biblical God and because many prominent members in intelligent design reject or are hostile to a recent creation. The fact that not all intelligent design advocates are Christians and not all creationists are intelligent design advocates shows that intelligent design is not identical to creationism. According to a Washington Post article:

University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of “The Creationists,” agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, it’s “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.”

Next… another assertion by ID critics.

Today, I’ll begin a series consisting of a few posts dealing with the question of whether Intelligent Design is nothing more than disguised creationism.

Opponents say the legislation in the House and Senate is just a veiled attempt to inject religious beliefs about the creation of life into science lessons, but Stein and other supporters denied that.

So stated the Associated Press reporter covering actor Ben Stein’s recent visit to the Florida State Capital in support of academic freedom to question Darwinian evolution in public schools. This claim is heard over and over whenever Intelligent Design is publicly discussed. Intelligent design is often characterized by the scientific establishment as an attempt on the part of religious fundamentalists to smuggle religion into the classroom under the guise of science. The Intelligent design movement denies that it is a veiled attempt to teach creationism in public schools, but is, instead, an effort to return science to an objective search for truth about the natural world. Efforts to paint the movement as “creationism” is a rhetorical tactic to marginalize intelligent design without seriously addressing the arguments presented.

Defining the relevant terms is essential if one is to intelligently discuss this controversy. Intelligent design is defined by those in the forefront of the movement as…

… the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence.

Intelligent Design holds to three basic tenets:

1. Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.
2. Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3. Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

Evolution is a word with varied meanings. The common sense meaning of change over time is not questioned by the intelligent design movement. What is opposed by them is Darwinian evolution, that is, the explanation that all life is the result of purely material and mechanical processes without the input of intelligence.

Creationism, like evolution, is another term which is susceptible to equivocation. Therefore, one must be clear when using such a term. Creationism may be defined broadly as the belief that a supernatural being created the universe out of nothing. This encompasses many varying viewpoints, from a belief in a several thousand-year-old universe, to a belief that the universe is 15 billion years old and all complex life on earth arose by means of theistic evolution.

In the discussion of intelligent design, by creationist, one usually means a person who believes that the biblical account of creation recorded in Genesis is scientifically accurate. This latter sense is the one most often found in media discussions today wherein Creationism is frequently equated with “Young Earth Creationism,” the belief that the earth is around 7,000 years old.

Next, I’ll consider some criticisms offered by opponents of Intelligent Design that are used in support of equating ID and Creationism.

A commenter on my last post made the following comments:

Having been interviewed under false pretenses by the film’s producers, then being expelled from a public showing of the film for which he’d registered, I think Myers deserved some honest answers from the film’s producers. The problem is they never actually addressed the issues, and have not yet answered his questions. Actually the biggest problem is that he was expecting honest answers from the film’s producers who claim to be promoting dissent but do everything they can to suppress anyone who disagrees with them. Given the behavior of its producers, a more appropriate title would be “Expelled: Do As We Say, Not As We Do”.

I’d like to add that I’m tired of the “Myers is at it again” rhetoric that defenders of the film have been using. Myers crashed the conference call, but he did not crash the film screening. He registered, and was allowed to come. It wasn’t until he was in line to see the film that he was kicked out. If the film screening really was “invitation only”, why didn’t the producers kick out Richard Dawkins as well? Or were the only kicking out people they interviewed under false pretenses?

Many of these objections have been dealt with elsewhere on many sites, but here are a few brief points.

1. The Minnesota screening (and all screenings) have been invitation only, RSVP affairs. Both Myers and Dawkins did RSVP, according to the producers, but were not invited. It certainly is not appropriate to RSVP to an affair to which one is not invited and then be upset that you were denied entrance. The Expelled producers knew that the pair would be attending and chose to allow Dawkins in and keep Myers out. The reason for that decision was related to Myers ongoing, relentless criticism of the film for months. If he was to see it, he would be paying for a ticket.

2. The charge about obtaining interviews under false pretenses is wearing extremely thin. There is absolutely no truth to the allegation, in Ben Stein’s words, “Ludicrous!” Each interviewee was contacted by email and phone and told that the film was involving an issue which is a cultural flashpoint that has aroused the passions of many. They were also told that because they have been outspoken on the subject, the producers wished to interview them. Most received questions well in advance of the interview. They were all paid for their interview. They signed a release stating the contents of the interview could be used as the producers saw fit. There was no deceit or trickery involved. The views presented in the film are the same as those stated by them which are available elsewhere. Nothing was taken out of context. None claim they were misquoted.

3. Perhaps, the most interesting point concerning this whole affair, is that none of those who were interviewed, to my knowledge, have contested that their views were misrepresented. Their has been a smokescreen of cries of foul play and an almost total ignoring of the issues of academic injustice against those who do not bow to the Darwinian god. No one has produced any substantive or persuasive arguments showing that the allegations made in the movie of suppression of academic inquiry and free thought are false. That should be the focus of the opponents of this movie.

A conference call press junket in which Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed answered questions and provided information about the film ended a few moments ago. I was fortunate to have had the opportunity to take part in this press conference. I hope to comment on some of the discussion in a couple of posts, however, for the moment the news is that somehow University of Minnesota biologist, PZ Myers, was able to break into the invitation only conference call. I’m not quite sure how this was accomplished since those participating (other than the featured speakers) could not just blurt out questions and interrupt the conference. An intermediary was set up to field questions. PZ somehow had free reign to speak over the top of other speakers, which he did.

He interrupted the conversation demanding responses to his challenges to the upcoming film, specifically the affect of Darwinism upon the horrendous actions of Nazi Germany. After the producers pointed out those challenges had been answered earlier in the call and attempting to briefly answer them again, Myers was not satisfied and continued to demand answers. When asked to do the “honorable thing” and allow the conference to continue without his interruptions, he at first contested by challenging that the film’s producers should do the honorable thing and admit that they have been dishonorable in their production of the film. Shortly thereafter, however, he agreed to hang up and allow the phone call to proceed.

As he and “Clinton” Richard Dawkins did in a screening in Minnesota, Myers has done again - disrupted a meeting to which he was not invited. I’m encouraged that the atheists and the Darwinists are so worried about the potential influence of this film that they are resorting to such tactics in an attempt to discredit it. Expelled is a powerful film that can do great good in America by raising public awareness of the academic heavy-handedness of the science establishment against anyone who questions Darwinism, and by motivating them to do something about it.

Update: Tom Gilson has just posted on this same subject.