Quoting kidneystones: Early on in this diavlog both interlocutors are exhibiting dangerous signs of civility and a willingness to engage on substance.

The only substance coming out of Nelson's mouth is crap.

Update: Simply excellent. Required viewing for anyone interested in learning more about the differences among creationists, theistic evolutionists, young earthers and advocates of intelligent design.

Yes - it is very important to distinguish between the various levels of denial of science.

Many thanks to both. Come back soon, please.

I forced myself to watch this drivel. No thanks. Please stay away.

Quoting ogieogie: Fascinating visit to the nuthouse.
But where's Science Saturday?

And this visit to the nuthouse was not even sponsored by Templeton. Bob has gone off the deep end.

I think methodological naturalism should be seen as the default position of science -- science will not leap to theological explanations whenever it has a hard time thinking up a hypothesis to explain what is observed in naturalistic terms.
But science is in the business of finding the best explanation of what is observed. If God existed and really wanted to prove to everyone that he exists, he could surely produce observable evidence that would make naturalism nearly impossible to believe. There is some POSSIBLE evidence for which the best explanation would have to be supernaturalistic. Imagine a voice comes from the clouds and tells us it will move the Earth from the Milky Way to the Andromeda Galaxy right now. Scientists exhaustively verify that we have indeed moved to the Andromeda Galaxy. The voice tells us he's God. We say, 'wait a minute, maybe you are an alien intelligence with amazing technology. " The voice offers to violate any law of nature we care to name -- and then does. It introduces us to our new neighbors in Andromeda and we find that they have a

Quoting ogieogie: But where's Science Saturday?

Interesting diavlog, but the question remains... where is Science Saturday? Philosophy of science, science and religion, separation between religion and state, religion in school, are all interesting topics that are being discussed here, but at least some of us would like to have this weekly slot reserved for scientific content. Can we make this a formal petition?

Quoting thprop: And this visit to the nuthouse was not even sponsored by Templeton. Bob has gone off the deep end.

Templeton comes up in the first five minutes, though. I'm now waiting for the 'Jesus of the mitochondria' moment.

Bloggin - you will put us - me - to shame with thoughtful comments like this. Unfortunately, I do not think this is an area for civil debate. Merely debating the issue with science deniers gives them credibility. The religionists try to win with debate and rhetorical flourishes - not with evidence. How can you have a debate with someone who already possesses "the truth"? Just take Nelson's discussion of the historicity of "intelligent design". He tries to give it some historical depth simply by saying the phrase has been used in the past. So what. One of the highlights of the Dover trial was when Barbara Forrest found, in a draft "Of Pandas and People", "cdesign proponentsists". If Nelson actually believes "intelligent design", then find some evidence. And not the bacterial flagellum, that has been discredited. But their purpose is not to present any evidence, but to create a wedge, as described in the "wedge document." Debates with people who are fundamentally dishonest and have a hidden agenda are worthless.

Holy Christ. "Do you attribute most of the fossil record to Noah's flood?" "I'm not sure."

Nelson and the rest of the DI are lying about Jerry Coyne's comments on Francis Collins.
Stephen Meyer lies again

For some reason, Numbers agreed quickly when Nelson said that materialistic naturalism cannot detect the presence of god as a creator. WRONG!!!! Read Victor Stenger - particularly God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Although most scientists do not believe in God, they are unwilling to challenge the deeply held beliefs of the majority of Americans and others worldwide. I am a physicist who refuses to equivocate. The God worshipped by the billion of followers of the monotheistic religions either exists or he does not. And his existence is a legitimate scientific issue.

If God is the intelligent designer of life on Earth, then we should find evidence for that in observations of the structure of life. We do not. If God has endowed humans with immaterial souls and is the source of morality, then we should find evidence for that in observations of human behavior. We do not. If God answers prayers, then we should see miraculous effects of prayer. We do not. If God has revealed truths to humanity, then those truths should be empirically verified. They are not. If God is the creator of the universe and the laws of nature, then we should find

Quoting Ocean: Interesting diavlog, but the question remains... where is Science Saturday?

Philosophy of science, science and religion, separation between religion and state, religion in school, are all interesting topics that are being discussed here, but at least some of us would like to have this weekly slot reserved for scientific content.

Can we make this a formal petition?

Consider it done. Except the formal part. With a few exceptions (on tech matters) nothing regarding previous requests suggests that there is any mechanism or desire to answer to the forum directly. But I add my voice - mi, mi, me - to the request for a dedicated to science slot. Here's hoping!

Quoting graz: Consider it done. Except the formal part. With a few exceptions (on tech matters) nothing regarding previous requests suggests that there is any mechanism or desire to answer to the forum directly. But I add my voice - mi, mi, me - to the request for a dedicated to science slot. Here's hoping!

Thanks! That's all we can do. Unless we consider a boycott or strike...

I agree. This diavlog was mildly interesting I guess, and it was nice to see people talk about this without all of the spittle, but the intersection of religious belief and empiricism is not something I would like this slot to cover. I don't remember the quote exactly, so I am paraphrasing, but Darwin sums up my views on these kind of topics rather well: "Science and religion are completely independent, except so far that science makes one much more careful about what one accepts as evidence."

I am going to have to disagree with Ronald about evolution not being atheistic. First we need to separate evolution into two parts, evolution as a law, and evolution as a theory. Evolution as a Law: This is merely a set of observations that organisms alleles change over each generational iteration. Evolution as a Theory: This is what most people think of when thinking of evolution, this is the one that theorizes on the mechanisms that result in the law, such as (but not limited to) differential reproduction based on fitness. You see, if someone wanted to add another mechanism (God) into evolution, it would not be evolution anymore, evolution relies on there being a set of mechanisms that are wholly explainable with natural law. It would be a separate sister theory.

Quoting Ocean: Interesting diavlog, but the question remains... where is Science Saturday?

Philosophy of science, science and religion, separation between religion and state, religion in school, are all interesting topics that are being discussed here, but at least some of us would like to have this weekly slot reserved for scientific content.

Can we make this a formal petition?

Haven't watched this one yet, but given the recent past and most of the comments in this thread, I am happy to sign your petition.

I nearly fainted at the beginning when Nelson said he was a creationist.
But I watched the entire diavlog and was pleasantly surprised, I guess tolerance is the way forward.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am going to have to disagree with Ronald about evolution not being atheistic.

I haven't heard the argument as presented in this diavlog yet, but as a general matter, I don't see why someone can't simultaneously believe in the theory of evolution and believe in God. You could, for example, think of God as defining a system with a set of rules and then standing back and letting it run. (Same as for all other natural laws and the entire universe.) Of course I agree (a) that you don't need to invoke a supernatural being to come up with a coherent explanation for how different species come into existence and (b) that it is in any case more satisfying to see how much one can explain without playing the "God did it!" card. It does seem that the more you learn about some natural process like evolution, the more likely you are to think, "Is God (as an explanation) really necessary?" But as a fundamental principle, given our current state of knowledge, i don't see believing both in God and evolution as impossible.

I'm disappointed in the lack of discussion of falsification of hypotheses and the theories which necessitate them.

Quoting thprop: And this visit to the nuthouse was not even sponsored by Templeton. Bob has gone off the deep end.

I just noticed -- from a tentative look at the video page -- that one of these guys is from the Disco 'Tute. That is way worse than the TF. Giving one of these clowns air time is at least as bad as having Jerome Corsi on. Oh, wait ... What's next? A diavlog between Orly Taitz and Jack Cashill?

The accomodationist debate has been raging - and we get this dreck and Mooney. Jerry Coyne has said he will not appear on BHtv because of the Templeton connection. But why not try to get someone from the other side on. Maybe they could correct some of the lies that Mooney and Nelson toss out without batting an eye. The argument is that imperfections are evidence for an evolutionary process rather than a designed process. If Nelson wants to take that the next step - i.e. no design, no designer, no god, let him. But Coyne and Dawkins do not argue that imperfections = no god. And neither is theological. They have to beat back theologically based arguments against biology. (Note: I will no longer use evolution or darwinism - the term biology works fine.) I guess Bob is just trying to push his book. That is why he has been posting crap like this over at the Daily Dish:
Are the "New Atheists" Really Rational?
Is Religion a Great Big Parasite?

Quoting thprop: I forced myself to watch this drivel. No thanks. Please stay away.

Hard to say which counts as a stronger recommendation: yours or the first one posted in this thread. Of course they both push me in the same direction; the only question is which one pushes farther.

Quoting thprop: The accomodationist debate has been raging - and we get this dreck and Mooney. Jerry Coyne has said he will not appear on BHtv because of the Templeton connection. But why not try to get someone from the other side on. Maybe they could correct some of the lies that Mooney and Nelson toss out without batting an eye. The argument is that imperfections are evidence for an evolutionary process rather than a designed process. If Nelson wants to take that the next step - i.e. no design, no designer, no god, let him. But Coyne and Dawkins do not argue that imperfections = no god. And neither is theological. They have to beat back theologically based arguments against biology. (Note: I will no longer use evolution or darwinism - the term biology works fine.)

Hear, hear. Especially the parts I bolded.

I guess Bob is just trying to push his book. That is why he has been posting crap like this over at the Daily Dish:
Are the "New Atheists" Really Rational?
Is Religion a Great Big Parasite?

I wonder if promotion is the only thing on his mind. The vehemence and duration of his simplistic complaints about the so-called "New

I can only sit here gaping in horrified fascination at Paul's side of the diavlog. The wacky video quality did not do Paul any service - he was all blurry and wobbly and blinky and googly eyed - all in all, beyond odd.

I forget who said it (I think it was either PZM or Dennett) but the best point that I have heard in years, and the one that I think really nails the whole issue of science/religion right on the head was the point that this is a non-argument. People like Bob and Chris Mooney and this Discovery Institute dude insist that the big dilemna is that the two sides need to coexist and cooperate so that we can reach greater truths. Sounds good, but on further review, it's bullshit. Science is doing just fine on it's own. I highly doubt that any scientist who has reached a dead-end in their research is thinking to themselves "if only I could look at this problem from a theistic point of view...quick, get the Pastor on the phone. I need to know his thoughts on the Hox gene!" The Faithful science advocates love to point to the limits of science and say things like "well science can't tell us the answer to some of the biggest questions" as if that proves anything beyond the fact that there's stuff we haven't figured out yet

Quoting maximus444: I nearly fainted at the beginning when Nelson said he was a creationist.
But I watched the entire diavlog and was pleasantly surprised, I guess tolerance is the way forward.

I'm only about 15 minutes in, so am reserving comments on the diavlog itself until later, but me too. Somehow I wasn't expecting that. Of course, I'd also misheard Biola as Loyola.

I made it about 15 minutes in as well, last night, and then decided to go to sleep. I doubt I will bother finishing this one.

Quoting thprop: I guess Bob is just trying to push his book. That is why he has been posting crap like this over at the Daily Dish:
Are the "New Atheists" Really Rational?
Is Religion a Great Big Parasite?

I think it is surprising that Bob reads, quotes, and responds to comments about his Daily Dish blogs but not to comments about his own diavlogs on his own site, BH.tv. I wonder why that is....

Since some of you are clamoring for some real science: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/lo...-docent-today/ PS if you look a couple posts down on Zimmer's blog you will see a link to one of my favorite bands! ;-)

Quoting thprop: Bloggin - you will put us - me - to shame with thoughtful comments like this. Unfortunately, I do not think this is an area for civil debate. Merely debating the issue with science deniers gives them credibility. The religionists try to win with debate and rhetorical flourishes - not with evidence. How can you have a debate with someone who already possesses "the truth"?

I don't know to what extent the people who debate about creationism (or who believe in creationist arguments) are open to debate and changing their minds. (Like I said in another post, I've only listened to the beginning of this one, though I plan to continue it.) But I reject the idea that "giving them credibility" is something to be afraid of, especially in a small forum like this one. If the evidence is strongly on one side (as I believe it is here), I don't understand the fear of confronting opposing ideas. I mean, what bad could happen? How does it make things worse to address ideas? It would be bad to (as the news media does regarding tons of other issues) simply say "creationists say this" and "evolutionists say that", as if it was a mere difference

Well, maybe there are naturalistic explanations of even that evidence, but imagine that every time we come up with such an explanation, this being gives us evidence inconsistent with that theory. At some point, the best explanation would indeed be that this was a supernatural being.

Of course, there would be no reason to assume that this supernatural being would be loving, good, just, benevolent, etc. He'd have to be assessed -- given the immense, purposeless, random suffering of sentient beings -- as evil, sadistic, malevolent, disinterested, and/or deranged. The major world religions would still have got almost nothing right. Yes, there'd be a supernatural being, but he'd be an asshole.

Quoting stephanie: I don't know to what extent the people who debate about creationism (or who believe in creationist arguments) are open to debate and changing their minds........ I find the discussion with a creationist interesting simply because if I actually know any creationists, I'm not aware of it.........Maybe because of that personal experience, I have trouble grasping why this is such a charged issue, in that creationists don't really pose any threat......

At an abstract level, your points are valid. Once you drill down to how actual people are actually impacted by a creationist culture, creationism becomes much less benign. I highly recommend you seek out some creationists, engage them in serious and thorough discussion about their views, and see if your perspective on the matter changes. It's a highly interesting experience as well as a valuable one. And it's always good to engage with people who are completely unlike one's self, especially if one has any interest in social/public policy - it provides good experiential evidence to inform one's views about people. Alternatively, you could come down to Texas (or Virginia or North/South Carolina or Alabama or Mississippi or Arkansas or Kansas or

Hey guys, if you ever catch me debating a creationist, please tell me to go directly to the hospital, because it's probably a sign that I've had a stroke or something. Thanks.

Can we start calling this feature "Science" Saturday?

Excellent diavlog. Good change from the silly kitchen table philosophy we usually get from "Science" Saturday.

Quoting rcocean: Excellent diavlog. Good change the silly kitchen table philosophy we usually get from "Science" Saturday.

You've stolen my line! But seriously, what was excellent about it?

Quoting AemJeff: You've stolen my line! But seriously, what was excellent about it?

I can't wait for the astrology diavlog. How about an astrologist vs a creationist?

Quoting AemJeff: Can we start calling this feature "Science" Saturday?

or maybe: Counter-Enlightenment Saturday
You're OK, I'm OK Saturday
Let's All Just Get Along Saturday
Twilight Zone Saturday
You're Gonna Need a Drink After This Saturday or for some less congenial options: Maybe They Should Have Their Heads Examined Saturday
It May Be Stupid But Its Also Dumb Saturday (see Patrick Star)

Quoting stephanie: I don't know to what extent the people who debate about creationism (or who believe in creationist arguments) are open to debate and changing their minds. (Like I said in another post, I've only listened to the beginning of this one, though I plan to continue it.) But I reject the idea that "giving them credibility" is something to be afraid of, especially in a small forum like this one. If the evidence is strongly on one side (as I believe it is here), I don't understand the fear of confronting opposing ideas. I mean, what bad could happen? How does it make things worse to address ideas? It would be bad to (as the news media does regarding tons of other issues) simply say "creationists say this" and "evolutionists say that", as if it was a mere difference of opinion, but that is different than actually addressing the arguments themselves.

Not addressing the arguments does nothing to convince anyone. It simply allows the nonsense that they are being discriminated against by the establishment and allows them to set up their own unchallenged experts and forums and all that which are believed implicitly by various groups, I think. (The

Quoting Me&theboys: or maybe:

Counter-Enlightenment Saturday
You're OK, I'm OK Saturday
Let's All Just Get Along Saturday
Twilight Zone Saturday
You're Gonna Need a Drink After This Saturday

or for some less congenial options:

Maybe They Should Have Their Heads Examined Saturday
It May Be Stupid But Its Also Dumb Saturday (see Patrick Star)

lolz. Sign me up for "You're Gonna Need a Drink After This Saturday."

PZ Myers watched the entire diavlog and wrote a lengthy comment on Pharyngula -

Numbers and Nelson dislocate shoulders with strenuous back-patting

Category: Creationism
Posted on: July 25, 2009 4:03 PM, by PZ Myers

Ron Numbers is a very smart fellow, a historian of science, who has done marvelous work on the history of creationism. Paul Nelson is a Discovery Institute Fellow, a young earth creationist (but an amazingly fuzzy one), and, unfortunately, very long-winded. Bloggingheads has brought Ronald Numbers and Paul Nelson together in a dialog. I can hardly believe I listened to the whole thing — I was working away at other stuff while it was playing in the background, so it wasn't a total waste of time — but it was incredibly boring. Both parties were so determined to be nice to each other that they spent the whole time agreeing with each other, and never wrestled with their differences. It was an epic collision of titanic marshmallows; no one was bruised or dented, but afterwards, everyone involved was sticky and gooey. It just fills one with a desire to wash one's hands and maybe take a shot of some good scotch to get back a little sharpness and bite. Conviviality is

When god made animals why did he make it so they all would occasionally be caught masturbating and put on YouTube?

Quoting Me&theboys: I highly recommend you seek out some creationists, engage them in serious and thorough discussion about their views, and see if your perspective on the matter changes.

You mean my view that it's not something to be afraid of, to debate a creationist? I'd actually be quite interested in talking to one (I've tried on internet sites before, but the proffered sample at the site in question was too DenvilleSteve like for this to be a useful exercise). However, it's not like you can really walk around asking people on the street. Or, I suppose you could, but, you know...

Quoting Me&theboys: And it's always good to engage with people who are completely unlike one's self, especially if one has any interest in social/public policy - it provides good experiential evidence to inform one's views about people.

Again, I agree. (I don't not know creationists because I avoid them or people not like me.) I used to know some -- I grew up in red America -- but that's different from knowing them as an adult, and in the world I currently live in I'd be rather shocked to find out that anyone was (and based on conversations and such, others feel the

Quoting I'm SO awesome!: When god made animals why did he make it so they all would occasionally be caught masturbating and put on YouTube?

TERRIBLE POST!!!! How can you post something like that and not provide any links?

Quoting stephanie: ... But I reject the idea that "giving them credibility" is something to be afraid of, especially in a small forum like this one. If the evidence is strongly on one side (as I believe it is here), I don't understand the fear of confronting opposing ideas. I mean, what bad could happen? How does it make things worse to address ideas? It would be bad to (as the news media does regarding tons of other issues) simply say "creationists say this" and "evolutionists say that", as if it was a mere difference of opinion, but that is different than actually addressing the arguments themselves.

This has been addressed many times. Start here. The short version is that by debating someone who holds a nonsensical position, you automatically elevate the apparent worth of that position. You give the creationists another instance they can point to where they can say, "If my belief is so worthless, why did the respected Prof. X debate me?" You mislead uninformed people into thinking there actually is a legitimate scientific debate, especially if the creationist is a good con man or skilled at bombast. The creationists have no interest in following the usual route

Quoting claymisher: Hey guys, if you ever catch me debating a creationist, please tell me to go directly to the hospital, because it's probably a sign that I've had a stroke or something.

Thanks.

I'll call the ambulance.

The historical world began about 6000 years ago. Why not concentrate on that? It even began in the Middle East!

At the end, Numbers says one thing that really made me roll my eyes: "One thing that is not welcome in the science and religion debates is people in the middle." It's so true. When you are debating over straightforward questions, like "evolution vs. creation" or "god vs. no god", the position in the middle is non-existent, and people who try to waffle about, refusing to answer the question, are definitely not welcome. They're only there to add noise and confusion.

No, meeting in the middle is always right. Is the Earth round or flat? Well, it's kind of round. Btw, the wikipedia page "Flat Earth" is a real eye-opener:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Quoting thprop: There are a lot of debates that are not held - even though one side has some fervently wrong adherents.

True, and I tend to think that in refuse to discuss something there should be a reason why not. One reason would be that something is legitimately a marginal belief, which only a few wackos hold, and that pretending like it's a legitimate debate is pointless. I think the examples you give are all such cases. Another reason would be because a particular belief is so repulsive as to be beyond the bounds of acceptable views that should be given the status of being welcomed to a public debate. The Holocaust denier one falls into that category to me (as the underlying point is generally motivated by anti-semitism), and same with some of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. A third reason would be that one side is not based on genuine disagreement, but outright lies, often politically motivated (I think stuff like the Vince Foster conspiracies or 9/11 conspiracies or some of the current anti-Obama stuff, as well as the Holocaust example fit here). However, I do think that in some cases if a

Quoting bjkeefe: The short version is that by debating someone who holds a nonsensical position, you automatically elevate the apparent worth of that position.

I addressed this in the post I just wrote (to Thprop), so I'm not going to repeat it, but would be happy to continue the conversation. Must run now, but I'll respond to the rest of the post later. Oh, but quickly--

Quoting bjkeefe: But many people who are more experienced in this matter do not think so. They believe, for example, that giving creationists undue respect causes more people to believe nonsense.

And in this particular debate, any evidence of that? I'm extremely skeptical, and it really seems more to me that they dislike the other belief so and are so contemptuous of people who hold it that they don't want to debate it. But not doing so hardly decreases the likelihood that people will believe there really is a debate that is not being addressed. People believe all sorts of weird things, and allowing them to live in an echo chamber where there are "our scientists" and "their scientists" doesn't seem to be working. Again, this is not the case of taking a

Quoting thprop: PZ Myers watched the entire diavlog and wrote a lengthy comment on Pharyngula -

Awesome. Thanks for finding and reposting.

Quoting stephanie: You mean my view that it's not something to be afraid of, to debate a creationist??

Not at all - I meant your view that there is no harm in giving them apparent credibility.

Quoting stephanie: Okay, sincere question -- how does the fact that other people believe it and perhaps are annoying about it affect those who don't, given the law and the clear scientific and elite (which I am not using in a negative way) consensus?

Well, first, there are many, many people who couldn't care less about the scientific and elite consensus, and just as many who don't know what the consensus is. NO creationist adjusts his beliefs and behavior on the basis of the scientific and elite consensus. If they did, there would be no creationists.
Second, there are plenty of people in positions of decision making authority who are not in agreement with the scientific and elite consensus and have great latitude in allowing their decisions to be infuenced by their beliefs, which in turn means that their beliefs have an impact on people who do not share them. Religious beliefs can and do influence social, political, educational, etc. decisions, regardless of the scientific and

Quoting thprop: Bloggin - you will put us - me - to shame with thoughtful comments like this.

I should say i had not read any but kidneystones's comment (and maybe whatever comment came second) by the time i finished mine -- nothing critical.

Unfortunately, I do not think this is an area for civil debate. Merely debating the issue with science deniers gives them credibility.

I think you are overgeneralizing an important, but limited point. If Obama started arguing with the Larouchies, he would be raising their prominence and very likely winning them converts. A totally dispassionate argument with a holocaust denier can leave people with very little knowledge with the impression that "the experts disagree" about whether the holocaust took place -- it could leave you with the impression that the holocaust wasn't something to get all worked up about too. But if 60 percent of the country were Larouchies, then Obama would HAVE to take them on -- and some large portion of our population doubts evolution (though I don't think that a majority are young-earth creationists). Taking on the opposition in this case and on so small and intellectual a platform as BloggingHeads does not

It does not have to be taught in the schools to be an insidious influence.

I don't really get the "insidious" part either. Of course, fundies can go psycho and start burning witches or flying planes into buildings. But none of that necessarily follows from holding weird anti-scientific beliefs. Some people who hold such beliefs are pacifists, environmentalists and generous to the poor. Most are just average Joes and Josephines. What's so insidious? My kids grew up playing with fundie kids in the sandbox and were on sports teams and orchestras with them in high school. Nothing bad happened. Everyone got along. In fact, most people I know -- including those with advanced degrees -- cling to (to quote our religious president) irrational non-scientific beliefs. President Obama believes in the divinity of Jesus (as have all modern presidents). Is that close enough to "insidious?"

It seems to me that anyone who believes in God is a creationist at some level, so you probably know a lot of them Stephanie, because in this country most people believe in God. Of course they don't want to come off as ignorant bible beaters, so they also believe in evolution, but I think a lot of people (most), don't like to think of the human race as some kind of cosmic accident.

Best comment in the thread.

Quoting stephanie: I addressed this in the post I just wrote (to Thprop), so I'm not going to repeat it, but would be happy to continue the conversation.

Saw it. To that, and what you go on to say in the rest of this reply to me, I will just say that I am unsure whether your position is a reasonable one or a reasonable-sounding one. Certainly, I generally am in favor of letting the minority point of view be aired and confident that the truth will out after honest debate. I guess my view of the creationist activists is that they are generally not interested in having an honest debate, but in pushing an agenda through subterfuge.

And in this particular debate, any evidence of that ["giving creationists undue respect causes more people to believe nonsense."]?

I have seen reports where audiences were surveyed before and after debates that support my claim. Often, creationists trumpet these results. I would also say that the number of people who tell pollsters that they do not believe in evolution or believe that the question is "not settled" supports this as well. Sorry that I am too lazy to look up some links for you right now, but I will, upon request.

I'm extremely skeptical, and

Comments from Why Evolution is True - with a jab at BHtv/Templeton

Faitheist t.v.: Historian of science joins young-earth creationist in an old fashioned Coyne-and-Dawkins roast

This morning an alert reader called my attention to a Bloggingheads discussion between Ronald Numbers, a historian of science at the University of Wisconsin/Madison and self-described agnostic, and Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute young-earth creationist. I watched the debate with an increasing sense of unease in my lower mesentery. Nelson and Numbers engaged in an oh-so-civil discourse, with Numbers standing idly by as Nelson attacked both Dawkins and myself. I come in for some disapprobation for criticizing Francis Collins’s appointment as head of the NIH and for making unwarranted “theological arguments” in my book.

I was going to dissect this debate here but, damn him, P. Z. Myers went and did it first. I swear, the man is all over the blogosphere, no doubt aided by his horde of informants. I have little to add to what P.Z. said except to note that the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one. The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big

Lots of buzz on the Internets - this from Secular Right

Intelligent Design as philosophy
July 25th, 2009 - David Hume

The most recent Bloggingheads.tv features Ronald L. Numbers, author of The Creationists, and Paul Nelson, a Creationist and Intelligent Design advocate. The discussion is civil and well-informed, but as noted by some of the commenters on the Bloggingheads.tv site, it isn’t really about science. Rather, it is about philosophy and history of science. Scientists when discussing scientific issues really don’t talk the way that Ronald Numbers & Paul Nelson do in this diavlog. I pointed out years ago that the Intelligent Design movement is qualitatively different from the Creation Science movement, insofar as it is heavily-loaded on philosophers, while old-style Creationists tend to have applied scientists heading their movement (i.e., engineers and medical professionals). In terms of science, where the traditional Young Earth Creationists are simply wrong, the Intelligent Design movement is irrelevant. Where the two movements do come together is their fear that mainstream scientific is fundamentally atheistic, and that atheism will lead to social consequences. This attitude is pithily expressed in the assertion that if you teach people they are animals, they will behave as such. Though methods

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: He did not use ad hominem arguments against his opponents or argue in any way I thought was unfair.
...

How do you know that this particular man is "fundamentally dishonest"? I think his beliefs are empirically unfounded and at some level unreasonable, but I get the impression he is sincere in his beliefs. I certainly see no reason to suppose that he is insincere. And (what's more important and more directly observable), he doesn't argue unfairly (no sliming of his opponent a la Coulter, no Lynn Cheney slime plus filibuster, etc.).

His mischaracterization of Coyne's argument was certainly "unfair." Not an ad hominem, but the strawiest of strawmen. Not "insincere," but yes, "fundamentally dishonest."

Quoting Wonderment: I don't really get the "insidious" part either.

I was using insidious in the following sense: "having a gradual and cumulative effect; developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent" (see Merriam Webster)

I was using insidious in the following sense: "having a gradual and cumulative effect; developing so gradually as to be well established before becoming apparent" (see Merriam Webster)

Gotcha! I am using gotcha in the "I understand" sense, not in the sense of "defeated someone or uncovered their faults" (Merriam Webster).

Quoting thprop: Lots of buzz on the Internets - this from Secular Right

Just in case anybody is unaware, "David Hume" at Secular Right is 'head and onetime commenter Razib.

I should have highlighted this line -

It was an epic collision of titanic marshmallows; no one was bruised or dented, but afterwards, everyone involved was sticky and gooey.

Quoting Wonderment: Gotcha!

I am using gotcha in the "I understand" sense, not in the sense of "defeated someone or uncovered their faults" (Merriam Webster).

Okaaay. I am using Okaaay in the "I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic sense", not in the sense of "OK" (Amanda's urban dictionary) ;-)

Quoting Me&theboys: Okaaay. I am using Okaaay in the "I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic sense", not in the sense of "OK" (Amanda's urban dictionary) ;-)

Please keep going. This is very educational for me. Seriously, in the sense that I really mean it.

-Good to hear different points of view and 2 people differing in a civil and respectful conversation.

Quoting thprop: Comments from Why Evolution is True - with a jab at BHtv/Templeton

There is a comment at the end that mentions comparative anatomy and embryonic development. I wonder how these are explained by creationists. Does anybody know?

Well, Stephanie, I wish I had read your posts before responding to thprop myself. I see we make very similar points, and I think you them more elegantly.
It's striking that people like Dawkins, who are so much on the side of reason don't seem to trust it very much -- except among the experts like themselves (or the people they listen to). On the whole, i think you and I are on the side of John Stuart Mill's _On Liberty_ (a GREAT book in my opinion -- and really a quick read -- get it today, BloggingHeads, commenters!). It may be that Mill is a bit too sanguine about the marketplace of ideas, and thprop and Brendan point to some practical limitations to the all-out liberal view of Mill. Their points are fine as practical correctives to a too-naive liberal view of the value of free debate. Where they go wrong is in elevating this caveat to Mill into a kind of first principle to which entirely eclipses Mill's principles. I'm certainly with Dawkins, Hitchens et al. in wanting people to be more rational and reasonable. But in engaging in a rational debate (one that forswears personal

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin:
1. No mudslinging or psychoanalyzing of one's opponent, no guilt by association -- attack the argument not the person.
2. No twisting of other people's words or taking them out of context in unfair ways.
3. Be fair-minded -- concede the truth even when it's inconvenient for your argument.
4. Look for common ground, even with people whose most basic beliefs seem very alien to you. You and i may agree on how people should be treated and how far government and society should or should not interfere in the lives of individuals, even though you base this on a reading of Rawls or Mill, while i base it on the commandments of Leonie the Lion goddess.

And I said to the multitudes "AMEN!!"

Quoting ogieogie: His mischaracterization of Coyne's argument was certainly "unfair." Not an ad hominem, but the strawiest of strawmen. Not "insincere," but yes, "fundamentally dishonest."

1. I must admit ignorance at this point on how well he characterized Coyne. What I was judging was how fairly he responded to Numbers and how willing he seemed to be to listen to and concede good points raised by Numbers.
2. If you've engaged in many philosophical debates, you get a sense of how easy it is to mischaracterize views and arguments you strongly disagree with, and how hard it is to be really fair. I would therefore not equate unfairness with "dishonesty" so readily. That becomes an issue when you have corrected some mistake and he then continues making the same exact argument as though he hadn't heard you (or with some dismissive comment about your being one of those atheists).

I just have a bad feeling it is going to be all boilerplate. I guess I'll give it a shot.

Dawkins et al. seem to regard religion as the root of all irrationality. Uproot religion and suddenly you'll have a rational person; fail to uproot it, and your entire mind is irrational through and through and there's no point discussing anything.

I guess I haven't read them carefully enough to say definitively whether this is axiomatic, but I wouldn't say all. Either way, your next point is attractive:

I'm certainly with Dawkins, Hitchens et al. in wanting people to be more rational and reasonable. But in engaging in a rational debate (one that forswears personal attacks and cheapshot arguments) with someone who disagrees, isn't Nelson taking several steps in that direction? Shouldn't he be encouraged by people who are in favor of reason and rational debate?

Fair point. And yet:

People can become less religious without becoming any more rational or reasonable or respectful of others.

... I resemble that remark, which leads me to:

Let's make people more rational and more reasonable. If Dawkins et al. are right, this will also have the effect of making them less religious. if religious beliefs are not all irrational or unreasonable, it may not make people less religious, but we'll still have the benefit

Bloggin', I still don't see how you get around that one side uses the very occurrence of any form of debate to mislead the public into believing that it (creationism/ID) is scientific and that their interested in approaching the issue from a scientific perspective. I wish I could give people the benefit of the doubt and hope they would be smart enough to figure out what is real science and what is theologically driven faux-science, but when I see the numbers on how many people believe that there is a debate over evolution (as a theory, not the fine details) it seems like the people are awfully susceptible to misdirection by places like the Discovery Institute. I wish that a creationist would have a discussion with a scientist where at the very beginning, science and the scientific method were defined. Then the creationist would cop to the fact that their theory isn't really science and explain why. Then the creationist would explain why their proponents have been caught so many times before trying to blur the lines of science and get into the discussions/classrooms through

How about BloggingSouls.tv or Blogging.tv (since they've clearly lost their "heads" ;-)

Well at least somebody does:

The discussion is civil and well-informed, but as noted by some of the commenters on the Bloggingheads.tv site... --David Hume

Uncle Ebeneezer said: "to mislead the public into believing that it (creationism/ID) is scientific and that their interested in approaching the issue from a scientific perspective." I give them the benefit of the doubt. I think that based on the Supreme Court decision, they are attempting to square creationism with science. And since they are believers, they must think that there is a way. Either that or they try to poke holes in the scientific method. Even scientists do that. There are always limitations to human endeavor and real truth and if science can't present a bullet proof arguments there will always be those who will try to get past it. Also, the public is mostly disinterested. As I said before, most people believe in God because they want to. they don't feel a need to defend it or think about it too much.
it seems like the people are awfully susceptible to misdirection by places like the Discovery Institute I bet most people have no idea it exists. Then the creationist would cop to the fact that their theory isn't really science and explain why. And then what? cased closed? I don't think so.

I bet most people have no idea it exists.

Maybe they don't know the name but when you hear a teenager spout the words of a Discovery Institute talking point verbatim, it certainly suggests some form of transmission of these ideas from the organizations who push them, to the people who they are aiming to reach.

And then what? cased closed? I don't think so.

I don't think so either. My point was that at least in my hypothetical situation the people who want to give the impression of being scientific would at least cop to the falsity of that impression and it would be a more honest discussion. We all do it here all the time. I'm no expert, I'm not sure where I read this etc., as a signal that we are not claiming to be something we're not (authorities.) In the case of the creationist, they ARE trying to be taken as authorities from a scientific perspective, in fact that's the whole purpose of them engaging in discussion. It serves only to bolster their credibility and pretend they are science. I think these discussions are fine. Have them. But don't pretend they

I didn't hate this dvlog as much as I thought I would. It was interesting to hear a YEC in the wild. On the other hand, I was a bit peeved that this took the place of my beloved Science Saturday bit. They already dropped a bunch of these with the dog ate my homework excuse (technical difficulties with no further explanation) so I'm worried about my favorite segment.

Quoting themightypuck: I didn't hate this dvlog as much as I thought I would. It was interesting to hear a YEC in the wild. On the other hand, I was a bit peeved that this took the place of my beloved Science Saturday bit. They already dropped a bunch of these with the dog ate my homework excuse (technical difficulties with no further explanation) so I'm worried about my favorite segment.

Yeah, my problem isn't that this vlog appeared. It's just the wrong banner - the pretense that Creationism is science ought not be tacitly implied by the folks running BHTV, who obviously know better than that. "Percontations" would have been a perfectly acceptable home for it.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Bloggin', I still don't see how you get around that one side uses the very occurrence of any form of debate to mislead the public into believing that it (creationism/ID) is scientific and that their interested in approaching the issue from a scientific perspective.

Well, Uncle, I don't see what good your alternative really does. Isn't the next response, "what are scientists so afraid of that they refuse to face our arguments?"
Not only does argument expose more people to the arguments you want them exposed to, but, as I said above, it may expose them to the strange compromises that their own allies have been forced by argument to accept. Even on the rather canned McLaughlin Group, it was quite illuminating when even Tony Blankley wouldn't defend something GWB had done. With more back and forth, you learn a lot more. Doesn't the strategy of not talking to the other side presuppose that you have the upper hand? If you are a minority, not talking just means you get outvoted (or it means you can coerce the majority -- not desirable by my lights). If an overwhelming majority accepted evolution, then I might worry more

I don't think much of this discussion was regarded as science by either participant. Philosophy -- yes. More specifically, philosophy of science. A lot of what John Horgan says on Science Saturday should also be categorized as "philosophy of science" -- though that is, unfortunately, philosophy of science from about 1950.

quoting Stephanie:
People believe all sorts of weird things, and allowing them to live in an echo chamber where there are "our scientists" and "their scientists" doesn't seem to be working.

Respectfully, the DI doesn't conduct any science. They have no laboratory, and they do not promote any scientific theory. They promote the political strategy of "teach the controversy", and claim that it's science, but have been shown to be promoting a theological concept, and doing it with intentional dishonestly. I think the reason this is such a charged issue is that the tactics used by the DI are deliberately underhanded, as documented with great clarity by many, and especially by judge John Jones at the conclusion of the Dover PA trial: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/ Sooner or later, false thinking brings wrong conduct.
-- Julian Huxley Anything more than the truth would be too much.
-- Robert Frost

In case you didn't already know, the Discovery Institute is the kind of group that writes insane secret manifestos that inevitably get leaked to the world, and yet somehow doesn't implode from the humiliation. I'm talking about "The Wedge." http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy (And look, Nelson makes an appearance in it too!) My favorite part is how they hate materialism and love the free market. Brilliant!

Quoting claymisher: In case you didn't already know, the Discovery Institute is the kind of group that writes insane secret manifestos that inevitably get leaked to the world, and yet somehow doesn't implode from the humiliation. I'm talking about "The Wedge."

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

(And look, Nelson makes an appearance in it too!)

My favorite part is how they hate materialism and love the free market. Brilliant!

Oh yeah, I'll save you nutters the trouble: ad hominem boo hoo hoo.

Quoting AemJeff: Yeah, my problem isn't that this vlog appeared. It's just the wrong banner - the pretense that Creationism is science ought not be tacitly implied by the folks running BHTV, who obviously know better than that. "Percontations" would have been a perfectly acceptable home for it.

No it's not science, but the discussion was within the philosophy of science -- specifically methodological naturalism was under discussion. And as i pointed out to uncle eb, science saturday often winds up being at least partly about philosophy of science (specifically dividing science from non-science, which is what methodological naturalism is all about).

Well, Uncle, I don't see what good your alternative really does.

It keeps the scientific community engaged in good science rather than philosophy and other things that are outside the purview of science. It also denies the faux-scientist from the chance of using the debate as a tool for claiming scientific his/her own credibility. The rules of admission to a real scientific discussion are well-defined and they serve a very important function. I see no reason why they should be changed simply because a large portion of the public doesn't understand the rules.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I don't think much of this discussion was regarded as science by either participant. Philosophy -- yes. More specifically, philosophy of science. A lot of what John Horgan says on Science Saturday should also be categorized as "philosophy of science" -- though that is, unfortunately, philosophy of science from about 1950.

Hard to believe you belittle John Horgan while defending creationists. Even if I take your "from about 1950" as true for the sake of argument, the creationist argument is at least a few thousand years older. If that's how you're judging things, I mean. Or are you just indulging in a little soft bigotry of low expectations?

A lot of what John Horgan says on Science Saturday should also be categorized as "philosophy of science" -- though that is, unfortunately, philosophy of science from about 1950.

Nice! I hope that Chip defends himself from that one.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I don't think much of this discussion was regarded as science by either participant. Philosophy -- yes. More specifically, philosophy of science. A lot of what John Horgan says on Science Saturday should also be categorized as "philosophy of science" -- though that is, unfortunately, philosophy of science from about 1950.

BN, can you give me the quick-and-dirty explanation of Horgan's dated philosophy of science? Is it that he's a straight-up Popperian?

OK, so what you are having an issue with is that the Creationists are behaving like scientists without having anything scientific to say. They are pretending to be scientists. Also, you think this is just a ploy to gain them a credibility they don't deserve. I guess I agree with that, except I think that they believe they are actually on a par with any scientist. Did Nelson claim to be a scientist? I think he said he studied the philosophy of science and evolutionary science. He also went to University of Chicago, so you would think he'd know what real science is. No excuses should be allowed him and so you think Nelson should have challenged him more on that. One of the first bloggingheads I ever saw was a discussion between an evo psych fellow and a philosopher who was religious. The philosphy guy just kept piling on one thought experiment after another, but the evo-psych guy just kept up with him. At the end of the day, it's really all just words anyway and some people are better at BS than others. But the thing about the teenager spouting Discovery

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Well, Uncle, I don't see what good your alternative really does. Isn't the next response, "what are scientists so afraid of that they refuse to face our arguments?"

Would you also use this argument if astrologers wanted to come on SciSat (or appear at any other scientific debate)? What about Moon Hoaxers? Flat Earthers? Phrenologists? Four-humorists? At what point do you say, "Okay, that's not science, let's stop wasting time pretending that it is."?

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: No it's not science, but the discussion was within the philosophy of science -- specifically methodological naturalism was under discussion. And as i pointed out to uncle eb, science saturday often winds up being at least partly about philosophy of science (specifically dividing science from non-science, which is what methodological naturalism is all about).

That's fair. The problem for me is that Creationism and its variants make a deliberate pretense of their status - that's really a part of an overall PR strategy on the part of the DI and its allies. I think as matter of general policy, that claim ought not go unchallenged in the public sphere, or even tacitly let stand.

Quoting badhatharry: At the end of the day, it's really all just words anyway and some people are better at BS than others.

No, badhat, it really isn't "all just words" and it really doesn't just come down to who can bullshit better than the next bullshitter. Yours is an attitude that could only be held by someone who didn't have any idea what science is all about.

Quoting badhatharry: Maybe you guys can tell me what Science Saturday is supposed to be. If this diavlog led to this much discussion about what respectable science is, maybe it served its purpose.

It's just that we would like to see Science Saturday alive. This was more like the conversation people would have during its wake: "Science was so wonderful, so respectable..."

BHH, scientists go to great levels of effort to follow a very specific method. The reason this is so important is because this was what got us beyond humors and leeches and spells and such. Good scientists are very hesitant to go into any kind of area where other people try to bring in unscientific ideas without paying the price of admission. The very foundation of the science ethos is to try and minimize the level of conjecture or evidence-less theories. The reason I suspect that so many people her are annoyed by this diavlog is that alot of us believe in and support the scientific method. Indeed, one of the reasons that attracted me to the works of founder Bob Wright were his (apparent) devotion to the method and the underlying logic behind it. Though these two didn't represent themselves as scientists, there can be no argument that recently, things have been getting a bit squishy on bhTv. Lots of diavlogs about God and purpose etc. Now even the most sacred of empirical features (Sci Sat) is following the trend. What makes this doubly troubling

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: It keeps the scientific community engaged in good science rather than philosophy and other things that are outside the purview of science. It also denies the faux-scientist from the chance of using the debate as a tool for claiming scientific his/her own credibility.

The rules of admission to a real scientific discussion are well-defined and they serve a very important function. I see no reason why they should be changed simply because a large portion of the public doesn't understand the rules.

So the discussion is fine so long as no scientists take part? Well then this discussion ought to be fine since Numbers is a historian of science.
I don't believe I intended to defend having one of these official scientific discussions you seem to be talking about.
I don't see a problem with the actual discussion that took place here -- except that I think Numbers might have pushed harder on some points.

Yeah, the first time I visited, I saw the Templeton affiliation and wondered about it. In fact I didn't know Robert Wright was even a founder until I checked out the 'heads' button about the forth time around. I've read "The Moral Animal" so knew about him that way. I know that Templeton has some sort of religious purpose, so perhaps you are wondering if that's influencing what's presented. So what kind of hard science was being discussed previously? Was there controversy involved? It's hard to imagine two scientists discussing the newest star discovery and having anything controversial enough to say about it that you guys would even post.

Quoting badhatharry: Yeah, the first time I visited, I saw the Templeton affiliation and wondered about it. In fact I didn't know Robert Wright was even a founder until I checked out the 'heads' button about the forth time around. I've read "The Moral Animal" so knew about him that way.

I know that Templeton has some sort of religious purpose, so perhaps you are wondering if that's influencing what's presented.

So what kind of hard science was being discussed previously? Was there controversy involved? It's hard to imagine two scientists discussing the newest star discovery and having anything controversial enough to say about it that you guys would even post.

Check for yourself.

I can't imagine the subtitle made anyone happy.

Quoting bjkeefe: Would you also use this argument if astrologers wanted to come on SciSat (or appear at any other scientific debate)? What about Moon Hoaxers? Flat Earthers? Phrenologists? Four-humorists?

At what point do you say, "Okay, that's not science, let's stop wasting time pretending that it is."?

I don't recall claiming that creationism was science. This discussion was not a discussion within science -- but it was about science -- a discussion within philosophy of science. And, as i've pointed out, Science Saturday is often within philosophy of science. And, though I like John Horgan, he is really not an expert in philosophy of science (at least based on what he says here). I was not trying to claim that creationism was science. I would actually quite enjoy a discussion of scientific evidence regarding astrology. You could definitely come up with experiments to test some of the claims of astrology -- very likely someone has done so. you could shuffle all the standard descriptions of personality -- relabel Virgo with Ares etc. and see whether people are any less likely to accept the "incorrect" ones as correct descriptions of themselves than the "correct" ones.
Or you could have people take psychological tests and

They can talk about whatever they like. But it's hard to take seriously a program called Science Saturday that doesn't explicitly point out that the fact that creationism isn't a scientific theory and why that is an important distinction to make. Just as I would expect them to do with astrology or humors or even string theory (as Horgan has indicated on multiple occasions.) The type of place that doesn't raise these points and really hammer them home, are precisely the types of places that faux-science advocates like to visit to try and further their strategy of blurring the lines that define what is science and what isn't, and to perpetuate the "teach the controversy" myth. I never thought bhTv would be one of them.

BN said:A discussion of how we know the earth is round or whether there's any evidence for astrology could definitely give some people a better idea what science is in a way that was clear to them Maybe not the best example because one would only need a picture from space :-), but I definitely think a discussion about the scientific method would be great. Maybe someone talking about Popper's notion of falsifiability and if it still the gold standard. With perhaps some background on how and why he felt it necessary to impose such a standard. And maybe some talk about whether it is always possible to live up to and whether science can still operate without it. I'd like to hear more about the nature/nurture debate and where it stands today and a history of the controversy. Just sayin'

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I don't recall claiming that creationism was science. This discussion was not a discussion within science -- but it was about science -- a discussion within philosophy of science. And, as i've pointed out, Science Saturday is often within philosophy of science. And, though I like John Horgan, he is really not an expert in philosophy of science (at least based on what he says here).

I was not trying to claim that creationism was science.

Oh for fuck's sake. Stop dancing around and stand up for what you believe, which is this: tolerate -- nay, encourage -- creationists until the end of time, no matter how empty their claims are. Recall that our previous exchange was as follows:

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Well, Uncle, I don't see what good your alternative really does. Isn't the next response, "what are scientists so afraid of that they refuse to face our arguments?"

Quoting bjkeefe: Would you also use this argument if astrologers wanted to come on SciSat (or appear at any other scientific debate)? What about Moon Hoaxers? Flat Earthers? Phrenologists? Four-humorists?

At what point do you say, "Okay, that's not science, let's stop wasting time pretending that it is."?

You want creationists to be able to come into surroundings that are ostensibly scientific, whether it's

Quoting themightypuck: I can't imagine the subtitle made anyone happy.

Why not? Inside the mind of a creationist seems to me a fairly accurate subtitle of this dialogue. Here we have a creationist (or believer in intelligent design?) who actually seems to be aware of the scientific and philosophical arguments against his position. Reading over some of the comments here I have to wonder if I heard the same dialogue. Don't both speakers state at one point that "methodological naturalism" (materialism) is the only valid mode of scientific explanation? I take that to mean that they both reject teleology (aka intelligent design) as a proper mode of scientific explanation, i.e. you cannot explain the evolution of individual species and of their internal organisation by invoking a creator God. Scientific explanation can only study the material (efficient) causes that operate in nature---not the "final" causes that seem to operate in living organisms, which unlike inanimate matter form autonomous, self-replicating wholes. (I defy methodological naturalists aka materialists to explain how the latter arose out of the random motion of atoms....) To anyone familiar with the history of teleological arguments (they predate Darwinism by several millennia) this will hardly come

Quoting Francoamerican: Reading over some of the comments here I have to wonder if I heard the same dialogue. Don't both speakers state at one point that "methodological naturalism" (materialism) is the only valid mode of scientific explanation?

So I went back to find out if they had said that and what I heard from Paul was that certain things which could be true have been ruled out (untestable?) from methodological naturalism. This comes right after his question to Ron about whether or not science would be able to tell from 'the first cell' if it was caused by a non human intelligence.... to which Ron said it would be 'difficult', to which Paul said 'so are moon landings' to which Ron said...'although methodological naturalism cannot tell us everything, it is still very useful.'

Scientific explanation can only study the material (efficient) causes that operate in nature---not the "final" causes that seem to operate in living organisms (I defy methodological naturalists aka materialists to explain how the latter arose out of the random motion of atoms....)

Please 'splain! What are "final causes"?

To anyone familiar with the history of teleological arguments (they predate Darwinism

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: They can talk about whatever they like. But it's hard to take seriously a program called Science Saturday that doesn't explicitly point out that the fact that creationism isn't a scientific theory and why that is an important distinction to make. Just as I would expect them to do with astrology or humors or even string theory (as Horgan has indicated on multiple occasions.) The type of place that doesn't raise these points and really hammer them home, are precisely the types of places that faux-science advocates like to visit to try and further their strategy of blurring the lines that define what is science and what isn't, and to perpetuate the "teach the controversy" myth. I never thought bhTv would be one of them.

Uncle,
Do you think that creationism and astrology aren't scientific theories or just that they are very poor scientific theories? Is there some kind of bright line between creationism and truly scientific theories that we can discern before we ever look at any evidence? The positivists and Popper believed that there was such a bright line -- you could

A quick glance at your tone shows me i shouldn't bother reading your response, Brendan. Sorry, I don't enjoy big brouhahas with lots of rude words and insults slung around -- nor do I think that getting drawn into such a "discussion" has any particular benefit for anyone else that would justify my making such a sacrifice of my own equanimity.
If you want to play that game, play with someone else.

Bloggin said Ronald Numbers (as I understand him) is trying to argue for a different kind of bright line distinction that would simply put creationism beyond the pale of scientific theories even in universes where all the evidence seemed to point toward there being a God who created the universe and all of life. Yes I understood him that way. His example of christians being perfectly able to be good scientists, for example. In a world where Creationism was really TRUE and RATIONALLY JUSTIFIED BY EXPERIMENT AND SCIENTIFIC-STYLE ARGUMENT, we would still have to say that it was "unscientific" because it didn't presuppose naturalism. This is somewhat like what Franco was saying. So you are agreeing that both Paul and Rone were saying the only scientific method is naturalism. I don't find this view very plausible or natural. If the evidence supported creationism, then it would be good science. But since the evidence doesn't seem to support it, I regard it as bad science (i.e., it can be taken up as a scientific hypothesis and rejected on scientific grounds -- as Darwin does).
So here you are saying that creationism is a scientific statement of the way things are, but

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: A quick glance at your tone shows me i shouldn't bother reading your response, Brendan. Sorry, I don't enjoy big brouhahas with lots of rude words and insults slung around.
If you want to play that game, play with someone else.

Sorry that my tone upset you. Try to convince yourself it's one of exasperation and reread my previous response in that light. You might learn something; e.g., why you provoked such a tone in the first place. Or not. I don't care. If you're looking to use the tone of my voice as an excuse not to listen, you're even more certain not to change your mind regarding any of the substance of my response. I'll let my response stand in contrast to the (equally offensive to me) tone and content of your posts in this thread. Perhaps others will get something out of it.

And just this other thing. It seems to me that from the quotation below, Darwin doesn't reject creationism. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. . . . There is grandeur in this view of life . . . having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. This may have been to satisfy his contemporaries. But also it seems that the term creationism is a nuanced one, something Paul referred to when he spoke of the different theories circulating amongst his colleagues.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry that you my tone upset you. Try to convince yourself it's one of exasperation and reread my previous response in that light. You might learn something; e.g., why you provoked such a tone in the first place.
Or not. I don't care. If you're looking to use the tone of my voice as an excuse not to listen, you're even more certain not to change your mind regarding any of the substance of my response. I'll let my response stand in contrast to the (equally offensive to me) tone and content of your posts in this thread. Perhaps others will get something out of it.

I'm not "using it as an excuse." If you want me to listen, you'll treat me with respect.* If you want to insult me, then don't expect me to listen. That was the deal I informed you of last time you did this. I'm simply following through. Let me just note so far as conducting a reasonable dialogue is concerned, the Creationist we see in the diavlog has you beat hands down. *To avoid any misunderstanding, I'd better say that I mean "equal respect" -- the kind of respect that can

Quoting badhatharry: And just this other thing. It seems to me that from the quotation below, Darwin doesn't reject creationism.

To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual. . . . There is grandeur in this view of life . . . having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

This may have been to satisfy his contemporaries. But also it seems that the term creationism is a nuanced one, something Paul referred to when he spoke of the different theories circulating amongst his colleagues.

Isn't that sort of the tail wagging the dog? It seems fair to say that creationism was the default point of view prior to Darwin. And as a man with a devout Christian background I'm not certain how quickly

To AemJeff: Right, maybe I wasn't clear. This was actually an addendum to my previous post to Blogin where I asked for some clarification of his views. He had also said this:
If the evidence supported creationism, then it would be good science. But since the evidence doesn't seem to support it, I regard it as bad science (i.e., it can be taken up as a scientific hypothesis and rejected on scientific grounds -- as Darwin does). and I thought that the quote from Darwin had some significance. This is an esoteric discussion, I think, on what science actually is and I am just looking for more clarification.

Quoting badhatharry: To AemJeff:

Right, maybe I wasn't clear. This was actually an addendum to my previous post to Blogin where I asked for some clarification of his views.

He had also said this:
If the evidence supported creationism, then it would be good science. But since the evidence doesn't seem to support it, I regard it as bad science (i.e., it can be taken up as a scientific hypothesis and rejected on scientific grounds -- as Darwin does).

and I thought that the quote from Darwin had some significance. This is an esoteric discussion, I think, on what science actually is and I am just looking for more clarification.

Fair enough, I was just taking it up literally from your post without checking back for context.

Quoting badhatharry: Bloggin said

Ronald Numbers (as I understand him) is trying to argue for a different kind of bright line distinction that would simply put creationism beyond the pale of scientific theories even in universes where all the evidence seemed to point toward there being a God who created the universe and all of life.

Yes I understood him that way. His example of christians being perfectly able to be good scientists, for example.

In a world where Creationism was really TRUE and RATIONALLY JUSTIFIED BY EXPERIMENT AND SCIENTIFIC-STYLE ARGUMENT, we would still have to say that it was "unscientific" because it didn't presuppose naturalism.

This is somewhat like what Franco was saying. So you are agreeing that both Paul and Rone were saying the only scientific method is naturalism.

My interpretation is different from Franco's. I think Ron accepts methodological naturalism while Paul is critical of it. And on this meta-debate, I'm on the side of the Creationist (though I completely disagree with creationism).

I don't find this view very plausible or natural. If the evidence supported creationism, then it would be good science. But since the evidence doesn't seem to support it, I regard it as bad science (i.e., it can be

Quoting badhatharry: So I went back to find out if they had said that and what I heard from Paul was that certain things which could be true have been ruled out (untestable?) from methodological naturalism. This comes right after his question to Ron about whether or not science would be able to tell from 'the first cell' if it was caused by a non human intelligence.... to which Ron said it would be 'difficult', to which Paul said 'so are moon landings' to which Ron said...'although methodological naturalism cannot tell us everything, it is still very useful.'?

Perhaps I should listen to the dialogue again.

Quoting badhatharry: Please 'splain! What are "final causes"??

Final cause: An Aristotelian term. The "final cause" means the purpose, or the end, of a natural process. Aristotle thought that all natural phenomena could be understood in terms of four types of causes: material, efficient, formal and final causes. The founders of modern science---Galileo, Descartes, Newton---thought that all natural phenomena could be explained in terms of their efficient causes alone, i.e. matter in motion. This is what we mean today when we speak of materialism or methodological naturalism.

Quoting badhatharry: And what are american creationists doing that is significantly different?

Creationism only

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: I'm not "using it as an excuse." If you want me to listen, you'll treat me with respect.* If you want to insult me, then don't expect me to listen. That was the deal I informed you of last time you did this. I'm simply following through.

It is precisely because I have so much respect for your views in so many other areas that I allowed my exasperation with your views in this one to show. Recall that I have addressed your views in this area several times in the past, more politely, even though I have always considered them reprehensible. There comes a time when snapping at someone or busting his chops is warranted, because squish talk is all too easy to ignore or forget.

Let me just note so far as conducting a reasonable dialogue is concerned, the Creationist we see in the diavlog has you beat hands down.

Let me just note that this bit of snippiness from you only makes me that much more convinced that I was correct to be honest in letting my emotions show. I am sad, though unsurprised, that you -- like so many other accommodationists -- fall

Response to BJKeefe" You said:
No, badhat, it really isn't "all just words" and it really doesn't just come down to who can bullshit better than the next bullshitter.
Yours is an attitude that could only be held by someone who didn't have any idea what science is all about. It is with trepidation that I respond to you, but I thought I should try. You took what I said out of context and,as is your habit, made an ad hominem attack. I was referring to a particular diavlog where an evo-psych person was debating a religious minded philosophy person. I never thought of all that I said, that would be taken up and admittedly it was pretty much badly stated and a throw-away. What I was trying to say is, within the context of an hour long conversation, a philosopher will be able to come up with so many thought experiments to get around any real truth telling that it pretty much will always come down to a rhetorical battle.

Quoting badhatharry: It is with trepidation that I respond to you, but I thought I should try. You took what I said out of context and,as is your habit, made an ad hominem attack.

Oh, stop whining, you baby. Ever since you've joined this site, you've been happy to say all manner of things about other people, yet you're still whimpering when it a little of it gets directed back at you. Go run to your big brother 'fur. Maybe he'll fight this battle for you, too. And as for your "context" complaint, I ain't buyin'. You say stupid things about science all the time. If you don't think what I said applied in this case, just transfer it to another one of your comments.

[pipes up] I'm on Brendan's side. [/pipes back down]

Brendan,
You say that the following remark is a bit of snippiness from me:

Let me just note so far as conducting a reasonable dialogue is concerned, the Creationist we see in the diavlog has you beat hands down.

(1) I guess I'm not clear why you get to call me various names and attribute unflattering motives to me all you wish, while I don't even have the right to one sentence of "snippiness."
(2) But putting that aside, I stand by my claim. Unlike many of your attacks against me, it does not involve psychoanalyzing you -- my criteria are pretty much behavioral: Does Nelson attack his opponents in order to attack their conclusions? I didn't catch him doing this. Do you? As i read you, you admit that you do, and you think it's fine. Yes, I know you wouldn't argue with someone from the Discovery Institute. But you do the same to me, and I am not with the Discovery Institute. Except on the issue of whom it's safe to talk to and what constitutes a productive and rational discussion, you and I agree on a lot more than I agree with Nelson or his colleagues. Yet I am beyond the

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh, stop whining, you baby. Ever since you've joined this site, you've been happy to say all manner of things about other people, yet you're still whimpering when it a little of it gets directed back at you. Go run to your big brother 'fur. Maybe he'll fight this battle for you, too.

And as for your "context" complaint, I ain't buyin'. You say stupid things about science all the time. If you don't think what I said applied in this case, just transfer it to another one of your comments.

What's gotten into you, Brendan? I really don't recall you being so gratuitously nasty and pugnacious in the olden days. Well sometimes you'd be overly snarky in an attempt to be witty. I don't recall you being just plain nasty to other commenters. And when you were overly snarky, you often would admit that you'd stepped over the line here or there and step back and reformulate more reasonably. Nowadays, you are always just lashing out at people in very bald terms (playground language like that above, and no wit to speak of) and I haven't seen you walk anything back lately. I don't feel I quite recognize the bjkeefe who hangs

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Brendan,
You say that the following remark is a bit of snippiness from me:

(1) I guess I'm not clear why you get to call me various names and attribute unflattering motives to me all you wish, while I don't even have the right to one sentence of "snippiness."

I didn't say you didn't have the right to be snippy. Be however you want. Doesn't mean I'm not going to say something about it if the mood strikes, but I don't deny your right to say whatever you want.

(2) But putting that aside, I stand by my claim. Unlike many of your attacks against me, it does not involve psychoanalyzing you -- my criteria are pretty much behavioral: Does Nelson attack his opponents in order to attack their conclusions? I didn't catch him doing this. Do you? As i read you, you admit that you do, and you think it's fine.

I think you're mischaracterizing this somewhat. First, I don't "psychoanalyze." I make reasoned conjectures based on familiarity with the person with whom I'm speaking, the source, patterns of sound bites and code words, connections with an organization, and so on. Second, the word "attack" is a little overly dramatic. I speak plainly, I use ridicule, etc. Snake oil salesmen and accommodationists may take pride

Bloggin said: "Scientific arguments are inductive, not deductive -- with a good deductive argument, the assumptions can't be true while the conclusion is false. With a good inductive argument, the assumptions may all be true and the reasoning as good as any ever achieved, yet the conclusion can still be false. This is because the conclusion of an inductive argument goes beyond its premises, while the premises of a good deductive argument already "contain" its conclusion." So I got out my intro to logic by Copi for a little more explanation. It seems to put it simply, that an inductive argument uses some assumptions, which as you say are outside the premises. Like: Socrates is a man and is mortal. Plato is a man and is mortal. Aristotle is a man and is mortal, therefore it may be safe to assume even though we have not tested every case, that all men are mortal. As opposed to the deductive argument all men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. In this case the premises don't have to be true, but if they are the conclusion is therefore true. Then you go on to say: it

Quoting bjkeefe: Up to you. I think you're being oversensitive, especially about the response I posted that started you down this path again, and I think you ought to toughen up a little bit if you're going to participate in an online forum. But, if you'd rather not, that's your right.

This is my version of toughening up -- or at least saving time. I have no interest in trading insults, Brendan. I prefer ignoring you to getting dragged into defending my own motives (or attacking yours back) ad nauseam.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: What's gotten into you, Brendan? [...]

This board used to have far fewer wingnuts like bhh who provoked me with their own nastiness. It's also true that you used to have a better sense of humor and a thicker skin, and you weren't always such a pearl-clutching drone, obsessed with other people's decorum.

To Francoamerican: Thanks for your explanation of final causes. I have so many tabs up, I can't find you last comment, but can I assume that you agree in the Aristotilean notion of purpose? (I think that's how you defined final causes). You said this originally..."not the "final" causes that seem to operate in living organisms, which unlike inanimate matter form autonomous, self-replicating wholes. (I defy methodological naturalists aka materialists to explain how the latter arose out of the random motion of atoms....) " So you think that some sort of pre existing purpose is needed to explain how life came from inanimate objects?

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: This is my version of toughening up -- or at least saving time. I have no interest in trading insults, Brendan. I prefer ignoring you to getting dragged into defending my own motives (or attacking yours back) ad nauseam.

Whatever. I am not asking you to defend your motives. I'm simply pointing out that I think your attitude about creationists is wrongheaded. Or at least I was at the start of this until you insisted on resurrecting everything else. I am also not looking to trade insults. If my disagreeing vehemently with you or my expressing my honest assessment of your attitude strikes you as an insult, well, I don't know what else to tell you besides my earlier statement that I think you're being oversensitive. Sorry, but if I think you're being stupid about something, I'm going to say so. But if it makes you feel better to ignore me (now that you've put up half a dozen posts venting your every last gripe with me, I mean), hey, by all means.

Quoting badhatharry: Bloggin said:

Still not sure about your problem with naturalistic materialism is except that you're just an asshole. just kidding!

No problem with naturalistic materialism necessarily. My objection was to methodological naturalism -- the view that non-naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanations are by their very nature not scientific (as opposed to their not being supported by the evidence in the actual world.

Quoting bjkeefe: This board used to have far fewer wingnuts like bhh who provoked me with their own nastiness.

It's also true that you used to have a better sense of humor and a thicker skin, and you weren't always such a pearl-clutching drone, obsessed with other people's decorum.

The pearl-clutching was pretty witty, there Brendan. But the playground taunts of your previous message would only strike someone with a better sense of humor than I have as even more jejune and less funny than I found them.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: The pearl-clutching was pretty witty, there Brendan. But the playground taunts of your previous message would only strike someone with a better sense of humor than I have as even more jejune and less funny than I found them.

You're sorely mistaken if you think I'm looking to you to be the sole arbiter of what's funny. Or appropriate. Or whatever. You don't like what I write, don't read it.

Franco, You mean all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims in France don't believe that God created the world? Are there really no creationists in Europe? Not even Africa, South America, Asia or Australia? None? They're all in the United States? The Pope lives where Franco and what country is he from? Hint, both countries neighbor France.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: No problem with naturalistic materialism necessarily. My objection was to methodological naturalism -- the view that non-naturalistic or supernaturalistic explanations are by their very nature not scientific (as opposed to their not being supported by the evidence in the actual world.

Yep, this has been very informative. It's been difficult to hold back my usual nastiness, but I'm glad I was able to. Just one more little itty bitty thing. Popper and falsifiability. It was my understanding that his standard was that any scientific statement had to be made in such a way that it could be falsified. From what I remember, that is because there were so many wild claims being made from the psycho-analytic world that there needed to be some standard for claims made. What is Popper's standing today?

Quoting badhatharry: So you think that some sort of pre existing purpose is needed to explain how life came from inanimate objects?

I have no idea. Neither does anyone else. I merely said, echoing Kant, that living organisms are autonomous, self-replicating (and self-conscious in the case of human beings) wholes that are not explicable in mechanistic terms.

Quoting Lyle: The Pope lives where Franco and what country is he from? Hint, both countries neighbor France.

I was referring to educated people, not people of your ilk. The Catholic Church has officially acknowledged both the truth of evolution and of modern physics.

True, the Catholic Church has, but they also believe and teach that God created the world. If I was uneducated Franco how would I know that Italy and Germany border France? How would I know that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe God created the world? How would I know Jews, Christians, and Muslims live in France? Mime me that Franco.

Quoting bjkeefe: You're sorely mistaken if you think I'm looking to you to be the sole arbiter of what's funny. Or appropriate. Or whatever.

You don't like what I write, don't read it.

Keefe, you're obviously in your rights to write whatever you'd like, but it's better for me and other folks who enjoy your and BN's conversation if you guys keep it going. Keep your substance and meet him halfway on the style. BN scores a civility point and you score a Perlstein's Law point. Everybody wins!

Quoting claymisher: Keefe, you're obviously in your rights to write whatever you'd like, but it's better for me and other folks who enjoy your and BN's conversation if you guys keep it going. Keep your substance and meet him halfway on the style. BN scores a civility point and you score a Perlstein's Law point. Everybody wins!

Perlstein's Law? I know I should know this, but please explain... :-)

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: What's gotten into you, Brendan? I really don't recall you being so gratuitously nasty and pugnacious in the olden days. Well sometimes you'd be overly snarky in an attempt to be witty. I don't recall you being just plain nasty to other commenters. And when you were overly snarky, you often would admit that you'd stepped over the line here or there and step back and reformulate more reasonably. Nowadays, you are always just lashing out at people in very bald terms (playground language like that above, and no wit to speak of) and I haven't seen you walk anything back lately. I don't feel I quite recognize the bjkeefe who hangs around here now.

Welcome to BJ's confrontational style of discourse. When all discussions become contests, that must be won, as BJ tends to make them, with people he is disagreeing with, he has always been quite "gratuitously nasty and pugnacious." I'm surprised that it took you till now to notice.

Quoting claymisher: BN, can you give me the quick-and-dirty explanation of Horgan's dated philosophy of science? Is it that he's a straight-up Popperian?

Hi clay,
I don't know that he's a Popperian, if that implies a deep understanding of Popper and agreement with him in the details of his philosophy. I rather suspect that he may not even be aware of the deductive account of science behind Popper's insistence on 'falsifiability', given the way he appeals to it as a kind of common sense. I'd say my objection is simpler and broader. John tends to assume that there is some simple line between scientific and unscientific claims -- a distinction that you can see just by looking at the hypothesis itself without getting into the evaluation of the evidence. However, I admit that my view of John's views is based on what he says here on BloggingHeads, not on his books. If you have read them and know more than i do about what he says in more careful, considered moments, please let me know.

Quoting TwinSwords: Perlstein's Law?

I know I should know this, but please explain... :-)

From the great Rick "Nixonland" Perlstein:

In an online argument, the badder a wingnut gets his butt beat, the more likely they are to excoriate the butt-beater for using bad words.

(Not that BN is a wingnut)

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Hi clay,
I don't know that he's a Popperian, if that implies a deep understanding of Popper and agreement with him in the details of his philosophy. I rather suspect that he may not even be aware of the deductive account of science behind Popper's insistence on 'falsifiability', given the way he appeals to it as a kind of common sense.

I'd say my objection is simpler and broader. John tends to assume that there is some simple line between scientific and unscientific claims -- a distinction that you can see just by looking at the hypothesis itself without getting into the evaluation of the evidence.

However, I admit that my view of John's views is based on what he says here on BloggingHeads, not on his books. If you have read them and know more than i do about what he says in more careful, considered moments, please let me know.

I read the first half of "The End of Science," and if I remember correctly, that's the book where he has a strange interview with Popper himself. Again, if I remember correctly, he asks Popper about the problems with the Popperian system but

Quoting claymisher: From the great Rick "Nixonland" Perlstein:

(Not that BN is a wingnut)

LOL! Thanks for the reminder. Now that you mention it, I do remember that, from his now-abandoned CFAF blog.

Actually George Johnson does a pretty good job in Fire In The Mind of summarizing the path from stew of chemicals where certain molecules are attracted to one another, to energy pumping metabolisms, to cells, to multi-cellular organisms etc. It's a fantastic story but not wholly ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination. Carl Zimmer also does a good job of a similar recounting in Evolution.

Quoting piscivorous: Welcome to BJ's confrontational style of discourse. When all discussions become contests, that must be won, as BJ tends to make them, with people he is disagreeing with, he has always been quite "gratuitously nasty and pugnacious." I'm surprised that it took you till now to notice.

Worth preserving as the new standard for lack of self-awareness.

Quoting claymisher: I read the first half of "The End of Science," and if I remember correctly, that's the book where he has a strange interview with Popper himself. Again, if I remember correctly, he asks Popper about the problems with the Popperian system but Popper doesn't understand Horgan's questions.

I should finish that book.

I was poking around wikipedia reading about falsification and came across a lovely little educational section regarding evolution and falsifiability. If anyone's interested it's worth a few minutes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti..._unfalsifiable

Quoting claymisher: Keefe, you're obviously in your rights to write whatever you'd like, but it's better for me and other folks who enjoy your and BN's conversation if you guys keep it going. Keep your substance and meet him halfway on the style. BN scores a civility point and you score a Perlstein's Law point. Everybody wins!

Noted.

Yes, at first, Popper didn't feel that evolution was a theory in that it wasn't falsifiable. That doesn't mean he didn't believe it, just that it didn't meet his standard. But then he said this. “I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (Dialectica 32:344-346). Here's back at you with a good link.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/2...-tautology.htm So apparently creationists are using Popper's ideas to prop up there own. Interesting how things get taken out of context. It's a good thing that never happens here!

Quoting TwinSwords: Perlstein's Law?

I know I should know this, but please explain... :-)

You've already got the text from clay, but if you want the link for future reference, too, here it is.

What are the odds of this? A representative from the Disco 'Tute speaking misleadingly right from the start. Note how Nelson mentions "evolutionary biology" as one of two fields of study in his undergraduate years, says he "studied the same two subjects" in grad school, and then finishes by saying he got his Ph.D. The strong impression created is that his Ph.D. had something to do with evolutionary biology. In fact, his Ph.D. is in philosophy.

Sam Harris in the NYTimes on Collins's appointment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/op...p/AkJglvFNxR+A

Quoting Me&theboys: Sam Harris in the NYTimes on Collins's appointment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/op...p/AkJglvFNxR+A

Thanks for that link. A good read. Nice to see the NYT finally let Sam back in the door, too.

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks for that link. A good read. Nice to see the NYT finally let Sam back in the door, too.

Yes - that quite surprised me.

This thread has grown fast, and I'm not up to date, but I'm going to go ahead and respond in order anyway.

Quoting Me&theboys: Not at all - I meant your view that there is no harm in giving them apparent credibility.

Ah, but that's not my view. My view is that debating them doesn't give them more credibility than they already have, given the polarization that exists on the issue. (Bloggin' Noggin puts this much better than I did. I agree with his points in the post following yours.)

Quoting Me&theboys: Well, first, there are many, many people who couldn't care less about the scientific and elite consensus, and just as many who don't know what the consensus is.

Agree. And is this problem (if it is one) more likely to be addressed through the current situation or by discussion and addressing and illuminating the disagreement? I think the latter. I don't particularly think a debate on the science between a scientist and creationist is going to be particularly useful (for the same reason that a debate on global warming or some such won't be -- people can find an authority who supports their view and can't usually independently analyze

Quoting badhatharry: It seems to me that anyone who believes in God is a creationist at some level, so you probably know a lot of them Stephanie, because in this country most people believe in God.

I know a lot of people who believe in God, yes. (I usually do myself, even.) However, that's not what is meant by scientific creationism or intelligent design or all that.

Stephanie, to paraphrase a question that Brendan raised earlier, at what point can scientists say "you know this whole theory is bunk, your method of engaging me in debate is solely to pad your scientific resume and try to redefine science into something it is not, therefore I'm not going to waste my time with this discussion." Would it be okay to refuse to debate astrology, numerology, phrenology, etc. etc? If scientists should lower their standards and take on these ideas, what other more important debates should they skip in order to make room for these? How many of these debates are necessary to show the civility of science? It seems to me that the religious/creationist side will take any and all of the publicity it can get. It seems that Richard Dawkins could devote the rest of his career to these questions. How much should the scientific community allow the un-scientific theists to frame the debate and control the terms of play?

Quoting stephanie: I know a lot of people who believe in God, yes. (I usually do myself, even.) However, that's not what is meant by scientific creationism or intelligent design or all that.

Fair enough. So you make a distinction between those who attempt to show scientifically that god created the earth and those who say that there is a god and there's no way of proving that to be true or false. I guess my original point is that people who believe in god probably believe he created the world also. I guess the fact that they don't dabble in the details makes the difference.

How do theologians and pals deal with the reductio ad absurdum of god? If you say Jesus is our savior and I say god is a thirteen story tall wizard who lives in a dark mountain and never lets me win, and neither of us has any proof for or against, then what? This is the kind of argument even little kids can come up with so I'm sure there's a standardized response from phd-level theologians, but I've never heard it.

Wow, bjkeefe certainly helped to create a horrible atmosphere in the comments thread. I'm not exactly sure if this is typical, I typically just watch the diavlogs, not the comments, and I think I'll try to keep it that way in the future. But I was surprised to see the source of the hostility: he's always seemed pretty reasonable any other time I quickly glance below the video.

Quoting badhatharry: It seems to me that anyone who believes in God is a creationist at some level, so you probably know a lot of them Stephanie, because in this country most people believe in God.

Of course they don't want to come off as ignorant bible beaters, so they also believe in evolution, but I think a lot of people (most), don't like to think of the human race as some kind of cosmic accident.

To augment what Stephanie said, since you still don't seem to be fully accepting the distinction, let me give it a shot. Yes, it is possible to think of the verb create in a very broad and generic sense, and in this sense, I suppose you could say just about everyone who believes in God-as-the-Creator in some form or another is a "creationist," whether or not he or she accepts evolutionary theory. However, in the sense widely understood in the context which, for example, this diavlog takes place, creationism is much more specific. It means a belief or belief system that explicitly rejects the idea that most, or all, of what we see around us in life forms could have

Quoting Enigma: Wow, bjkeefe certainly helped to create a horrible atmosphere in the comments thread. I'm not exactly sure if this is typical, I typically just watch the diavlogs, not the comments, and I think I'll try to keep it that way in the future. But I was surprised to see the source of the hostility: he's always seemed pretty reasonable any other time I quickly glance below the video.

We've had an unwelcome flood of trolls lately. It can exhaust your patience.

I am planning to respond to Brendan. His posts to me were just the most complicated, with links and stuff, so I'm addressing them last.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Stephanie, to paraphrase a question that Brendan raised earlier, at what point can scientists say "you know this whole theory is bunk, your method of engaging me in debate is solely to pad your scientific resume and try to redefine science into something it is not, therefore I'm not going to waste my time with this discussion." Would it be okay to refuse to debate astrology, numerology, phrenology, etc. etc?

First, I'm not saying that anyone needs to debate anyone else. What I'm addressing is this idea that we should be afraid to debate certain ideas because that is crediting them or critical of people merely because they choose to engage in (or as with bloggingheads.tv host) such a debate. With creationism specifically, I don't think that argument works, for the reasons I stated. I also do tend to think that more debate is the answer and truth will win out and all that, although I admit that that's a bit of an ideological and idealistic position, rather than one I can prove. Second, however, I think I largely

No, I do accept the distinction, Brendan. I'm sorry not to have caught it earlier. I suppose I was playing some kind of devil's advocacy role in challenging the terminology. OK? you asshole! (just kidding)

Quoting badhatharry: No, I do accept the distinction, Brendan.

I'm sorry not to have caught it earlier. I suppose I was playing some kind of devil's advocacy role in challenging the terminology.

Okay, but as long as ...

Quoting badhatharry: ... it's really all just words anyway ...

... I figured a little precision was in order.

Quoting badhatharry: OK? you asshole! (just kidding)

I like this new habit of yours. Evidently, it's okay to say whatever one wants as long as the all-purpose fix-it "(just kidding)" is supplied at the end, is that right? If that's all I have to do from now on to keep from upsetting you with whatever I say, I'm delighted to play along.

Quoting stephanie: ..............

Stephanie, I get the feeling from your reply you like to argue for the sake of arguing, not because you are particularly committed to the content of your position nor that interested in the content of the replies you receive, and I just don't have time for that kind of engagement.

Sam Harris in the NYTimes on Collins's appointment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/op...p/AkJglvFNxR+A

A perfect example of why many people are troubled by "new atheist" extremism. Harris really does sound like he's on a witch hunt for heretical beliefs. His case against Collins' qualifications--- buried in the last four paragraphs -- is ridiculous: somehow Collins' belief in a soul will pollute and subvert neuroscience, suppress research, and generally plunge us back into the Dark Ages. The conclusion was an especially sleazy rhetorical question based on a preposterous assumption:

Must we really entrust the future of biomedical research in the United States to a man who sincerely believes that a scientific understanding of human nature is impossible?

Here's my rhetorical questions: Should scientists have to swear their allegiance to atheism? Should journalists patrol the universities for impure thoughts? It seems like the objections of Harris could only be allayed by a purging of heretical beliefs.

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay, but as long as ...

... I figured a little precision was in order.

I like this new habit of yours. Evidently, it's okay to say whatever one wants as long as the all-purpose fix-it "(just kidding)" is supplied at the end, is that right? If that's all I have to do from now on to keep from upsetting you with whatever I say, I'm delighted to play along.

I'm truly sorry about whatever I have done to disturb you so much and from this last post, I can see that things will never be right.

This point may have been beaten to death already, but I figured I'd respond just in case:

Quoting badhatharry: Fair enough. So you make a distinction between those who attempt to show scientifically that god created the earth and those who say that there is a god and there's no way of proving that to be true or false.

Kind of. The issue seems to me to be one of science, not belief. Whether one believes in an intelligent creator or not, one can't argue from that assumption and call it science, rather than theology. In doing science and identifying what are scientific conclusions, one instead follows certain generally agreed upon methods (observation of the observable world, testing of hypotheses, so on). As a personal or theological matter one might assume that the prime cause of all one sees is God or one might think that any concept of God is bunk, but if one sets that aside in doing science and follows the same scientific methodology it really doesn't make any different what one's personal views on such matters are. Scientific creationists or intelligent design advocates are people

Quoting Me&theboys: Stephanie, I get the feeling from your reply you like to argue for the sake of arguing, not because you are particularly committed to the content of your position nor that interested in the content of the replies you receive, and I just don't have time for that kind of engagement.

Given all the heat in this thread and what I actually said in my #157 (in which I tried to be as clear as possible, and to acknowledge agreement when I saw it), I find this somewhat odd and puzzling. However, I certainly have more than enough to respond to even without you weighing in.

Quoting Wonderment: A perfect example of why many people are troubled by "new atheist" extremism. Harris really does sound like he's on a witch hunt for heretical beliefs.

His case against Collins' qualifications--- buried in the last four paragraphs -- is ridiculous: somehow Collins' belief in a soul will pollute and subvert neuroscience, suppress research, and generally plunge us back into the Dark Ages.

The conclusion was an especially sleazy rhetorical question based on a preposterous assumption.

Gosh, I thought Harris was especially mild in this editorial. Is your issue just with Harris's style, or with the substance of his position? Do you not have any objections to the appointment of people with ideological/philosophical/religious positions that contain the potential for conflicts of interest with their public service responsibilities? Even if you have no objections to such appointments, surely you don't object to others' voicing their objections to such? I thought Harris's objections were pretty rational and presented with a minimum of hyperbole. Especially considering Collins's own brand of extremism: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially

Brendan, I’m going to try and cut to the main points, as this is already dreadfully long (you and I seem to share a propensity for long-windedness). Please let me know if I’m missing something as a result – it’s not intentional. The first issue is my question re “what’s the harm of debating creationists.” The answer seems to be that (1) debating an idiotic idea makes it seem less idiotic, and (2) that it gives them publicity and thus might increase their credibility among people, especially young people. My response is simply that I simply don’t find this convincing. We address idiotic ideas all the time, to point out that they are idiotic. That the idea is seen as such can be made clear in the context of the debate. When they are believed by lots of people, there’s even a good reason to do so, if you care about the issue. And re creationists, they already have publicity, publicity where their claims are unaddressed and they can distort the issue into one where people are ideologically motivated, unable to meet their claims, so on and so forth. Also, there is a lot of genuine

Quoting Me&theboys: Stephanie, I get the feeling from your reply you like to argue for the sake of arguing, not because you are particularly committed to the content of your position nor that interested in the content of the replies you receive, and I just don't have time for that kind of engagement.

Hi Me&,
It may just be pouring oil on the fire for me to step in here, but, at least based on the exchange immediately above (and the other things I've seen of stephanie's in the thread), I'm also puzzled trying to see how you draw this conclusion.
I don't see her switching positions just to play devil's advocate. I see her acknowledging common ground where there is some and trying to clarify the difference between what she is saying and how you understood her -- just the kind of thing that an intellectually honest interlocutor would try to do.
BN

Quoting badhatharry: I'm truly sorry about whatever I have done to disturb you so much and from this last post, I can see that things will never be right.

There is little need for you to apologize and no need for you to feel that "things will never be right." What I wanted to do by ending my last reply to you as I did was to illustrate that the criticisms you and a few others have been hurling at me lately are not coming from anyone who is free from exhibiting the same behaviors. I also wanted to indicate that I consider the boundaries of discourse on this forum to include acceptance of some amount of ... plain-speaking? Not pulling punches? Rough and tumble? Busting chops? Zinging? Snarking? ... whatever you want to call it. As I've said before, I tend to respond in kind, in both directions. It is also true that if I perceive the tone to be in the direction of less politeness or whatever you want to call it, I sometimes respond more aggressively. I'm not claiming that this is always appropriate, but it does have the advantage of working more often than not, at least

Quoting bjkeefe: Saw it. To that, and what you go on to say in the rest of this reply to me, I will just say that I am unsure whether your position is a reasonable one or a reasonable-sounding one.

Heh. Um, okay. I'm at least trying to be reasonable and not just sound sort of so.

Quoting bjkeefe: I guess my view of the creationist activists is that they are generally not interested in having an honest debate, but in pushing an agenda through subterfuge.

Yes, I get this, and this to me is one of the better arguments against it, although I'm still sufficiently convinced of the marketplace of ideas that I can see an argument, even if this were true, for confronting and opposing the dishonest claims. That is because I don't think all people who say they believe in creationism (or are undecided) are unreachable or dishonest, and thus that pointing out the problematic claims (such as that "evolutionists" insist that children be taught that God does not exist, to take the one I've been harping on) which are currently made unchecked in many forums. Or, for that matter, that real scientists are scared of or unable to address the

Quoting Me&theboys: Gosh, I thought Harris was especially mild in this editorial. Is your issue just with Harris's style, or with the substance of his position? Do you not have any objections to the appointment of people with ideological/philosophical/religious positions that contain the potential for conflicts of interest with their public service responsibilities? Even if you have no objections to such appointments, surely you don't object to others' voicing their objections to such? I thought Harris's objections were pretty rational and presented with a minimum of hyperbole. Especially considering Collins's own brand of extremism: “If the moral law is just a side effect of evolution, then there is no such thing as good or evil. It’s all an illusion. We’ve been hoodwinked. Are any of us, especially the strong atheists, really prepared to live our lives within that worldview?” and “science offers no answers to the most pressing questions of human existence” and “the claims of atheistic materialism must be steadfastly resisted.”

Well put, Me&. In particular, that fifth slide from Collins really bothered me, too. In general, I agree that Harris's tone was quite measured, and that he was raising legitimate questions, which you reiterated well.

Thanks for the reassurance, BN. I'm not always the best communicator, but it's good to know my posts don't read to everyone quite differently than intended.

Gosh, I thought Harris was especially mild in this editorial. Is your issue just with Harris's style, or with the substance of his position?

What substance? The article seemed asinine to me.

Do you not have any objections to the appointment of people with ideological/philosophical/religious positions that contain the potential for conflicts of interest with their public service responsibilities?

I would have objections if there was something to object to. For example, if a public health official thought abortion was murder or that homosexuality was either a sin or a disease, I would object strongly. But since when is believing in God a conflict of interest? Do you think President Obama has a conflict of interest because he is a believing Christian? Do you think his beliefs diminish his "public service responsibilities?" Do you think he's in cahoots with Collins to bring neuroscience to a halt? Or perhaps Obama is a dupe, a stooge of the Christian Right when he says, "Dr. Collins is one of the top scientists in the world, and his groundbreaking work has changed the very ways we consider our health and examine disease.”

Especially considering Collins's own brand

Stephanie, sorry to jump in here but, I think one part that hasn't been addressed is that scientists HAVE responded to the claims of creationists time and time again. But when they do (PZ Myers, Dennett, Dawkins et al) the creationists whine about how mean they are and how they don't respect religion etc., etc. What the accomodationists want is for the more scientific minded side to come in and treat the faithful with kid-gloves like in this diavlog. They want the representatives of the scientific method to be reasonable rather than scientific. This is why people like Myers and Coyne ridiculed the back-patting nature of this "debate." My belief is that any person who has ties to (or accepts money from) an organization whose goal is to craft science that conforms to religion should not be allowed into any serious scientific discussion. Sorry, but they've lost their chance to be taken seriously when every time they have been given the benefit of the doubt they have used it undermine science and advance religion. Any discussion that allows them to be a part of it is moving away

Vox Day thinks so. Certainly Harris has the symptoms.

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Hi Me&,
It may just be pouring oil on the fire for me to step in here, but, at least based on the exchange immediately above (and the other things I've seen of stephanie's in the thread), I'm also puzzled trying to see how you draw this conclusion.
I don't see her switching positions just to play devil's advocate. I see her acknowledging common ground where there is some and trying to clarify the difference between what she is saying and how you understood her -- just the kind of thing that an intellectually honest interlocutor would try to do.
BN

I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to this - it feels like first grade. Without spending too much time on this, I will give two quick examples: Me&theboys: Not at all - I meant your view that there is no harm in giving them apparent credibility. Stephanie: Ah, but that's not my view. My view is that debating them doesn't give them more credibility than they already have, given the polarization that exists on the issue. To which I now point out from her original post: QUOTE: ....I reject the idea that "giving them credibility" is something

Well then. Guess we're all clear on that one. Nothing beats innocuous platitides from our public officials.

Quoting stephanie: Brendan, I’m going to try and cut to the main points, as this is already dreadfully long (you and I seem to share a propensity for long-windedness).

Fight fight! ;^)

Please let me know if I’m missing something as a result – it’s not intentional.

Okay. ........ All right. Interjection here, added after everything else was written. As you may have already noticed, "long-winded" would be a polite way of describing my response. Therefore, I have broken it into three parts (due to per-post character limits): Part 0 (is this post) Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 I didn't notice that you missed something while I was hammering away at what follows, but maybe it'll occur to me, or maybe something I'll have said will remind you, and you can repeat it as a follow-up. Also, odds are I missed a few of your points despite (because of) how long my reply runs, so don't hesitate to follow-up on those, either.

This is part 1 of a three-part reply. Index here.

Quoting stephanie: The first issue is my question re “what’s the harm of debating creationists.” The answer seems to be that (1) debating an idiotic idea makes it seem less idiotic, and (2) that it gives them publicity and thus might increase their credibility among people, especially young people. My response is simply that I simply don’t find this convincing. We address idiotic ideas all the time, to point out that they are idiotic. That the idea is seen as such can be made clear in the context of the debate. When they are believed by lots of people, there’s even a good reason to do so, if you care about the issue.

As a general principle, I agree: I'm all for vigorous debate, a believer that the truth will out, that any worthwhile idea can not only stand up to attack but is often made stronger by it, and so on. I cannot and do not fault your instinct to apply this attitude to the specific issue of whether to debate creationists. In fact, I have only recently become as adamant as I am against debating creationists. And to be clear, my

This is part 2 of a three-part reply. Index here.

Quoting stephanie: In fact, re the “it’s not science” argument, I agree (in that I tend to think that "scientific" creationists are not sticking to scientific arguments and methods, as I understand those to be defined), and actually think that’s one of the good things that can be discussed – what is science, and why?

Again, as a general principle, I know what you're saying and I find it quite resonant. And again, my objection here is due to a flawed assumption on your part -- you are assuming the best of the creationists. The truth is, they don't want any part of making clear what is science and what is not, and you're not going to be able to illustrate the distinctions very well by debating them, because they know how to, and want to, obfuscate those very differences. The thing is, creationism as not-science and evolution as very good science are two points that have been established to the satisfaction of people qualified to judge for many decades now. That these statuses remain unclear in the eyes of so many in the lay audience is a clear demonstration of the view

This is part 3 of a three-part reply. Index here.

Quoting stephanie: The second issue relates then to the question, why worry so much about the fact that lots of laypeople believe in creationism in the US? What’s the harm? One fear seems to be that creationism in some form will ultimately win out and be taught in schools. If we are talking legally taught, I simply don’t think that’s going to happen. It’s clearly illegal and so far there are no signs that that’s going to change (that the ID people will convince the courts to allow it). Sure, no question there are efforts all the time and court battles required and such, but that’s the case about lots of stuff – people do unconstitutional things and litigation is needed to enforce the Bill of Rights.

To answer sort of in reverse order, I've already touched on the very real and very non-trivial costs associated with duking it out in court and in the political arena at the school board level when it comes to dealing with creationists (and IDiots -- I don't buy the "Intelligent Design" distinction as anything but

Well, thanks for the reply, Me&. I guess I won't say anything more lest you interpret it as me keeping you after class.

Quoting Wonderment: What substance? The article seemed asinine to me.

I won't argue about this part, except to reiterate that we had different (subjective) reactions and to wish that it had been possible for us all to have read the column without knowing who the author was.

Quoting Wonderment: I would have objections if there was something to object to. For example, if a public health official thought abortion was murder or that homosexuality was either a sin or a disease, I would object strongly. But since when is believing in God a conflict of interest?

I don't think that's what Harris was saying; e.g.,

It would seem a brilliant choice. Dr. Collins’s credentials are impeccable: he is a physical chemist, a medical geneticist and the former head of the Human Genome Project. He is also, by his own account, living proof that there is no conflict between science and religion. In 2006, he published “The Language of God,” in which he claimed to demonstrate “a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony” between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity.

Dr. Collins is regularly praised by secular scientists for what he is not: he is not a “young earth creationist,” nor is he a proponent of “intelligent design.” Given

Quoting rcocean: Vox Day thinks so.

Certainly Harris has the symptoms.

Just the sort of "reasoning" one might expect from a religious nutjob.

Quoting bjkeefe:
Finally, as to dishonesty about goals, I'll refer you again to the Wedge Document mentioned above and add briefly that for many creationists, the stated goals of, say, having an honest debate and being properly skeptical about evolution are just the sheep's clothing for the wolf that wants to undermine belief in the scientific method in general, and get Christianist principles moved into other areas of education and policy.

I thought I should talk about Paul Nelson's connection to the Wedge Strategy. At the end of the Wedge Document, there is a Wedge Strategy Progress Summary. It begins -

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful alternative.)

Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Darwinism.

What is amazing is that these morons actually lie to themselves. The Wedge Document was drafted in 1998. Nelson's book has yet to appear. The University of Chicago Press has no involvement with this. Evolutionary Monographs is

Well, well, well, said, said, said. Stephanie, I think Brendan conveys my feelings even more lucidly than I could present them. Brendan, damn, I forgot how great NOVA is! Great links. [added: Ken Miller who I recommended for bhTv and discussions like these (especially since he is a Catholic), was featured prominently in the Nova episode and testified in the Dover trial.] [added: How cool to see Neil Shubin on the Nova special too! Can't wait to see him back on Sci Sat.]

Quoting thprop: I thought I should talk about Paul Nelson's connection to the Wedge Strategy. At the end of the Wedge Document, there is a Wedge Strategy Progress Summary. It begins -

What is amazing is that these morons actually lie to themselves. The Wedge Document was drafted in 1998. Nelson's book has yet to appear. The University of Chicago Press has no involvement with this. Evolutionary Monographs is a small project of one UofC professor. John Lynch completely took apart these claims in 2006. Nothing has changed since then. A snippet -

When Lynch first posted his takedown in 2005 (and reposted it in 2006), Nelson actually responded. Funniest part, Disco demoted him -

After some comments, Nelson responded again -

Thanks for the update. That was a hoot.

Dude, I would pay for a dash (Not alot, just teeny bit) of Asperger's. Alot of those guys are crazy smart.

Quoting claymisher: Thanks for the update. That was a hoot.

Second that. Thanks, thprop.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Well, well, well, said, said, said. [...]

LOL! Thanks.

Certainly Harris has the symptoms.

Not appropriate, in my view, to pathologize Harris or any other "new atheist". I say that as an old atheist.

Vox Day a "religious nutjob" ? Doubtful. Go comment on his blog - he probably knows you.

Given the position Collins is being appointed to, it's fair to ask questions about them and to raise them as concerns.

But there was nothing in the whole article to be concerned about! Harris could not come up with one single fact-based criticism of Collins. Nothing on gays, nothing on evolution, nothing on women's rights, nothing on global warming, nothing on stem-cell research. Nothing on nothing. I read the whole article waiting for the punchline. But there was not a single word on any of the issues that might raise red flags among people concerned with a conflict between science and faith, as opposed to those looking for an opportunity to gratuitously bash religion. In short: cheap shots, easy target.

Quoting Wonderment: But there was nothing in the whole article to be concerned about!

Harris could not come up with one single fact-based criticism of Collins. Nothing on gays, nothing on evolution, nothing on women's rights, nothing on global warming, nothing on stem-cell research. Nothing on nothing.

I read the whole article waiting for the punchline.

But there was not a single word on any of the issues that might raise red flags among people concerned with a conflict between science and faith, as opposed to those looking for an opportunity to gratuitously bash religion. In short: cheap shots, easy target.

Hmmm. I can sort of see what you're saying, but if there were anything as specific as you give as examples, it's hard to imagine how Collins would have even made the short list, so I think your asking Harris to be able to give such concrete criticisms is a bit unrealistic. Also, it does seem to me that Harris's worries about how Collins might view neurological research were fairly specific, though I grant it's somewhat speculative and not based on anything specific that Collins has said:*

Most scientists who study the human mind are convinced that

Quoting rcocean: Vox Day a "religious nutjob" ? Doubtful.

Yes. Saying this about Collins -- "unexceptional religious beliefs" -- is proof all by itself. His hysteria about atheists: ditto. Another reason. Another. Another. Another. Etc.

Go comment on his blog - he probably knows you.

Why, does he post here? Is he dkschwartz on this site?

Hmmm. I can sort of see what you're saying, but if there were anything as specific as you give as examples, it's hard to imagine how Collins would have even made the short list...

Exactly, which is why the article is much ado about nothing.

One good point: it's nice to see that, FINALLY, you're not interested in taking Obama to task for something. ;^)

Actually, I would love to see Obama spend more political capital aiding and abetting the millions of atheists like me who voted for him. Does he have an out-of-the-closet atheist in his cabinet? We are still a minority that could use a little affirmative action.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Actually George Johnson does a pretty good job in Fire In The Mind of summarizing the path from stew of chemicals where certain molecules are attracted to one another, to energy pumping metabolisms, to cells, to multi-cellular organisms etc. It's a fantastic story but not wholly ridiculous by any stretch of the imagination. Carl Zimmer also does a good job of a similar recounting in Evolution.

A fantastic? story? Not wholly? ridiculous? by any stretch? of the imagination? That pretty much sums up how I feel about such fantastic just so stories. Unfortunately, my taste for science fiction is underdeveloped.

It is clear from recent events, that BjKeefe has vanquished the evildoer, badhatharry. But even the villain, before she leaves the stage is allowed a soliloquy. Well, not always, but I’m allowing it. I joined this forum with the hope of being able to have conversations with people. As my profile stated, I am most interested in evolutionary psychology and philosophy. And I do have a political standpoint from which I view the ways of the world. It is true that I have at times been confrontational, most notably when I called what one of the heads said ‘smarmy and self righteous’. But considering what you all say about these guys and about each other, I don’t think that stands out as any more extreme. Also I made the colossal error of questioning the drama around global warming. OK, I’m guilty of those two crimes, but other than that, I think my posts have been pretty civil, if not interesting. As to the last incident. I really was kidding, Brendan. I was trying in my awkward way to acknowledge the animus which had developed between us and sort of laugh it off. But you weren’t having it. And finally, as far as the ‘it’s all bullshit, anyway’ remark that Brendan keeps

Quoting Bloggin' Noggin: Well, thanks for the reply, Me&. I guess I won't say anything more lest you interpret it as me keeping you after class.

No need for us to continue. Brendan has carried the day with a very thoughtful and civil response to Stephanie. He has said (at a far superior level of quality) what I would have said if I cared enough. Am very interested to see how Stephanie replies.

Uncle, I see that you later say that you agree with Brendan, but I'm going to go ahead and reply to you too, first, since yours is shorter.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Stephanie, sorry to jump in here but, I think one part that hasn't been addressed is that scientists HAVE responded to the claims of creationists time and time again.

This is a good point, and I definitely need to research the history of discussions between the two camps (which is an overly simplistic way of putting it and so on), I admit. I was jumping in here in response to the claim that evolutionists (whether scientists or otherwise) should not engage in such discussions, that it did harm, and that's what I'm opposing just as a general concept re public discourse, on the one hand, and two, as assuming a weaker or more fragile position for evolution than exists (given the overwhelming nature of the evidence, legal rulings, so on). It also relates to something I've been vaguely wondering about since I jumped into this debate, which is that one thing I've found odd in the past is how many books there are about evolutionary biology that seem to start

Quoting Wonderment: What substance? The article seemed asinine to me......

In case you can tolerate more antagonism: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....with-religion/ http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_appointm.php http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...on_francis.php http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com...s-collins.html http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ancis-collins/

If there's anything that the last century of scientific discovery has shown us, it is that our mind's difficulty in imaging things over huge time scales or happenings at levels that are difficult to perceive (atomic, grand stellar distances) is not a very good guide for determining what is fiction and what is simply counter-intuitive. The idea that Mt Everest was once at the bottom of the sea seemed pretty sci-fi before the theory of plate-tectonics. The idea that whales were land animals that went back to the water was utterly ridiculous. We were also assured that there was no transitional fossils from fish to tetrapods, until Neil Shubin found one (see Your Inner Fish.) The molecular stew beginning of organic chemistry may be hard for us to fathom but the theory is based on the stuff that we actually know happens. Go to George's book and read it for yourself. It's not nearly as far-fetched as it might sound initially. Especially the recent evidence in the role that RNA played in the story. I would add that any narrative that attempts to describe

Quoting Me&theboys: I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to this - it feels like first grade.

Yeah, okay, and I suppose I'm not sure why I'm responding, as I'm admittedly irritated by your assumption of bad faith, when that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense in context. (If I decide to play devil's advocate, which I think can have its place, I'll acknowledge it. If I were to troll, something I won't do and don't personally see the point of, but some people seem to enjoy, I imagine I'd pick something a bit more entertaining to troll about.)

Quoting Me&theboys: Without spending too much time on this, I will give two quick examples:

Me&theboys: Not at all - I meant your view that there is no harm in giving them apparent credibility.

Stephanie: Ah, but that's not my view. My view is that debating them doesn't give them more credibility than they already have, given the polarization that exists on the issue.

To which I now point out from her original post: QUOTE: ....I reject the idea that "giving them credibility" is something to be afraid of, especially in a small forum like this one. If the evidence is strongly on one side (as I believe it is here), I don't understand

Steph, thanks for the response. We'll just have to agree to disagree. On a tangent here's some other thoughts that came to mind when reading this thread. To put this issue into the simplest form: I'm all for honest debates between conflicting ideas in a scientific framework devoid of supernatural loopholes. The creationists/ID proponents are free to do research and publish for peer review and come to the table for an honest debate. And that door has been open to them for many years now. Any discussion that allows God into the picture has no interest for me. You can say that God created natural selection, or God created the big bang, or that God caused my fingers to type these letters. There's no logic or reason to where this magical entity can be inserted into the equation. It's the ultimate argument for getting us nowhere. It's a matter of efficiency. I can't help notice that while some theories may have included the supernatural, once upon a time, none of them do anymore. At least the ones that provide any usefulness in reality. Even something as quirky as quantum mechanics (where

I will grant you one questionable aspect of the appointment (that Harris failed to mention): Did Obama do it in order to reach out to fundies? Was it a politically calculated move? If so, I think it's a rather brilliant one. First, it advances Obama's mainstream and politically popular belief that there is no necessary conflict between religion and science; and second, Obama gets a sophisticated Evangelical on his team who shares liberal views and will never embarrass him with crackpot opinions on evolution, gays, women or global warming. Win-Win. Too bad Collins is not a Muslim. Now THAT would have caused a major shit storm.

Quoting Wonderment: I will grant you one questionable aspect of the appointment (that Harris failed to mention):

Did Obama do it in order to reach out to fundies? Was it a politically calculated move?

If so, I think it's a rather brilliant one. First, it advances Obama's mainstream and politically popular belief that there is no necessary conflict between religion and science; and second, Obama gets a sophisticated Evangelical on his team who shares liberal views and will never embarrass him with crackpot opinions on evolution, gays, women or global warming. Win-Win.

Yes, I remember thinking something along these lines when the announcement was first made, too. Odds are, there were indeed some of these political calculations in mind, and I think I said somewhere that I thought Collins would be a good choice for when it came time to talk to conservative members of Congress about things like funding for stem-cell research.

Too bad Collins is not a Muslim. Now THAT would have caused a major shit storm.

That's the real reason Sanjay Gupta didn't get the Surgeon General gig, isn't it? ;^)

Quoting Francoamerican: A fantastic? story? Not wholly? ridiculous? by any stretch? of the imagination?

That pretty much sums up how I feel about such fantastic just so stories. Unfortunately, my taste for science fiction is underdeveloped.

Uncle Eb has already responded in this spirit, but given your taste for the old masters, I thought I'd remind you of what Haldane said:

I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.

I also find something of a contradiction in your simultaneous dismissal, of the proposed mechanisms for getting from non-living assemblages of chemicals to the beginnings of reproductive life, as both "fantastic" and "just so." Pardon my semantic quibbling, but it seems to me that the former connotes "No one in his right mind could possibly believe such a thing," while the latter suggests. "Ah, that is too easy an explanation." In any case, pardon my piling on, but I want to echo Eb's urging that you change your view from "science cannot and will never be able to explain these things" to "science is not

I'm just a country hick, so I like to tell stories.... I know a guy that grows huge plants. but he has constant issues with them. sometimes the stems are too weak and break, sometimes they are too dense and mold sets in, etc. So he is constantly adding this or that to his nutrients, spraying foliar this and microbial that. its a constant struggle and balancing act for him to manage that plant into "perfection" I know another guy - he says "i have no idea what, specifically, any plant needs any any given day in the innumerable conditions that occur." so he feeds and cares for his soil and figures the plants will take what they need, when they need it. his plants are a little healthier, and they require about 1/4 of the time to care for. I think stephany is arguing that you make healthy soil and see how the plants grow, while you and BJ etc. seem to want to micromanage the process. I think the Liberal ideas of open discussion, respect for people we disagree with, the market place of idea - these are the critical elements that create a healthy society(soil) that allow people(plants) the best

Quoting Wonderment: Exactly, which is why the article is much ado about nothing.

Weeelllll, pardon my saying so, but it seems to me much of the ado is coming from people overreacting to it. I guess we're not going to get any closer on this one, but once more, for the record, I will say that (1) I considered what Harris had to say reasonable if arguably moot, and (2) even if moot, valuable in the spirit of laying down a marker to register a complaint, or at least uneasiness. Probably Collins wouldn't have let his religious beliefs drive any of his NIH-related decisions, but I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to remind him that he will be watched, and I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to let the President know that as much as we might like him, we could be made a little happier about some of his choices. As, of course, you go on to say:

Actually, I would love to see Obama spend more political capital aiding and abetting the millions of atheists like me who voted for him. Does he have an out-of-the-closet atheist in his cabinet? We are

Quoting bjkeefe: [Added] (And isn't it interesting to observe: prescience <-> pre-science?)

heh. that inconsequential yet quite interesting observation will probably stick in my brain longer than anything else from this discussion. thanks

Quoting badhatharry: It is clear from recent events, that BjKeefe has vanquished the evildoer, badhatharry. But even the villain, before she leaves the stage is allowed a soliloquy. Well, not always, but I’m allowing it.

I joined this forum with the hope of being able to have conversations with people. As my profile stated, I am most interested in evolutionary psychology and philosophy. And I do have a political standpoint from which I view the ways of the world.

It is true that I have at times been confrontational, most notably when I called what one of the heads said ‘smarmy and self righteous’. But considering what you all say about these guys and about each other, I don’t think that stands out as any more extreme. Also I made the colossal error of questioning the drama around global warming.

OK, I’m guilty of those two crimes, but other than that, I think my posts have been pretty civil, if not interesting.

As to the last incident. I really was kidding, Brendan. I was trying in my awkward way to acknowledge the animus which had developed between us and sort of laugh it off. But you weren’t having it.

And finally, as far as the ‘it’s all bullshit, anyway’ remark that Brendan keeps

Quoting popcorn_karate: heh. that inconsequential yet quite interesting observation will probably stick in my brain longer than anything else from this discussion.

thanks

I salute your ability to mix a compliment and an insult so smoothly. ;^)

Quoting popcorn_karate: I'm just a country hick, so I like to tell stories....

Like Jesus? ;^)

I know a guy [...]

I don't think yours is a "dumbass way of looking at it." If you've waded through my response to Stephanie, you might have noticed that in at least two places I acknowledge the very principles you and she advocate -- debate is healthy, marketplace of ideas, etc., as the generally, even near-universally, preferred way to go. The objections I have here, in the matter of continuing to entertain debate regarding creationism as scientific, break down into two pieces. First, I think the matter has long been settled, and just as we no longer continue to debate a myriad of other ideas that have been shown to be wrong, we ought to stop wasting time, space, and energy on this one. Second, and more importantly, I think you make the same mistake that Stephanie does, which is to assume that the activist creationist crowd is operating in good faith. They are not, and if you'd spend some time looking into this, I'm sure you'd come to realize that I'm really not just blowing smoke here. NB: I am not at all saying that every person who believes in the basic tenets

Quoting popcorn_karate: I'm just a country hick, so I like to tell stories....

I know a guy that grows huge plants. but he has constant issues with them. sometimes the stems are too weak and break, sometimes they are too dense and mold sets in, etc. So he is constantly adding this or that to his nutrients, spraying foliar this and microbial that. its a constant struggle and balancing act for him to manage that plant into "perfection"

I know another guy - he says "i have no idea what, specifically, any plant needs any any given day in the innumerable conditions that occur." so he feeds and cares for his soil and figures the plants will take what they need, when they need it. his plants are a little healthier, and they require about 1/4 of the time to care for.

I think stephany is arguing that you make healthy soil and see how the plants grow, while you and BJ etc. seem to want to micromanage the process. I think the Liberal ideas of open discussion, respect for people we disagree with, the market place of idea - these are the critical elements that create a healthy society(soil) that allow people(plants) the best

Quoting badhatharry: . . . it really is all bullshit, anyway. . .

Bingo. Get over yourself.

Quoting Me&theboys: In case you can tolerate more antagonism:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....with-religion/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...s_appointm.php

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2...on_francis.php

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com...s-collins.html

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....ancis-collins/

Thanks for those.

De Waal and Miller on Collins via Zimmer:

You are confusing the issue of the discovery of new facts and the explanation of new and old facts. Causal explanations of the kind currently available in evolutionary biology explain neither the origin of life nor the particular organic forms that have emerged in the course of evolution. Efficient causality, the paradigm of methodological materialism, will never explain life in any of its forms.

Quoting Francoamerican: You are confusing the issue of the discovery of new facts and the explanation of new and old facts. Causal explanations of the kind currently available in evolutionary biology explain neither the origin of life nor the particular organic forms that have emerged in the course of evolution. Efficient causality, the paradigm of methodological materialism, will never explain life in any of its forms.

I think you're way overstating this. "Efficient causality" certainly explains this. The leap from cellular automata to self replicating molecules is not a huge one. From there you get RNA for free, or nearly so.

Quoting bjkeefe: I also find something of a contradiction in your simultaneous dismissal, of the proposed mechanisms for getting from non-living assemblages of chemicals to the beginnings of reproductive life, as both "fantastic" and "just so." Pardon my semantic quibbling, but it seems to me that the former connotes "No one in his right mind could possibly believe such a thing," while the latter suggests. "Ah, that is too easy an explanation."

I don't know..Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly. Sometimes, though, scientists strike me as being both simple-minded and prone to the most extravagant fantasy. They have a simple-minded faith in efficient causality---atoms and molecules bumping around randomly in the cosmic soup--and a completely fantastic belief in the power of efficient causality to explain the most complex phenomena.

Quoting bjkeefe: In any case, pardon my piling on, but I want to echo Eb's urging that you change your view from "science cannot and will never be able to explain these things" to "science is not yet able to explain these things."

Perhaps, but science will have to change its paradigm first and admit the legitimacy of telelogical explanations...with the help of philosophers perhaps?

Quoting bjkeefe: Oh, and as

Quoting Francoamerican: I don't know..Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly. Sometimes, though, scientists strike me as being both simple-minded and prone to the most extravagant fantasy. They have a simple-minded faith in efficient causality---atoms and molecules bumping around randomly in the cosmic soup--and a completely fantastic belief in the power of efficient causality to explain the most complex phenomena.

I'll give you "sometimes." Scientists are, after all, human beings, too, and as such will from time to time emit bogosity. I am not clear of the technical details of "efficient causality," so I don't really know how to answer this complaint, but if a couple of minutes looking at a couple of Web pages hasn't led me completely astray, I don't know why you would say that scientists have a "fantastic belief ..." Seems to me that we've discovered over and over again that what seem like very complex phenomena at first glance do indeed have quite simple explanations, are built up from quite simple components, are describable via quite simple mathematical models, etc. I grant not all phenomena boil down this way (or maybe we haven't figured out how to get there yet), but we've

Quoting bjkeefe: Seems to me that we've discovered over and over again that what seem like very complex phenomena at first glance do indeed have quite simple explanations, are built up from quite simple components, are describable via quite simple mathematical models, etc. I grant not all phenomena boil down this way (or maybe we haven't figured out how to get there yet), but we've had good success starting with a belief that we can break things down into simple pieces..

Yes, that's because physics has been the model for scientific explanation since the 17th century: mechanisms, automatic and purposeless, are supposed to account for all change (= efficient causality). Whether life or history can be understood and explained by automatic and purposeless mechanisms remains, it seems to me, an open question. Natural "selection", random mutation, survival of the fittest....it is really amazing to me that so many people have been taken in by such balderdash for over a hundred and fifty years, but so it is!

Natural "selection", random mutation, survival of the fittest....it is really amazing to me that so many people have been taken in by such balderdash for over a hundred and fifty years, but so it is!

Perhaps the 150 years of supporting evidence has something to do with it. I'd be curious to hear how exactly the theory of Evolution is "balderdash." And what alternative hypothesis you think is not.

Quoting Francoamerican: Yes, that's because physics has been the model for scientific explanation since the 17th century: mechanisms, automatic and purposeless, are supposed to account for all change (= efficient causality). Whether life or history can be understood and explained by automatic and purposeless mechanisms remains, it seems to me, an open question.

Weeelllll, depends what you mean by "physics." If you ask some physicists, it all boils down to physics eventually. If you don't buy that view, then I would point to chemistry, geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc., as some of the many other fields where it does turn out that thinking about things without regard to some imagined purpose does work out well. And yes ...

Natural "selection", random mutation, survival of the fittest....it is really amazing to me that so many people have been taken in by such balderdash for over a hundred and fifty years, but so it is!

... I would include biology and related disciplines in that "purposeless" view, as well. I grant that our current level of understanding is not yet as clean as much of physics, in that, say, we can not fit the defining* equations for large amounts of phenomena on a T-shirt. I also grant that when you look at a

Quoting Francoamerican: Efficient causality, the paradigm of methodological materialism, will never explain life in any of its forms.

For someone who often exhorts us to learn and apply the lessons of history, this "never" business seems inconsistent. How many times have we seen over the past 500 years the utter wrongness of the statement "we'll never be able to explain X scientifically."?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Perhaps the 150 years of supporting evidence has something to do with it. I'd be curious to hear how exactly the theory of Evolution is "balderdash." And what alternative hypothesis you think is not.

I didn't say that the theory of evolution is balderdash. No one aware of the evidence accumulated over the past 200 years would deny that species have evolved. What I find problematic is the meagre explanatory framework that is supposed to account for the the incredible variety of living organisms that exist and have existed on this planet. Random mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest are mechanisms that are supposed to be automatic and purposeless. SO BE IT! But I would like to know what is the survival value of language, music, mathematics, science (among many other things).

Sorry for jumping in while Uncle Eb is probably in the middle of composing his own reply, but ...

Quoting Francoamerican: I didn't say that the theory of evolution is balderdash. No one aware of the evidence accumulated over the past 200 years would deny that species have evolved. What I find problematic is the meagre explanatory framework that is supposed to account for the the incredible variety of living organisms that exist and have existed on this planet. Random mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest are mechanisms that are supposed to be automatic and purposeless.

Glad to hear you're not completely denying the worth of the theory of evolution. although your rejection of the key elements of the theory as sufficient to explain what we see in life around us does not incline me to withdraw my statement at the end of my previous reply.

SO BE IT! But I would like to know what is the survival value of language, music, mathematics, science (among many other things).

I was going to guess earlier that part of what might be driving your dismissive attitude toward evolutionary theory is the tendency of some

How many times have we seen over the past 500 years the utter wrongness of the statement "we'll never be able to explain X scientifically."?

It's also reasonable to assume that as a scientific civilization we would resolve the "easy" stuff first, leaving a residue of really hard stuff perhaps permanently unresolved. There may be mysteries beyond our current brain's capacity. There may be mysteries beyond our brains no matter how big and powerful they get. There may be absolute mysteries (true unknowables). If you doubt me, I'll have to resort to the argument by authority: "As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know." Don Rumsfeld ,Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

Quoting Wonderment: It's also reasonable to assume that as a scientific civilization we would resolve the "easy" stuff first, ...

Agreed.

Quoting Wonderment: ... leaving a residue of really hard stuff perhaps permanently unresolved.

Don't really agree. This is really just restating FA's position paraphrased as "science will never be able to explain X." You do say "perhaps," I'll give you that. But it's still not the attitude to take. We should be honest, even humble, about what we don't know at the moment, but we should be confident about what we'll be able to accomplish in the future, too.

Quoting Wonderment: There may be mysteries beyond our current brain's capacity. There may be mysteries beyond our brains no matter how big and powerful they get. There may be absolute mysteries (true unknowables).

There may be. But there is no good evidence to support that, while there is good evidence to suggest the opposite, that sooner or later, we figure out lots and lots of seemingly impossibly mysterious stuff.

Quoting Wonderment: If you doubt me, I'll have to resort to the argument by authority:

[...]

The Donald's broken clock moment! Here's one of my favorites, in response:

Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours.

No one aware of the evidence accumulated over the past 200 years would deny that species have evolved. What I find problematic is the meagre explanatory framework that is supposed to account for the the incredible variety of living organisms that exist and have existed on this planet.

If you agree that species have evolved, how do you think they've done it, other than through random mutation? Your line of argument sounds like, admitting that erosion is a fact of the natural world but that it can't possibly explain the grand canyon.

I am going to have to side with Wonderment on this one. Everyone has at least one or two irational beliefs. It's really no different from someone who only eats organic food, or believes in Alien abductions. No reason to get in a hissy fit over it. Besides, if we didn't let people who believe in whatever religon, be scienticsts, we would lose almost a third of our biologists, mathmaticians, and cosmologists.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am going to have to side with Wonderment on this one. Everyone has at least one or two irational beliefs. It's really no different from someone who only eats organic food, or believes in Alien abductions. No reason to get in a hissy fit over it.

Besides, if we didn't let people who believe in whatever religon, be scienticsts, we would lose almost a third of our biologists, mathmaticians, and cosmologists.

Why is eating organic irrational?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am going to have to side with Wonderment on this one. Everyone has at least one or two irational beliefs. It's really no different from someone who only eats organic food, or believes in Alien abductions. No reason to get in a hissy fit over it.

Would you be at all worried about someone who is an organic food zealot being in charge of the FDA? What about an abduction nut being in charge of NASA or NORAD? And I don't think it's at all fair to characterize Harris's tone as a "hissy fit."

Besides, if we didn't let people who believe in whatever religon, be scienticsts, we would lose almost a third of our biologists, mathmaticians, and cosmologists.

Harris's complaint is not that Collins (or anybody else) has religious beliefs. He is not advocating that crude a litmus test. What he is doing, as are a number of others (see Me&'s post for a good place to start, if you haven't already), is raising legitimate questions in response to specific assertions Collins has made on the record.

In practice, it is a litmus test. Part of many, if not most, peoples religious belief is a intervening God that cares about what happens to you. I can't think of any branch of science that does not contradict with, as naturalism is more or less a core tenent..of all of it. Besides, its normal for religious people to compartmentalize their religious beliefs, and not let it get in the way when they have to get on with living, or doing science.

That was poorly phrased, they do have alot of positives associated with them. I meant that many the blow the positives of them so out of porportion that it borders on absurdity.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: In practice, it is a litmus test. Part of many, if not most, peoples religious belief is a intervening God that cares about what happens to you. I can't think of any branch of science that does not contradict with, as naturalism is more or less a core tenent..of all of it.

Besides, its normal for religious people to compartmentalize their religious beliefs, and not let it get in the way when they have to get on with living, or doing science.

Exactly Harris's point: Collins, unlike most other scientists who have religious beliefs, has indicated on the record that there are areas where he does not feel science belongs and/or can do any good. In other words, Collins (thinks Harris), may not be as good at compartmentalizing as one would like for a person in that position of power. I also note your response to clay's question about organic food fans -- it would seem that you admit the possibility of real differences in attitude based only on degree of support for some faith type of belief. Can't you see that Harris has the same view of religious belief as you do about people who prefer organic food?

Brendan-- Thanks for addressing the arguments so thoroughly and civilly. I've been trying to figure out the best way to respond, without the whole discussion getting either even longer or overly repetitive, and I think I'm going to highlight some general areas of agreement and disagreement, including some themes I noted that I think get to perhaps some underlying reasons for our differences on this, and then address a few specific comments (depending on how much I have energy for). To do this I have addressed your comments somewhat out of order, but I don't believe anything is out of context. Just FYI, I have read and thought about your whole response, even where I ended up not directly responding. I have also followed and read most of your links, and plan to check out more of them (like the Dennett/D’Souza discussion, although I’m familiar enough with D’Souza that I don’t expect to be too surprised by anything on his part). First, an easy agreement, similar to that I mentioned with Uncle Eb:

As for Bh.tv specifically, there is a sense among people like me that this is SCIENCE SATURDAY, DAMMIT. There are six other days of the week to have diavlogs about

Issue One: Should I Tell Other People Who to Debate? I bring this one up realizing that you may consider it unfair, because you might not see this as about the issue highlighted above at all. Since this was a major part of what I understood myself to be objecting to, I'm going to explain why and what I see as the relevant issues. I jumped into this debate because of a comment that the diavlog should not have happened because “[m]erely debating the issue with science deniers gives them credibility.” As indicated (at great length), I simply don’t think that’s so – in the realm of science, there are no worries. In part, as you yourself point out, that’s because there are right answers and an accepted methodology which would preclude it. In the legal realm, I think the answer is clear as well. In the general public, well, our society already seems pretty divided between groups where creationists have no credibility and those where they do, and I don’t think debating them makes things worse. Maybe it could make it better, maybe I’m foolish to think that, but the idea of being afraid to face their arguments is

Issue 2: Should I Be Willing to Debate the Dishonest? And What About that Wedge Strategy? This is the issue that you spent the most time on in your response and thus perhaps the essence of our disagreement, despite my personal reactions being triggered by the first issue (where I’m not actually clear on where you stand as of the time I was writing this). You say:

So what's different? Basically, creationists -- the prominent and activist ones, at least -- are by and large dishonest. They are dishonest about what they believe, they are dishonest in their debating tactics, and they are dishonest in their goals….

For the sake of this section, I’m going to focus on those creationists who definitely do what you are talking about, since I agree with you that they exist and are an important face of the movement. As an initial matter, I’ll point out that we debate dishonest people and, more specifically, dispute dishonest claims all the time (we might even do it in this forum at times). Ideally, if someone proved to be a liar, it would be nice if more exclusive forums (like major newspapers and TV stations) stopped welcoming

Issue 3: Does This Matter? A final point about the public discourse issue that I want to raise has to do with my fears about the current splits in the country. In less paranoid moments, I tell myself it was always thus and try not to worry about it, but I’m nervous about the seeming complete breakdown that we seem to have had as to even having a common frame of reference as to how to determine who and what to trust. It seems that in every area things have gotten so complicated that people don’t even try (in many cases) to understand the issues, but go with tribal affiliation or reason from the preferred outcome. Aiding in this is that you get people who seem to be able to talk a good game and show credentials which look nice and pretty and say what you want to hear and thus you have your experts and I have mine and we don’t have a reasoned discussion at all. This is frustrating and depressing, and I don’t know what to do about it except to try and

Quoting stephanie: Brendan--

Thanks for addressing the arguments so thoroughly and civilly.

Likewise.

I've been trying to figure out the best way to respond, without the whole discussion getting either even longer or overly repetitive, and I think I'm going to highlight some general areas of agreement and disagreement, including some themes I noted that I think get to perhaps some underlying reasons for our differences on this, and then address a few specific comments (depending on how much I have energy for). To do this I have addressed your comments somewhat out of order, but I don't believe anything is out of context.

Having read through the four posts you put up, I decided that I'd respond briefly to a few things, in line, and then maybe make some sort of summary statements at the end. I have not quoted everything you wrote, if I didn't have something relevant to say in response to those sections, just to avoid dealing with the vBulletin character limit. [Added] So much for that plan. I guess I can't do "briefly," at least on a first draft. On the upside, the planned monster summary tying it all together is mercifully terse. Also, apologies in advance for where I've had to

(Had to condense some of where I blockquoted you, due to char limit. Sorry.)

Quoting stephanie: Issue One: Should I Tell Other People Who to Debate?

I bring this one up [...] and I don’t think debating them makes things worse. Maybe it could make it better, maybe I’m foolish to think that, but the idea of being afraid to face their arguments is contrary to my faith in the marketplace of ideas and public discourse and all that.

I wouldn't say "foolish" so much as I'd say "less than well-informed." As I tried to make clear in my response from a couple of days ago, you and I are two peas in a pod when it comes to welcoming debate as a general principle, for all of the reasons you list. In the specific case of creationism as a (pretend) scientific topic, though, many of those reasons don't hold. I won't repeat my entire argument from last time, but for the record, I will repeat my two main points. First, creationists, by and large, are not interested in having an honest debate or discussion. There is no way for the correct ideas to win if the side representing the incorrect ideas doesn't play by the rules. It's

(Again: had to condense some of where I blockquoted you, due to char limit. Sorry.)

Quoting stephanie: Issue 2: Should I Be Willing to Debate the Dishonest? And What About that Wedge Strategy?

This is the issue that you spent the most time on in your response and thus perhaps the essence of our disagreement, despite my personal reactions being triggered by the first issue (where I’m not actually clear on where you stand as of the time I was writing this). You say:

[...] So what's different? Basically, creationists [...] dishonest [...]

For the sake of this section, I’m going to focus on those creationists who definitely do what you are talking about, since I agree with you that they exist and are an important face of the movement.

As an initial matter, I’ll point out that we debate dishonest people and, more specifically, dispute dishonest claims all the time (we might even do it in this forum at times). Ideally, if someone proved to be a liar, it would be nice if more exclusive forums (like major newspapers and TV stations) stopped welcoming him or respectable people expressed an unwillingness to participate in a debate with him, but if often not

Quoting stephanie: Issue 3: Does This Matter?

A final point about the public discourse issue that I want to raise has to do with my fears about the current splits in the country. In less paranoid moments, I tell myself it was always thus and try not to worry about it, but I’m nervous about the seeming complete breakdown that we seem to have had as to even having a common frame of reference as to how to determine who and what to trust.

I'm of two minds about this, too. Mostly, I think it's always been like this when it comes to whatever the day's thorniest problems are -- somehow or another we eventually resolve them. Or, at times, one side wins. And in either case we later look back at it and wonder why people back then took so long to figure it out. But yeah, sometimes it does seem like we really are calcifying into two poles, and we have no more places for the disgruntled to move off to, so things are not going to be settled easily or any time soon. But then as soon as I articulate these feelings, I am unable

Quoting bjkeefe: I was going to guess earlier that part of what might be driving your dismissive attitude toward evolutionary theory is the tendency of some pop science writers to blithely invoke "Evolution!" as the all-purpose answer to everything. This statement, however, suggests you are asking for what I thought might have bugged you in the first place..

The blithe pop science writers are a bane, but then even some of the more serious writers on evolution who address a broad educated public---Dennett or Pinker---seem to me to fall into the same trap of Darwinism for dunces, explaining the difficult and the complex by the usual mechanism of random mutation and the survival of the fittest. Since "natural selection" (a really strange expression when you start thinking about it) is always the explanation of whatever they are trying to explain, I quickly lose interest in what they are saying. (And besides they proselytize too much because in the US they have to combat creationist buffoons....) I have been reading a lot of Bergson lately, and although he is obscure at times, he has some very interesting things to say about the human

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: If you agree that species have evolved, how do you think they've done it, other than through random mutation?

Your line of argument sounds like, admitting that erosion is a fact of the natural world but that it can't possibly explain the grand canyon.

Not exactly. Evolution creates new forms; erosion merely disintegrates existing forms by mechanical causality, forms which are themselves the result of mechanical causality working over millions of years. My point is that life may not lend itself to this kind of explanation. See my reply to bjkeefe.

Quoting Francoamerican: The blithe pop science writers are a bane, but then even some of the more serious writers on evolution who address a broad educated public---Dennett or Pinker---seem to me to fall into the same trap of Darwinism for dunces, explaining the difficult and the complex by the usual mechanism of random mutation and the survival of the fittest. Since "natural selection" (a really strange expression when you start thinking about it) is always the explanation of whatever they are trying to explain, I quickly lose interest in what they are saying. (And besides they proselytize too much because in the US they have to combat creationist buffoons....)

So ... you don't like what you hear from these guys who oversimplify while addressing an educated audience filled with buffoons? ;^) Maybe you should move to more serious reading. PZ Myers has a bunch of recommendations here, more advanced farther down.

I have been reading a lot of Bergson lately, and although he is obscure at times, he has some very interesting things to say about the human intellect's inability to think outside the categories of mechanical and teleological causality, and how this

Quoting bjkeefe: However, I think your attitude that the key elements of evolutionary theory are "such balderdash" is pig-headed beyond belief.

I suggest that this attitude of yours indicates that you don't at all know what you're talking about, or you're just being disagreeable.

Maybe, but I am in some good company. There have been many pig-headed if not necessarily disagreeable opponents of Darwinism: William James, Bergson, Samuel Butler, come to mind. Nietzsche is another example. There may be more recent, equally philosophical critics. Jacques Barzun, though not a philosopher, waged war against crude Darwinian ideas all his life. The problem is that the general public has a very weak grasp of scientific reasoning of any kind. I have read enough about evolution to have made up my mind that it is not a science that attracts the most intelligent scientists.

Quoting bjkeefe: That's an interesting thought, but at the end of a few minutes of contemplating it, what are you going to do with it? Say "the world is too hard for us to figure out, period!" or try to do the best we can with what we have? The first option sounds awfully close to the more primitive forms of religious belief, it seems to me. Go that route if you want to, but I can't say that I'm gonna follow. I also can't say that I'm that impressed with your out-of-hand rejection of the best we have come up with so far just because you've got an idea that we might never be able to figure things out. Again, this sounds dangerously close to a "let go and let God" attitude, in all practical aspects..

No, it isn't. It is simply the attitude of someone who rejects pseudo-science or explanations that aren't really explanations. Have you ever heard of scepticism? I can't say I'm too impressed either by your 19th-century vision of the infinite progress of science, but then I have often noticed that that is what usually distinguishes Americans from Europeans. ADDED: What is the

Very good. I think it's pretty clear where we both stand, and I'm happy to leave it here.

We're sort of in the position of a couple who has spent years biting their tongues, and now, after encouragement from their counselor, are sharing everything as soon as it pops into their minds. This has its good and bad aspects, of course, but I often feel like people will just get used to it -- we'll adjust to the new realities of instant and omnipresent communication channels and learn not to get so fauxtraged (or be so susceptible to fauxtrage), and eventually, people will start to appreciate something other than being firstest and loudest.

Heh, not a bad description of the current world, and despite my worries expressed in the prior post I am often optimistic along the lines expressed here, and see some signs for hope already.

This means, in part, that while I think it's useful and good to have others on my side who want to seek common ground with the other side -- in this case, who want to continue having these debates with creationists -- I also think it's good to have people

This conversation between you and stephanie is a big part of why BHTV ROCKS. thanks to you both for putting so much thought and effort into it. Stephanie - you presented my thoughts better than i thought them ; ) , and BJ, danm it all, i think you just might be convincing me... and Clay - i did wait a day after my parable post, so there!
: ) have a good day all.

nice!! i hadn't seen a couple of those. funny as hell. thanks

Quoting claymisher: How do theologians and pals deal with the reductio ad absurdum of god? If you say Jesus is our savior and I say god is a thirteen story tall wizard who lives in a dark mountain and never lets me win, and neither of us has any proof for or against, then what?

This is the kind of argument even little kids can come up with so I'm sure there's a standardized response from phd-level theologians, but I've never heard it.

No answers? This seems like the kind of thing CS Lewis would have an answer for. What ho, believers!

Quoting stephanie: Very good. I think it's pretty clear where we both stand, and I'm happy to leave it here.

Good enough. Thanks for the discussion.

Quoting popcorn_karate: This conversation between you and stephanie is a big part of why BHTV ROCKS.

thanks to you both for putting so much thought and effort into it. Stephanie - you presented my thoughts better than i thought them ; ) , and BJ, danm it all, i think you just might be convincing me...

and Clay - i did wait a day after my parable post, so there!
: )

have a good day all.

And thanks to you, p_k.

This is a silly idea. Survival is one thing; domination is another. I have yet to read an evolutionary biologist who suggests that the desire to dominate other species is the motor by which the evolutionary process is driven.

First off, I think when Brendan says "dominate" he means it in the sense of dominating the competition that all species are involved in for resources, technology, etc., with the aim of "surviving" at a more successful rate. Given that our species was a small band of primates, acquired language, and then saw our population expand exponentially afterwards and eventually to a point where we do "dominate" the resources of the planet and control the fate of it it in many senses, I don't think it's a real leap of faith here to suggest that complex language played a major role in why we have taken over the planet and all the other species with only rudimentary language abilities have not. It doesn't take a great imagination to see how being able to say "that wildebeest is over there, but if you stay here, I'll sneak up on him and we can

Guess, I'm chopped liver ;-) Agreed. I've enjoyed the discussion a great deal.

Quoting claymisher: No answers? This seems like the kind of thing CS Lewis would have an answer for. What ho, believers!

I'm interested in the silence, too. Now that I think about your question some more, it's really just a variation on the oft-repeated "You're an atheist about Thor and Zeus and Odin and Amun-Re, not to mention Aken, Aker, Am-Heh, Ament, Ammit, Anat, Andjety, Anqet, Anubis, Anuke, Anuket, Apep, Arensnuphis, As, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Auf, Baal, ..., right?", which I've never heard a good answer to, either. About the only responses I've ever heard are either some sort of testimonial to personally encountering God, or some sort of circular argument about God is the real God because it says so in the holy book and we know that book is holy because God directed its writing.

Quoting Francoamerican: Maybe, but I am in some good company. There have been many pig-headed if not necessarily disagreeable opponents of Darwinism: William James, Bergson, Samuel Butler, come to mind. Nietzsche is another example. There may be more recent, equally philosophical critics. Jacques Barzun, though not a philosopher, waged war against crude Darwinian ideas all his life.

Yeah, well, arguments from authority only impress me so much, especially when the authorities cited aren't anything more than outside observers. And sure, hurrah for war against "crude Darwinian ideas." There is no shortage of people guilty of this, just as there is no shortage of people who, say, think quantum theory explains free will. But just as I do not reject the work of real physicists because merchants of woo misapply their ideas, neither do I reject the work of real biologists because of eugenicists or business school types who wear yellow ties and talk about "survival of the fittest." Would you like me to judge the worth of the entirety of philosophy based on my assessment of Deepak Chopra and Dr. Phil?

Quoting Francoamerican: The problem is that the general public has a very weak grasp of scientific reasoning of any kind.

You already know, I expect, how much

Quoting Francoamerican: No, it isn't. It is simply the attitude of someone who rejects pseudo-science or explanations that aren't really explanations. Have you ever heard of scepticism?

Yep. But there is a difference between being credibly skeptical and just knee-jerking, "That's pseudo-science!!!1!" when you haven't studied the subject properly. And what makes you think your opinion counts for more than thousands of trained biologists over the past century and a half? Never mind, I already know the answer to that -- you think only dummies study evolutionary biology.

Quoting Francoamerican: I can't say I'm too impressed either by your 19th-century vision of the infinite progress of science, but then I have often noticed that that is what usually distinguishes Americans from Europeans.

I will mark this down as the first time you acknowledged the inherent superiority of Americans over Europeans. Going to be moving back soon?

Quoting Francoamerican: ADDED: What is the first option?

The first half of the second sentence from before:

Quoting bjkeefe: That's an interesting thought, but at the end of a few minutes of contemplating it, what are you going to do with it? Say "the world is too hard for us to figure out, period!" or try to do the best

Quoting bjkeefe: If I'm not mistaken, we've had this discussion already, where you spent several hours having hysterics about my use of the word thrive. I'm really not up for repeating it, especially given your declared rejection of the entire subject.

However, I see uncle eb has made the effort, for which I thank him. His response is pretty much what I would have said.

hold on while i channel the voice of ultimate wisdom: we like woo, because our brains like to chew
and flavor of the woo that we like to chew
comes from the stew in which we grew so if you don't like my woo,
you challenge my stew,
so i must bid you adieu! ******* that is why zeus is ridiculous but my cosmic energy pattern of conscious intention as the substrate of existence is perfectly delicious, er, I mean true!

Quoting claymisher: No answers? This seems like the kind of thing CS Lewis would have an answer for. What ho, believers!

You asked about "theologians and pals." Maybe no one here (and still reading after this many pages) can speak to that. I certainly cannot (or even to CS Lewis). Just for fun, though, my own thought re:

How do theologians and pals deal with the reductio ad absurdum of god? If you say Jesus is our savior and I say god is a thirteen story tall wizard who lives in a dark mountain and never lets me win, and neither of us has any proof for or against, then what?

is that I think it's taking the question backwards, sort of. I'm not entirely certain I understand the question, actually, but I'm thinking that Brendan is right that it's a version of the you disbelieve in one less god than an atheist argument. If so, I think when people such as modern believers or probably theologian types talk about belief in God (or gods) or not, you have to have something in mind that "God" means, or else the question is unanswerable. That is, you don't start by looking at various conceptions of god or

Quoting popcorn_karate: hold on while i channel the voice of ultimate wisdom:

we like woo, because our brains like to chew
and flavor of the woo that we like to chew
comes from the stew in which we grew

so if you don't like my woo,
you challenge my stew,
so i must bid you adieu!

*******

that is why zeus is ridiculous but my cosmic energy pattern of conscious intention as the substrate of existence is perfectly delicious, er, I mean true!

Theodor, my man!

Quoting stephanie: is that I think it's taking the question backwards, sort of. I'm not entirely certain I understand the question, actually, but I'm thinking that Brendan is right that it's a version of the you disbelieve in one less god than an atheist argument.

If so, I think when people such as modern believers or probably theologian types talk about belief in God (or gods) or not, you have to have something in mind that "God" means, or else the question is unanswerable. That is, you don't start by looking at various conceptions of god or specific gods and say yes or no. The basic theological question is what we mean when we ask the question "does God exist" and if so is belief in that which is defined as "God" reasonable as a foundational premise or some such. If you decide yes, then you reason from there. That might eventually seem compatible with some popular religious conception of God or not (or with a number of them), but it doesn't start with them.

Now how this might fit in with someone else's project of looking at the evolution of a particular historial conceptualization

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm interested in the silence, too.

Now that I think about your question some more, it's really just a variation on the oft-repeated "You're an atheist about Thor and Zeus and Odin and Amun-Re, not to mention Aken, Aker, Am-Heh, Ament, Ammit, Anat, Andjety, Anqet, Anubis, Anuke, Anuket, Apep, Arensnuphis, As, Astarte, Aten, Atum, Auf, Baal, ..., right?", which I've never heard a good answer to, either.

About the only responses I've ever heard are either some sort of testimonial to personally encountering God, or some sort of circular argument about God is the real God because it says so in the holy book and we know that book is holy because God directed its writing.

That cracked me up. Did you find an alphabetical list of gods on wikipedia or something? I think having had a vision from Jesus or whoever is the best reason for believing in God. Or if your prayers were reliably efficacious.

Quoting claymisher: Thanks for the reply. I'm sure someone in the last five hundred years would have addressed this, but maybe not. At least I got to use "reductio ad absurdum" in a sentence.

Heh. Well, I just don't think you should assume too much from a lack of response here. Especially after oh so many posts. I mean, I'm rather priding myself on probably having bored a high percentage of possible readers away.

I really don't have a coherent retort, but am still bothered by the treatment of Collins. In any case, I think the practical pluses of having a religious conservative in such a prominent position will outweigh the negatives. Besides, I doubt he will have much latitude in decreasing funding to things like neuroscience, when there is already such a cloud of suspicion over him. If anything, he may give a disproportionate level of funding to those type of fields, as a way of placating those that are critical of him because of his religious beliefs.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I really don't have a coherent retort, but am still bothered by the treatment of Collins.

Fair enough. Let me restate, in case you missed it elsewhere, that I am less worried about the Collins appointment than Sam Harris is. I do sympathize with his concerns, and I have been mostly just trying to argue his point of view without completely sharing it.

In any case, I think the practical pluses of having a religious conservative in such a prominent position will outweigh the negatives.

Agreed. As I've also said elsewhere, I think Collins's appointment, given his outspokenness about his faith, is a nice bone to toss to the religious people of this country, and I think he may be good at addressing concerns (e.g., over stem cell research) of various conservative members of Congress and other movers and shakers. (This is in addition to my respect for Collins's resume and record -- quite apart from his religious beliefs, he's a fine choice on the merits, as far as I can tell.)

Besides, I doubt he will have much latitude in decreasing funding to things like neuroscience, when there is already such a cloud of suspicion over him.

Agreed, although I would repeat that it doesn't

Quoting claymisher: That cracked me up. Did you find an alphabetical list of gods on wikipedia or something?

;^) Yes (to "or something"). First hit.

I think having had a vision from Jesus or whoever is the best reason for believing in God. Or if your prayers were reliably efficacious.

I also can see "accepting the teachings of the society and culture in which one is raised" as a good reason.

Quoting bjkeefe: If I'm not mistaken, we've had this discussion already, where you spent several hours having hysterics about my use of the word thrive. I'm really not up for repeating it, especially given your declared rejection of the entire subject.

Yes, we did have the discussion before. Your understanding of evolutionary biology is rather defective, so your snide remarks about my understanding leave me indifferent. There is a reason why Darwin stuck to to the notion of survival (and why contemporary biologists who know what they are talking about do the same): anything more than survival would import teleological considerations into the causal mechanism by which evolution is supposed to take place: random mutations + survival and reproduction= natural selection. Language certainly has turned out to be advantageous (and disadvantageous) in all sorts of ways. It has made possible everything that is distinctly human. But the advantages, to say nothing of the disadvantages, cannot be the basis for understanding how or why such a trait developed in the first place. Only a random mutation can; otherwise we are in the realm of teleology, which until further notice is banned from science, including evolutionary biology. Until

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Given that our species was a small band of primates, acquired language, and then saw our population expand exponentially afterwards and eventually to a point where we do "dominate" the resources of the planet and control the fate of it it in many senses, I don't think it's a real leap of faith here to suggest that complex language played a major role in why we have taken over the planet and all the other species with only rudimentary language abilities have not.

All very true, but utterly irrelevant to the kind of explanations allowed by evolutionary biology. See my reply to bjkeefe. And I daresay I have probably read as much about evolutionary biology as you.

Quoting Francoamerican: Yes, we did have the discussion before. Your understanding of evolutionary biology is rather defective, so your snide remarks about my understanding leave me indifferent.

There is a reason why Darwin stuck to to the notion of survival (and why contemporary biologists who know what they are talking about do the same): anything more than survival would import teleological considerations into the causal mechanism by which evolution is supposed to take place: random mutations + survival and reproduction= natural selection. Language certainly has turned out to be advantageous (and disadvantageous) in all sorts of ways. It has made possible everything that is distinctly human. But the advantages, to say nothing of the disadvantages, cannot be the basis for understanding how or why such a trait developed in the first place. Only a random mutation can; otherwise we are in the realm of teleology, which until further notice is banned from science, including evolutionary biology. Until evolutionary biologists, in conjunction perhaps with neuroscientists --can explain how language was created, I am afraid we are in the dark.

This discussion is rather confusing. Perhaps due to the lack of a definition of the word language. The ability

Quoting Francoamerican: All very true, but utterly irrelevant to the kind of explanations allowed by evolutionary biology. See my reply to bjkeefe. And I daresay I have probably read as much about evolutionary biology as you.

Franco, in what sense do you mean explain? As in account for? Or as in predict?

Quoting Francoamerican: There is a reason why Darwin stuck to to the notion of survival (and why contemporary biologists who know what they are talking about do the same): anything more than survival would import teleological considerations into the causal mechanism by which evolution is supposed to take place: random mutations + survival and reproduction= natural selection.

I grant that unless one is extra vigilant, an extemporaneous conversation about evolution will tend to feature some common turns of phrase that make it sound as though the speaker denotes or connotes purpose. You're right to be critical of this in principle; on the other hand, at some point, you're just being obtuse and ignoring what you know people mean. You're now at the point on this topic where you might as well reject every argument you encounter where someone has written it's instead of its or vice versa. Second, you have to be careful what you mean by "random." The way you keep bringing that up makes me think you view every mixing of genes as a completely fresh throw of the dice, independent of all other throws, and that

Quoting bjkeefe: Second, you have to be careful what you mean by "random." The way you keep bringing that up makes me think you view every mixing of genes as a completely fresh throw of the dice, independent of all other throws, and that you're ignoring the reality that, loosely speaking, there's something of a conditional probability aspect or a Bayesian process at play, as well -- the results of previous throws may well change the odds for the next. In other words, again, metaphorically: once something starts tipping in one direction, like a small change in some characteristic that enhances (or diminishes) the probability of reproductive success in those members of a species that possess it, the succeeding mixings of the genes are not going to be using the same set of dice as on the first throw. .

Your last sentence is of course true, but I don't think you have grasped yet the distinction between mechanical causality and finalism. The modern synthesis of evolutionary biology rules out the latter. If you dislike the word "random" you may substitute chance. Speaking of directionality, even metaphorically, is excluded by the theory of random variation and natural

Quoting Me&theboys: On another note (and I ask this out of genuine interest, not to be disagreeable), I am baffled by the antagonism philosophy tends to have toward the claims of evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology. Not so much by the fact of the antagonism, since philosophy's territory is being encroached upon, but the form the antagonism takes. Much of philosophy is just-so stories - arguments in favor of this or that, but no data to speak of. So why is the just-so storyishness of evolutionary biology/evolutionary psychology the aspersion most cast by philosophers against them? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.

For the first part of your post see my reply to bjkeefe. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...249#post123249 SOME philosophers are hostile to evolutionary biology. Some evolutionary biologists---the most philosophically acute, shall we say?---are aware of the conceptual difficulties of applying Darwinian explanations to what is unique about human beings: mind, language, self-consciousness, culture, freedom. Of course, there are also dogmatic Darwinians who deny that the latter are real entities. I believe they are mistaken. It seems to me pretty obvious that the basic conceptual apparatus of evolutionary biology eliminates mind from the universe, and therefore freedom. I can do without God; I find it more

Quoting Francoamerican: I believe they are mistaken. It seems to me pretty obvious that the basic conceptual apparatus of evolutionary biology eliminates mind from the universe, and therefore freedom. I can do without God; I find it more difficult to do without mind.

I'm not so sure. Most days I feel like my brain ain't much better than a well-trained dog's.

Quoting Francoamerican: Your last sentence is of course true, but I don't think you have grasped yet the distinction between mechanical causality and finalism.

Throwing around jargon makes you sound even less credible than you have been this entire thread. If you think that I of all people believe that the processes collectively described by evolutionary theory have "purpose" involved in them, you really are sorely mistaken, and I cannot bear any longer to assume good faith on your part when you discuss evolution. I have been trying to offer you an explanation for the difference between what biologists believe and how slightly misleading phrasings creep into casual conversations about evolutionary principles, since earlier, you wanted to nitpick certain verb choices, like "thrive" and "dominate." I am sorry that I can't make this clear to you, but I can now see it is pointless to discuss this topic any further with you. Given the attitude you display, I'd be as well-advised to spend my time trying to talk Whatfur out of his belief that global warming causes carbon dioxide.

I highly recommend any of Mayr's writings. Less well-written than Dawkins and his ilk but more philosophically informed.

Emphasis

[quote=Francoamerican;123250]For the first part of your post see my reply to bjkeefe. http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showth...249#post123249

Quoting Francoamerican: Anyone who has thought for a moment about the stupendous complexity of even the most primitive language (and some of the oldest known languages are the most grammatically complex), about what language presupposes in the way of logic and conceptualization, can easily see that the mechanism of natural selection as described by Mayr et al. is a non-starter. Maybe grunts and groans can be explained by natural selection; but from there to articulate speech I fail to see how the dogma of "random variation" and "natural selection" (i.e. elimination of the unfit) will ever make much progress towards a solution.

That sounds quite like an opinion. I was expecting something more substantial, given the certitude with which you make your various pronouncements. Dueling opinions are a waste of time.

Quoting Francoamerican: It seems to me pretty obvious that the basic conceptual apparatus of evolutionary biology eliminates mind from the universe, and therefore freedom. I can do without God; I find it more difficult to do without mind.

Thanks for sharing. Not sure what this has to do with my question, though.

Quoting Francoamerican: Anyone who has thought for a moment about the stupendous complexity of even the most primitive language (and some of the oldest known languages are the most grammatically complex), about what language presupposes in the way of logic and conceptualization, can easily see that the mechanism of natural selection as described by Mayr et al. is a non-starter. Maybe grunts and groans can be explained by natural selection; but from there to articulate speech I fail to see how the dogma of "random variation" and "natural selection" (i.e. elimination of the unfit) will ever make much progress towards a solution.

I am not sure if this is a classic example of an argument from ignorance or an argument from personal incredulity. In either case, a logical fallacy.

Quoting bjkeefe: I have been trying to offer you an explanation for the difference between what biologists believe and how slightly misleading phrasings creep into casual conversations about evolutionary principles ...

And if you would (not) like to see this carried to an extreme, then I recommend that you (not) watch the latest Percontations.

Quoting thprop: I am not sure if this is a classic example of an argument from ignorance or an argument from personal incredulity.

In either case, a logical fallacy.

In either case, true. There is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of language.

Quoting bjkeefe: Throwing around jargon makes you sound even less credible than you have been this entire thread. If you think that I of all people believe that the processes collectively described by evolutionary theory have "purpose" involved in them, you really are sorely mistaken, and I cannot bear any longer to assume good faith on your part when you discuss evolution.

There was no jargon in the Mayr quotation...unless you know nothing about evolutionary biology. I said nothing about evolution having a purpose. I said evolutionary biology excludes the idea of purpose and quoted Mayr to show that in the opinion of one of the leading evolutionary biologists of the 20th century random variation, in conjunction with the struggle for survival, is the motor of evolutionary change. Remember you had questioned my use of "random" your previous post. I have yet to read an account of how language could have arisen within the self-imposed contraints of evolutionary theory. Perhaps you could enlighten me? But really you just like to score trivial debating points, don't you?

Quoting bjkeefe: I have been trying to offer you an explanation for the difference between what biologists believe and how

Quoting Me&theboys: That sounds quite like an opinion. I was expecting something more substantial, given the certitude with which you make your various pronouncements. Dueling opinions are a waste of time..

Like you I only gave my opinion. But unlike you I am aware that it was only an opinion. You apparently think that evolutionary biology is on the brink of an answer to the origin of language. I don't. The proof is on you.

Quoting Me&theboys: Thanks for sharing. Not sure what this has to do with my question, though.

What exactly was your question? You wondered why some philosophers are hostile to evolutionary biology and some of the extravagant claims made for it. So I told you. Is it so hard to understand that not everyone is a scientific materialist?

Quoting Francoamerican: Like you I only gave my opinion. But unlike you I am aware that it was only an opinion. You apparently think that evolutionary biology is on the brink of an answer to the origin of language. I don't. The proof is on you.

Of course mine was an opinion, too, but one for which I gave some explanation for its basis. I was expecting that you would reply with something other than "you're wrong", like perhaps reasons why I'm wrong. If you think the evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology studies to date are NOT progressing toward an explanation of language, perhaps you could explain why you think that and why you think the current state of knowledge is destined toward a dead end. To just run around pronouncing everyone an idiot with no further explanation seems pointless. If everyone responsed in kind and we all just called each other idiots, what would we accomplish?

Quoting Francoamerican: What exactly was your question? You wondered why some philosophers are hostile to evolutionary biology and some of the extravagant claims made for it. So I told you. Is it so hard to understand that not everyone is a scientific

Quoting Francoamerican: In either case, true. There is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of language.

Did you even google "evolution of language"? The evolution of speech is pretty well understood -

Human speech – that is, the acoustic signal used for language – differs in a number of respects from the sounds produced by our nearest relatives, the great apes. Like apes and other primates, humans have a system to convey very basic information about emotional state using signals such as crying, laughter and cries of pain or joy. However, parallel to this system, humans use speech to convey complex abstract information.

In four pages he gives an evolutionary account of speech. Language is tougher - there is fossil record to trace jaw development in the Australopithecus and homo lines for speech. Cannot do that for a mental function like speech. Also from DeBoer:

Any attempt to build a scenario of the evolution of language must however be speculative. Such a scenario can nevertheless be useful to illustrate how the different pieces of evidence can fit together. It must however be seen as nothing more than a possible scenario. There is as yet insufficient consensus

But Gould was not a philosopher, so what could he possibly know about biology?!! ;-)

Quoting thprop: Did you even google "evolution of language"?

The evolution of speech is pretty well understood -

In four pages he gives an evolutionary account of speech.

Language is tougher - there is fossil record to trace jaw development in the Australopithecus and homo lines for speech. Cannot do that for a mental function like speech. Also from DeBoer:

But evolutionary explanations for the origin of language have been provided. From The Evolution of Language (what a catchy name):

Maybe you do not like the available explanations but that does not mean "There is no evolutionary explanation for the origin of language." The origin of first speech and then language have both been explained as evolutionary processes.

You have no idea what an explanation in terms of evolutionary biology would mean. The fact that a few fragments of human skulls show that early humans evolved the capacity to make sounds tells us absolutely nothing. Besides, who but an idiot would need such evidence? Obviously, humans did develop the capacity for language. You cannot argue from the supposed "need" to communicate to the necessity of the development of language. The question is how it happened in strictly Darwininian terms.

Quoting Francoamerican: You have no idea what an explanation in terms of evolutionary biology would mean. The fact that a few fragments of human skulls show that early humans evolved the capacity to make sounds tells us absolutely nothing. Besides, who but an idiot would need such evidence? Obviously, humans did develop the capacity for language. You cannot argue from the supposed "need" to communicate to the necessity of the development of language. The question is how it happened in strictly Darwininian terms.

I'd tell you, but you'd call it a just-so story, so I'll save both of us the trouble. btw, we're waiting for your input to the hot dog discussion:

Quoting bjkeefe: All we need now is for Francoamerican to jump in to tell us what Rousseau's favorite way to eat sausages was, and by the way, how liking hot dogs proves that Americans are inherently inferior.

Quoting claymisher: I'd tell you, but you'd call it a just-so story, so I'll save both of us the trouble. btw, we're waiting for your input to the hot dog discussion:

Rousseau was fond of fruit, cheese and vegetables: a true environmentalist avant la lettre. The consumption of hotdogs is no doubt a sign of degeneration. But as Clemenceau said: "The United States is the only country that has gone from barbarism to decadence without experiencing (connaître) civilisation." If you have a really good just-so story for the origin of language, let me know.But I think I have heard them all.

Quoting Francoamerican: There was no jargon in the Mayr quotation...unless you know nothing about evolutionary biology.

I was talking about your words, not Mayr's. Please note how my response aligned with what I quoted.

I said nothing about evolution having a purpose.

You said you thought I believed it does. That's what I was objecting to. Please read my response again.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

At this point, on this topic, I doubt anyone could.

But really you just like to score trivial debating points, don't you?

I'm not going to claim that is never my aim, but I haven't been trying to do so in this thread. However, I do agree, as would anyone, that you are unfailingly polite, always substantive, and never indulge in any verbal jousting ... ... oh, wait ... what's this?

I doubt seriously from the tenor of your remarks that you have much understanding either of evolutionary biology or of the philosophical issues that surround it. As for the sloppiness of your language, it betrays a sloppiness of thought. You may pride yourself on being scientific but your attitude towards science is basically that of 15 year-old-reader of Popular Mechanics.

Whoops.

I agree it is pointless to continue.

We'll see if you stick to that.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: But Gould was not a philosopher, so what could he possibly know about biology?!! ;-)

What makes you think Gould was my inspiration? I find it amazing that all you scientific wiz kids on bhtv---to remain nameless lest I embarrass anyone--have so little understanding of the logic of evolutionary theory. But first just as a matter of fact: I have never read anyone---evolutionary biologist, linguist, evolutionary psychologist--- who has said that science is even near a solution to the problem of the origin of language (including Pinker). Indeed they often quote the resolution of the Paris Society of Linguistics of 1866 calling for a moratorium on the subject. How wise of them. But obviously you and others here know so much more! It would be nice if an organism could respond to an enviromental challenge by producing the necessary mutations that would allow it to adapt and survive. But unfortunately evolution works haphazardly. It proceeds by a process of random mutation in the DNA which is completely blind to what is going on in the external world. It is difficult enough to explain how organisms change their physical structure in response

Quoting Me&theboys: Of course mine was an opinion, too, but one for which I gave some explanation for its basis. I was expecting that you would reply with something other than "you're wrong", like perhaps reasons why I'm wrong. If you think the evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology studies to date are NOT progressing toward an explanation of language, perhaps you could explain why you think that and why you think the current state of knowledge is destined toward a dead end. To just run around pronouncing everyone an idiot with no further explanation seems pointless. If everyone responsed in kind and we all just called each other idiots, what would we accomplish?

Actually, that was not my question. I asked why the hostility takes the form of calling EB and EP explanations just so stories, when much of philosophy is that as well.

What amazes me is that you and others here seem to know so little about the logic of evolutionary theory, but just go on making the same sophomoric arguments whose flaws are evident to anyone who has studied the subject--- even if only as an amateur. I might add they reveal a

Nobody is saying that genes look at the environment and mutate accordingly. The theory is that random mutations form brain, brain does lots of stuff that gives it's owner advantages, brain grows, more advantages, some things brain does serve multiple functions leading to exaptation, language is one of the results. Language has advantages so humans use it to their own advantage so language persists and becomes more complex. All built on random mutations, natural selection and exaptation. Here's a pretty good article that sums it up rather nicely: http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/lang/overview.php

Natural Selection and Language

Although Pinker asserts that the process of natural selection is more than sufficient to explain the evolution of the entirety of language, the recent research from Giv�n mentioned above shows that a large portion of our language abilities are derived from neural structures that an ancestor of ours probably already had, meaning they were probably exapted.34 However, exaptation cannot account for all of language, and the best evolutionary theory to explain the evolution of the facet of language known as grammar is regular old Darwinian natural selection.35

It's the best theory I have seen with the most