Critics of Intelligent Design often dismiss the theory because its advocates rarely publish in peer-reviewed journals. But what happens when an article does pass the peer-review process and an editor includes it in a technical biology journal? According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, it gets the scientist branded a “heretic”:
The scientist is Richard Sternberg, a research associate at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington. The holder of two Ph.D.s in biology, Mr. Sternberg was until recently the managing editor of a nominally independent journal published at the museum, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, where he exercised final editorial authority. The August issue included typical articles on taxonomical topics--e.g., on a new species of hermit crab. It also included an atypical article, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories." Here was trouble.
[snip]
Mr. Sternberg's editorship has since expired, as it was scheduled to anyway, but his future as a researcher is in jeopardy--and that he had not planned on at all. He has been penalized by the museum's Department of Zoology, his religious and political beliefs questioned. He now rests his hope for vindication on his complaint filed with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) that he was subjected to discrimination on the basis of perceived religious beliefs. A museum spokesman confirms that the OSC is investigating. Says Mr. Sternberg: "I'm spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career."
While this incident should concern anyone who believes in freedom of thought, those of us who are sympathetic to ID shouldn’t be too surprised or overly concerned. Sternberg may be the latest to be shunned for his heretical beliefs but he is certainly not the first. Tales of scientists being shunned for abetting a theory that rivals the dominant paradigm are as old as Galileo.
The claim that the scientific community encourages dissent and even welcomes the overthrow of theories and hypotheses is a commonly shared belief. It is also utter nonsense. Even a cursory examination of the history of science shows that scientists comprise a conservative-minded community that tolerates the tweaking of theories but vehemently opposes major revisions. While some notable exceptions can be found, scientist prefer to defend what they already believe. After all, no one wants to spend a lifetime of study and research only to have a brash young Ph.D candidate come along and render their life’s work obsolete.
As a general rule, people prefer to have their beliefs confirmed rather than proven wrong. Scientists, of course, are neither exempt from this tendency of human nature nor are they the only ones who lack complete openness to new ideas. Even math, a rather uncontroversial field of study, can allow differences in politics and personalities to hinder progress.
Take, for example, Louis de Branges, a Franco-American mathematician at Purdue University. Branges already has one significant proof under his belt (the Bieberbach Conjecture) and claims to have found a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis. Although he has posted the proof on the Internet for all of his colleagues to examine, none of his fellow mathematicians will even bother to do the work necessary to see if he is right. The reason, as Karl Sabbagh noted in the London Review of Books, is not that he is a crank but that he is cranky.
When de Branges told me his proof was complete I suspected that his paper would be dismissed without being read. Sure enough, in early May, after the internet publication, when reporters from New Scientist and Nature started to look into it and to consider whether this really was the most important mathematical discovery of the last hundred years, their own mathematical contacts assured them that it could safely be ignored. But none of these mathematicians claimed to have actually read de Branges's paper.
The same approach is often applied in science. Because the idea has never been empirically tested, critics of ID can’t dismiss the hypotheses that design is detectable in biology. So instead they simply wave it off as a “waste of time.” Why bother looking for something that might cause such a radical change in own preconceived notions.
But while scientific revolutions can be delayed, they cannot be stopped. And if the ideas behind Intelligent Design have merit – and I believe they do – then it is only a matter of time before they gain acceptance. Until that day, though, people like Richard Sternberg, who have the gall to oppose the Darwinian Fundamentalists, will suffer the consequences of being ahead of their time.
1
Joe writes
"Until that day, though, people like Richard Sternberg, who have the gall to oppose the Darwinian Fundamentalists, will suffer the consequences of being ahead of their time."
Oh, boo hoo hoo hooo.
All Sternberg has to do is conduct some original research and contribute something new and useful and reproducible to biology and all will be forgotten. What a big baby.
"While some notable exceptions can be found, scientist prefer to defend what they already believe."
More lies for Jesus, eh? Scientists prefer to rely on theories that have proven to be fantastically useful rather than on bogus "theories" pushed by Christian cults which are easily shown to be useless bunk.
"The claim that the scientific community encourages dissent and even welcomes the overthrow of theories and hypotheses is a commonly shared belief. It is also utter nonsense."
Another lie. Go to a genuine scientific meeting, Joe. You'll see hypotheses thrown out and predictions rebuked left and right. No problem. Sure, a scientist might be disappointed that his pet theory doesn't hold much water anymore, but you don't often see Christian bloggers crying about it.
You better believe that scientists will carefully and very seriously examine any claim that would, if true, disembowel current understanding of gravity, quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, the heliocentric solar system theory, or the theory of evolution. As well they should.
What is strange is that the bottom feeding charlatans who press such claims don't take contemporary science seriously. They confuse science with politics and believe that all they need to do is keep repeating their bogus claims and then, voila! 50 million Jesus fans can't be wrong.
In the process, Joe, the charlatans and apologists like you turn their religious sect into a smelly joke.
I'd advise cutting your ties to the Johnsonite Christians, Joe, before too many more people get a whiff of this sect's handiwork.
posted on 01.28.2005 4:37 PM2
"Tales of scientists being shunned for abetting a theory that rivals the dominant paradigm are as old as Galileo."
Ironic that a theist would bring up the shunning of Galileo. And to suggest that ID in any way rivals the "dominant paradigm" is a major stretch. It is not science; it is merely stealth creationism, a desperate attempt to exploit the incompleteness of the fossil record to discredit a theory for which the evidence is nothing less than overwhelming.
Kids, don't go to scientists to learn theology, and don't go to evangelists to learn science.
posted on 01.28.2005 4:39 PM3
I can't believe that you would defend Galileo, Joe. To suggest that his theories come anywhere close to "acceptable" within the scientific community is ludicrous; and his various theories displacing earth as the center of the universe are nothing more than a childish attack on the dominant paradigm.
I would say that what Galileo is doing isn't science, it is stealth egoism and possibly Satanism, mascarading as empirical study--a desperate attempt to dislodge the centrality of man's existence in the universe by exploiting holes in our current astronomical capabilities.
It's a good thing we have these inquisitions. We wouldn't want heretics to challenge to real scientists, brainwashing constituencies in stacked university classrooms suddenly inundated with false choices and polluting the minds of the young with their intellectual heresy. Truth, after all, must be guarded fiercely from the voice of opposition.
posted on 01.28.2005 4:52 PM4
Carter:"The claim that the scientific community encourages dissent and even welcomes the overthrow of theories and hypotheses is a commonly shared belief. It is also utter nonsense."
Larry Lord:Another lie. Go to a genuine scientific meeting, Joe. You'll see hypotheses thrown out and predictions rebuked left and right. No problem. Sure, a scientist might be disappointed that his pet theory doesn't hold much water anymore, but you don't often see Christian bloggers crying about it.
Absolutely, Larry- that's some of the most outrageous slander I've seen against scientists in years.
I happen to regularly participate in engineering fora, and believe me, Joe Carter is engaging in the worst form of slandering and falsehood, and owes the scientific community an apology.
I will track down the facts of this article, and post that on my blog.
Joe: I expect an apology- tarring all scientists like that, when you lack the experience of seeing how the scientific community conducts its discourse- is the worst form of false witness.
5
OK, maybe not the worst form of self-witness, but it is utterly indefensible.
posted on 01.28.2005 4:57 PM6
Oh, and here's more lies:
T Because the idea has never been empirically tested, critics of ID can’t dismiss the hypotheses that design is detectable in biology.
As I have repeatedly demonstrated- no such empirical test is possible.
Your failure to admit this - your failure to be honest- does not change reality, but it does mean that you again bear false witness.
posted on 01.28.2005 4:59 PM7
Whew, it is a good thing we have all these real scientists on the board to keep you in check, Joe.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:00 PM8
"The claim that the scientific community encourages dissent and even welcomes the overthrow of theories and hypotheses is a commonly shared belief. It is also utter nonsense."
I think a better way to word that is that scientists tend to really like their own theories over other people's theories. And they will defend them until there's no possible way to defend them any more. And then they still might defend them after that. And then other scientists who disagree are supposed to come along and show them why it's no longer possible to defend their own position. And this tenacity can actually be a good thing when done respectfully and with argumentation and experimentation.
But in this case, those people should be ashamed of themselves in how they've treated Mr Sternberg. It's bad for science.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:01 PM9
John:
I don't suppose Joe would be enlightened to cogitate on just who originally opposed Galileo and why, right?
posted on 01.28.2005 5:02 PM10
Mumon,
I don't suppose Joe would be enlightened to cogitate on just who originally opposed Galileo and why, right?
I already have. (Hint: The Aristotelians)
posted on 01.28.2005 5:04 PM11
Macht:
I think a better way to word that is that scientists tend to really like their own theories over other people's theories.
No, Macht- that's another sweeping generalization. Good scientists do the work on their theory, and don't over-invest themselves emotionally in their theory, but rather put the 98% persperation into their work instead.
There are bad scientists out there- and they get eaten by the good ones.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:05 PM13
A Physicist's Perspective is discussing much the same issue...
In fact, a lot of people are. Follow the links in his post.
From what I've seen of him, he's an excellent voice in the "scientific Godblogger" category.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:11 PM14
Holy poop! (So to speak.) The article in question is
here.
Cool. I'm going to debunk this piece of nonsense on my blog this weekend.
BTW, on first glance, it does look like nonsense: when you see references denoting obvious things, you see pretentiousness.
On second glance, it is making up poop...
Macht:
No, actually history proves me right. That's how science is done. Unlike, say, Evangelical Protestantism, the process by which science arrives at its theories and observations is self-correcting.
15
"No, actually history proves me right."
No, actually history proves you wrong.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:14 PM16
Sorry, Macht. You have just been "mumonized"--silenced by the pale and ominous sickle of the reputable academic community--one in which meaningless, stone-squeezing assertions of hypocrisy aid in the self-correction of science and discourse to the detriment of wingnut, faith-obsessed, moonbats (like you, Joe, Galileo, Summers, and all your double PhD ID friends)out to oppress genuine seekers of truth. Tremble. Tremble.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:20 PM17
BTW, I see Panda's Thumb buried that sucker... and apparently got in a dig at you too... seems like you'd been down that road before...
posted on 01.28.2005 5:21 PM18
Sternberg's problems are entirely of his own making. If I were the editor of a journal on stellar physics and I ushered through a screed claiming to debunk standard cosmology, then I'd have no right to be shocked and dismayed at the negative reaction of my peers. He could have passed the paper off to another editor to handle or suggested a more appropriate journal for the paper (one that dealt primarily with evolutionary theory rather than taxonomy, for instance). Instead, Sternberg abused his authority and now his reputation in the field is sufferring. That's the way that responsible adult society is supposed to work.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:25 PM19
John:
Mr. Macht is - for the 2nd time in 2 days- unable to cite any real world evidence for his "facts" (He claimed, falsely, there is more than one scientific method but didn't have any success at proving that.)
I, for one, have just showed that real scientists have buried the dead horse Joe Carter tries in vain to keep flogging.
Oh, and thanks for the insults.
Joe Carter:
The fact is, it was religious fundamentalists who were after Galileo.
Just like they're after scientists today.
20
Macht and mumon,
You're both right and both wrong. Momon (and Larry before him) are right in indicating that many hypothesis and theories are bandied about and tossed away in the scientific community. However for the most part these theories do not "rock the boat" too far.
When a paradigm shifts occur Macht is more correct in his feeling that the conservative nature (and investment in time and sweat equity towards current theories) tend to make life difficult for those trying crack a paradigm.
Perhaps an analogy to micro and macro evolution in science might be apt. Micro evolotion of scientific theory is well established and while heated exchanges do occur, the community at large does not reject the participant. Macro-evolution or paradigm shift is rarer and more difficult on the protagonist.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:28 PM21
"unable to cite any real world evidence for his "facts""
Except, of course, for the link I provided that showed a fairly decent scientist who did exactly what I'm talking about. Other than that, no, I haven't cited any historical examples.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:29 PM22
Mumon,
The fact is, it was religious fundamentalists who were after Galileo.
Uh, no, it wasn't. Perhaps if you had done your homework you would have noticed that the Church didn't have a problem with his scientific work, only with his interpretation of Scripture.
(I never thought I'd say this but I think we have found someone who makes Larry Lord seem reasonable.)
23
Mumon,
Did you actually go and read Joe's post from last summer on Galileo or did you just decide your own opinion couldn't be swayed by pesky details?
24
Mark O.,
"Momon (and Larry before him) are right in indicating that many hypothesis and theories are bandied about and tossed away in the scientific community."
That's what I was implying when I wrote the following in the blog post I linked to,
"The good thing about science is that very often some scientists will question the theory and other scientists will question the empirical data and some will question the philosophical principles."
I'm sorry if I implied otherwise.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:33 PM25
"(I never thought I'd say this but I think we have found someone who makes Larry Lord seem reasonable.)"
You've cited no examples of mumon being unreasonable.
posted on 01.28.2005 5:36 PM26
Ryan Scranton:
Likewise, I have seen peer-reviews deep-six engineering proposals on solid engineering grounds...the bottom line, is the technology you have works not because of some odd conspiracy of scientists suppressing the scientific method, but because they did science.
27
Joe Carter:
you would have noticed that the Church didn't have a problem with his scientific work...
LOL! Your own sources contradicted you there:
link...
Urban gave several private audiences to Galileo, during which they discussed the Copernican theory. Urban was a vain, irascible man who, in the manner of a late prince of the Renaissance, thought he was qualified to make pronouncements in all areas of human knowledge. At one audience, he told Galileo that the Church did not define Copernicanism as heretical and would never do so. But at the same time, he opined that all this quibbling about the planets did not touch on reality: only God could know how the solar system is really disposed.
As a scientist, Galileo was perfectly correct in rejecting this half baked philosophizing. But he grossly miscalculated Urban's tolerance by writing the great Dialogue. There he not only made it clear that he considered the defenders of Aristotle and Ptolemy to be intellectual clowns, but he made Simplicio, one of the chief interlocuters of the dialogue, into a silly mouthpiece for Urban's views on cosmology. Galileo was mocking the very person he needed as his protector, a pope whose hubris did not take such barbs with equanimity. At the same time, Galileo alienated the Jesuit order with his violent attacks on one of its astronomers, Horatio Grassi, over the nature of comets (and, in fact, the Jesuit was right — comets are not exhalations of the atmosphere, as Galileo supposed.)
Well, that about wraps it up for today's attack on scientists...
28
Mark O:
Did you actually go and read Joe's post from last summer on Galileo or did you just decide your own opinion couldn't be swayed by pesky details?
I know, I know, just because Joe Carter said it, and quoted those sources doesn't mean that your opinion should be swayed by pesky details...
posted on 01.28.2005 5:48 PM29
Yeah, the Church had such a problem with Galileo's "scripture" that his works on celestial physics were placed on the Index of forbidden books.
Saying the Church did not persecute Galileo is such a blatant misreading of well documented history, that it approaches holocaust denial. There are the actual Vatican Documents of Galileo's trial. This is delusional. RTFM. When did the Vatican become an arm of Aristotleans?
We have to deal with real history. Christian involvement in the Galileo affair (to say nothing of antisemitism culminating in the holcoaust) was extensive. We really need to deal with that and make sure *WE* Chrsitians don't make similar mistakes today. We begin by honestly addressing history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Let's listen to Gallileo's recantation to the Aristotleans:
"I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzio Galilei of Florence, aged 70 years, tried personally by this court, and kneeling before You, the most Eminent and Reverend Lord Cardinals, Inquisitors-General throughout the Christian Republic against heretical depravity, having before my eyes the Most Holy Gospels, and laying on them my own hands; I swear that I have always believed, I believe now, and with God's help I will in future believe all which the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church doth hold, preach, and teach...
I abjure with sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church. And I swear that for the future I will neither say nor assert in speaking or writing such things as may bring upon me similar suspicion; and if I know any heretic, or one suspected of heresy, I will denounce him to this Holy Office, or to the Inquisitor and Ordinary of the place in which I may be...
In Rome, at the Convent della Minerva, this 22nd day of June, 1633."
30
LOL! Your own sources contradicted you there:
Hmm. I wasn’t able to find the part where Galileo was persecuted for his scientific work. Could you point that out for me?
31
Joe Carter :
No? You couldn't find it in 2 paragraphs?
Ok, let's start with the very easy to find last line:
Galileo alienated the Jesuit order with his violent attacks on one of its astronomers, Horatio Grassi, over the nature of comets (and, in fact, the Jesuit was right — comets are not exhalations of the atmosphere, as Galileo supposed.)
The nature of comets was, actually a scientific dispute...
Let's then go to the last sentence of the preceding paragraph:
But at the same time, he opined that all this quibbling about the planets did not touch on reality: only God could know how the solar system is really disposed.
So the Pope is basically saying that science didn't give answers that science gives...which is basically anti-science...even if heliocentrism wasn't "heretical." In the next paragraph, clearly the "error" was in being derisive of the unscientific popycock of the Pope.
Which, btw, is one of the reasons we scientists have thick skins...we eviscerate poppycock...
posted on 01.28.2005 6:08 PM32
"Christian involvement in the Galileo affair ... was extensive. We really need to deal with that and make sure *WE* Chrsitians don't make similar mistakes today."
Seeing as how everyone involved were Christians, yeah, that's true. What do we need to deal with? Admitting we had a big, in-house fight that was motivated by scientific theories, politics, philosophical viewpoints, clashing personalities, personal agendas and a host of other things?
posted on 01.28.2005 6:09 PM33
Joe McFaul:
Just saw your thing. My quote was from a Catholic website, which would have given it the best possible pro-Church spin.
The fact that even they point out that scientific disputes were involved shows what's going on here.
Actually, I owe Joe a debt of gratitude. I've been making the link between "intelligent" "design" as pseudo-science and the pseudo-economics of the "social security is in crisis" crowd.
Given that he's cited a publication which highlights this nonsense AND (former?) crack-addict Larry Kudlow, the dots here are quite connectable!
posted on 01.28.2005 6:14 PM34
Wow!
I'm not a scientist; I am a psychotherapist and a theologian, so I can't speak authoritatively re Sternberg. But I can say this with some certainty: there are sure a lot of emotional, sensitive, angry people out there that can't wait to pounce on anyone who takes a stand they disagree with!
Mumon and Larry (and others) seem to have been deeply wounded somewhere along the road and are now hell-bent on making Christians pay for it. Probably it was Christians that did the trampling to begin with, though, so perhaps an apology is order from all of us.
Can't the evangelical bashers engage in a reasonable conversation or debate? And can't we (the evangelicals) lose our sarcasm?
If it's not possible, then we need to stop taking the bait from such obvious trollers and converse with rational people, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Toad Worshipers, or atheists.
35
Mike:
Just trying to prevent another Salem, or Oswiecim.
Some of us take that stuff seriously...
posted on 01.28.2005 6:16 PM36
Yeah, the Church had such a problem with Galileo's "scripture" that his works on celestial physics were placed on the Index of forbidden books.
Saying the Church did not persecute Galileo is such a blatant misreading of well documented history, that it approaches holocaust denial.
First, I don’t recall saying that the church didn’t persecute Galileo. They certainly did go after him because he was a smug, vain main who made many enemies. But to claim that he was persecuted solely because of his views on science is simply nonsense.
When did the Vatican become an arm of Aristotleans?
Oh, I'd say sometime during the Middle Ages. (Ever heard of Scholasticism?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
I’m a big fan of Wikipedia but let’s be clear that it is a source that should be taken cum grano salis.
Let's listen to Gallileo's recantation to the Aristotleans:
Uh, huh. And where exactly was he forced to denounce his views on science? (By the way, the “Aristotelians” I was referring to were the Catholic scholars of the day.)
37
"And can't we (the evangelicals) lose our sarcasm?"
Sorry. I'll stop.
posted on 01.28.2005 6:17 PM38
If it's not possible, then we need to stop taking the bait from such obvious trollers and converse with rational people, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Toad Worshipers, or atheists.
Mike is right. I don't even both to read Larry's comments anymore and I probably shouldn't bother with Mummon's either. Anyone who can say that they are trying to prevent a return to witch-burning and mean it sincerely is obviously not someone who we should be casting pearls before.
I'll stop taking the bait. But before I do let me just make one last quick comment: Mumon, you are an engineer. Please stop referring to yourself as a "scientist." It's just silly.
39
Joe,
If Gallileo's sin was smugness he would have Been given 3 Our fathers and 2 Hail Mary's in penance. Here's what he needed to concede:
"The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve about the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theology, and heretical, because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture.
The second proposition, that the earth is not the center but revolves about the sun, is absurd, false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least, opposed to the true faith."
I don't see any radmission of smugness there.
And Scholasticism! Thanks for making my point here's the greatest Scholastic of them all articulating Intelligent Design in the Summa Theologia:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aquinas3.html
The errors of scholasticism infect Christianity today. That's not to say it doesn't have its strong points as well.
posted on 01.28.2005 6:43 PM40
Mike
"Mumon and Larry (and others) seem to have been deeply wounded somewhere along the road and are now hell-bent on making Christians pay for it."
On the contrary, I am hell-bent on trying to ensure that honest Christians don't have their religion sullied and smeared with doo-doo by arrogant fundamentalists (e.g., the Johnsonite Christians with their "ID theory") intent on equating their religious beliefs with science.
posted on 01.28.2005 6:45 PM41
Mumon:
Christendom has made its mistakes; can you think of any groups that haven't? Science has been wrong about things in the past, is wrong about things now, and will continue to be wrong. That doesn't mean it's not valuable, just fallible.
The church is no different: Christians get it in their heads that the Bible says one thing and just one thing, only to reverse themselves later when they really study both special revelation and general revelation. God is in both.
Macht:
Sorry if I hit you; I wasn't aiming at anybody in particular. Sarcasm is one of my own biggest temptations and flaws, a veiled form of my anger. So, if you're being serious in your comment re stopping, know that I'm as guilty as anybody.
I'd just like to see some profitable, reasonable discussion on ID from the opposition. I don't want to see any Salems again, either.
43
that's some of the most outrageous slander I've seen against scientists in years.
... Joe Carter is engaging in the worst form of slandering and falsehood, and owes the scientific community an apology.
You're walking on holy ground here Joe. Thou shalt not question our high-IQ masters. To call Scientists merely human is to debase their clear mental superiority. Maybe we evangelicals should just shut up and try to evolve faster. When we catch up, we too can fight the good fight for freedom, truth, and gloriously unfettered naturalism. All shall love us, and despair!
posted on 01.28.2005 6:56 PM44
Well, you certainly are quite acid-tongued about it.
Might I suggest that those of you here seeking to "englighten" others tone down the ad hominem and loaded vocabulary just a bit?
If you simply seek the arrogant thrill of crushing the sad plebeian beliefs of human beings deemed to be lesser than yourselves, well, I suppose you may as well ignore this post.
posted on 01.28.2005 7:02 PM45
Mike:
I agree with what you wrote here (and what Larry wrote too- religion should not be a substitute for scienc and vice versa.).
The fact is, when one uses of words like "Church of Darwin," when one implies that it is "utter nonsense" that "the scientific community encourages dissent," I cannot claim that the guy saying that is doing anything in accordance with what I know to be Christianity.
(The irony is that he does so on a computer and using the internet, both which were developed using the peer reviewed scientific method that are decried.)
We scientists have pointed out the shortcoming of "intelligent" "design" numerous times. To me, the whole affair reeks of false witness, and it must be called by its name.
posted on 01.28.2005 7:02 PM46
Hoots:
Thou shalt not question our high-IQ masters. To call Scientists merely human is to debase their clear mental superiority. Maybe we evangelicals should just shut up and try to evolve faster.
Lemme let you in on a little secret. I shouldn't really tell you, because if I give away this secret, you'll know how scientists really develop things...
Many of us work in industry developing intellectual property. Many of the scientists in academia in fact do the same thing nowadays-sponsored by either industry of the government it's a potential additional revenue stream for the academic and the university.
We get compensated in the free market for our ideas. If we are too attached to our own pet idea, and the marketplace -economic and intellectual- rejects it, we're in trouble with our employers, who expect something tangible in return for our labors.
We all thus have a vested interest in doing something valuable, and in following the scientific method because if we don't somebody else will, first.
That's why I take particular umbrage at this "conspiracy" thing Mr. Carter seems to consider, because it's so off base compared to what is the experience of every single scientist (the good, the bad and the ugly) that I know. His complaint is the complaint of pseudo-scientists of all stripes: psychics, alien-abduction specialists, recovered memory types, etc.
Science always gets it right in the end, provided that the funding isn't skewed one way or the other...for example, the sugar and wheat industries have had a large say in food science because of their funding.
Similarly, the Discovery Institute is agenda-driven funding.
Better to address our objections to "intelligent" "design" rather than make ad hominem attacks on scientists. Of course, one way to address those objections is to admit they're valid.
That'd be a nice start.
posted on 01.28.2005 7:14 PM47
BTW, something is rotten in Denmark concerning that "opinion journal" article.
If you go to the website for the Biological Society of Washington, you'll find that Meyer's "article" seems like a fish out of water...and, (hint of my upcoming skewering) offers nothing new.
In short, it looks like there is a witch hunt going on here: somebody tried to sneak a substandard, non-new paper into what should normally be a peer reviewed journal. Now the OSC is looking for people who criticized the poor scholarship of Sternberg, who rightly should be considering his career options.
And, yeah, it looks like, at least in Sternberg's case, it's a case that hould concern anyone who believes in freedom of thought, but not in any way that Mr. Carter seems to imply.
posted on 01.28.2005 7:41 PM48
And, in the article Joe quotes on de Branges, he leaves out a very, very telling paragraph:
Yet it has been dismissed as 'probably cobblers'. One reason is that mathematicians seem to think that de Branges has claimed on several previous occasions to have proved the Riemann Hypothesis and been in error. 'He has made something of a tradition, I'm told, of emailing colleagues every September with a new proof he worked up over the summer,' another mathematician told me. Successive versions of de Branges's paper were posted on the internet as his ideas evolved. But it is unlikely that he has ever emailed any colleagues anything. He is in contact with very few of them and, in any case, doesn't use email.
I have dealt with more than a few people who repetitiously keep trying to promote theories that are demonstrably wrong.
Despite objections made by the scientific community, they continue to promulgate their pet idea after often, and have, in one instance, accused peers as being "not current" with science,and engaging personal attacks on others. After a while the scenario is: Everybody does ignore that person, because they keep bringing up discredited ideas. Even if they were to have a useful idea, it would be like the boy who cried wolf. (That particular person is widely suspected amongst the peers of being a plagiarist in other areas, but that's another story.)
In short, the experience I've seen is: if you can actually, rationally convince others on the basis of the facts, you will eventually prevail. But you've got to be willing to put in hard work.
posted on 01.28.2005 8:11 PM49
One last word or two on deBranges...
First of all, it turns out there's a blog entry on deBranges which links to the paper itself...
Secondly, I can see why mathematicians are somewhat skeptical.
The form of this proof - if it is one, and I'm not quite able to decipher it without reading a couple of books in topology- is quite alien to the way most mathematicians would write out a proof. First they would state the problem, then they would outline how they solve the problem, and then they would prove a series of small steps, that, taken together, prove the theorem.
Instead this work shows no over-arching thematic structure. (Yeah, proofs are like music.)
IOW, it's not a case of deBranges being "oppressed" by a hierarchy, it's a case of deBranges writing a proof that is hard to follow.
posted on 01.28.2005 8:27 PM50
I think that history will show that you basically have to wait for the old-timers to die off before new ideas can advance.
posted on 01.28.2005 8:28 PM51
"I think that history will show that you basically have to wait for the old-timers to die off before new ideas can advance."
How old is Phil Johnson? He must be about 75.
posted on 01.28.2005 8:48 PM52
Ignoring the whole ID/Evolution battle for a moment, isn't anyone else alarmed by the way that Sternberg was suddenly accused of being a right wing religious nut, kicked out of his office, denied research space, and shunned by all his co-workers just because the journal he edited happened to print something that examined ID? Isn't anyone else alarmed that there is now a fear of associating with Sternberg because his former co-workers don't want their own careers threatened? Isn't anyone else alarmed by the chilling effect?
If it is now forbidden to even question evolution for fear of ruining one's career, isn't that about as anti-science as you can get? Science ruled by emotionalism and fear? How can science ever advance without challenging assumptions, especially if the response of the scientific community to any challenge is to ensure that the challenger is silenced and the status quo remains?
posted on 01.28.2005 9:40 PM53
Phil Johnson reportedly had a more serious stroke recently BTW. Despite disagreeing with damn near everything he writes, I wish him the best. This isn't warfare.
Sternberg violated his Journal's editorial guidelines, at least that's what the Journal states. My site is down, so I can't access the article I wrote on Meyer with the Sternberg links.
Sternberg sits on the Bariminology Board. A Creationist org with a number of Young Earth Creationists who study biblical kinds in a systematic way patterned after conventional taxonomy. They're big on the Cambrian Explosion YEC deal, dunno if Sternberg himself is a YECist or not. But it was his Creationist inclinations that led him to violate his Journls protocols, and he was shortly separated from service after that incident.
posted on 01.28.2005 9:42 PM54
http://www.icr.org/creationscientists.html
This is a url to a list of scientists whom believe in Intelligent Design.
All are degreed scientists from fields directly related to the question of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design.(Biology. Geology, Genetics, Physics, etc.)
All have been attacked and had viable hypotheses labeled as 'crackpot and psuedo-science'.
From my point of view, (As an uneducated bubba), it looks like the scientists who choose to BELIEVE in the theory of Evolution can't allow a free exchange of ideas when those ideas may run counter to a core belief they hold to.
Namely, that there is no God, that man is the maker of his own destiny, and that random chance and favorable mutation are the real creators of Man.
Nevermind that there is not one single observable instance where a random mutation has benefitted a species in the quantities of that species needed to cause the favorable attribute to become a normal 'part' of that species. I am speaking of Macro-Evolution, the kind that makes dinsaurs into turkeys, rather than Micro-Evolution which is the kind found in Darwins Finches.
For scientists to admit that there is a creator who designed everything would be admitting to a power greater than Man. This will not sit well with those who stand on the shoulders of giants, (Being Small Men Themselves...)
Even an uneducated Christian like myself can look at the Second Law of Thermodynamics and see that theory's that are espoused by scientists advocating evolution are well, a belief. Not a fact.
Belief in something requires Faith.
Faith is something you find in church.
So the premise of a Church of Darwin is an accurate one.
Scientists belief in evolution is no different than my belief in God and his creation of Man.
Of course, what do I know. For an educated perspective, check out the link above, it will provide more meaningful data to support my belief.
55
Joe Carter:
Engineers are applied scientists. Information theory is, and has always been, primarily a sub-specialty of communications engineering.
We do what we do because we are scientists- maybe more practical than the practitioners of theoretical physics and mathematics, but scientists we are.
posted on 01.28.2005 11:20 PM56
Rick Fine:
Those guys from ICR actually don't like the folks Carter's touting.
And their CVs are a howl.
Thanks for the laugh.
posted on 01.28.2005 11:24 PM57
Engineering is not science, and most engineers are not scientists. Science consists of methodology aimed at uncovering objective truths. Engineering is design and problem-solving.
The proper study of information is a science, since information existed long before the first engineer. Calling an engineer a scientist is a much greater affront to the profession of science than pointing out, as Joe did, that Ph.D.s are subject to the same self-serving shortcomings as the rest of humanity.
posted on 01.29.2005 12:19 AM58
Science always gets it right in the end
Science must be very intelligent and hardworking.
posted on 01.29.2005 12:35 AM59
"The proper study of information is a science, since information existed long before the first engineer. Calling an engineer a scientist is a much greater affront to the profession of science than pointing out, as Joe did, that Ph.D.s are subject to the same self-serving shortcomings as the rest of humanity."
While I agree with you that engineering isn't applied science and engineers aren't scientists, the building of things for practical ends (engineering) has been around just as long as the study of of the creation (science).
The only reasons I can think of that somebody would think they are alike is if they have no idea what either of them is or if they think engineering is worse than science (it's not) and they want to legitimize it in some way.
posted on 01.29.2005 2:08 AM60
All of this sounds ever so familiar . . .
The denizens of Plato's Cave THOUGHT themselves ever so enlightened, until their conventional wisdom was challenged by a certain gadfly. Then, their rage betrayed their endarkenment.
Have a look:
http://www.bulldognews.net/cave-parable.html
Thank God, in the Blog age, this kind of party-line, 1984 style suppression of dissent in the Holy Chruch of Darwin can no longer be suppressed. (Hint: this is not the first case at all . . .)
Finally, kindly think again: how can noise become information and how can simpolicity become utterly sophisticated order without intelligent direction and control?
Absent question-begging assertions I have yet to see a serious answer.
The Emperor is naked!
GEM
PS on the logic of abduction in science, and onward links to engineering (Macht is right): http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Straight_Thinking.pps
posted on 01.29.2005 6:51 AM61
Scientists, being as a rule more or less human beings, passionately stick up for their ideas, their pet theories. It's up to someone else to show you are wrong. ~ Niles Eldredge
In the acquisition of new knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. ~ William Broad and Nicholas Wade
When dealing with people remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion, creatures bristling with prejudice, and motivated by pride and vanity. ~ Dale Carnegie
posted on 01.29.2005 10:01 AM62
Similarly, the Discovery Institute is agenda-driven funding.
Agenda-driven funding indeed. About three years ago, I attended a talk given by Jon Wells of the Discovery Insititute. During the Q&A session afterward, I said to him,
"I have a friend who works in bioinformatics, and he told me that his company relies heavily on evolutionary theory to identify the the most interesting parts of the human genome. Given that his company, and many of his company's competitors, are relying on evolution to direct their work, it is pretty apparent that lots of folks in the biotech industry are "barking up the wrong tree" if evolution is incorrect. It would seem to me then that companies "in the know" with respect to ID theory would have a huge advantage in the marketplace. Have you or the Discovery Institute ever received any funding from the biotechnology community for your work on ID theory?".
Wells hemmed and hawed a bit, saying the he wasn't the DI's "money guy", but admitted that the DI had received no biotech industry support.
I asked Wells specifically about industry support because he had been making such a big deal about discrimination against ID in the academy. Now, we all know that private investors/venture-capitalists couldn't care less about the "scientific orthodoxy"; they are simply looking for promising places to invest their money. So the Discovery Institute, even as late as 2002, (not long after the biggest bull-market run in our lifetimes, where investors had throwing money at all kinds of wacky ideas), had not been able to attract a *dime* of investors' money to develop their supposed ground-breaking "science".
So it is quite apparent to me that scientists and private investors alike agree that ID "theory" is utterly worthless.
posted on 01.29.2005 11:29 AM63
Presto Chango! Science can adapt to any possibility - except belief in a designer despite plentiful evidence of the existence of one. This is why what is passing for science is really naturalistic philosophy in disguise - as has been adequately explained by Phillip Johnson. For a picture of how science really works, read this article about Einstein's Greatest Failure - or is it? Presto Chango!
posted on 01.29.2005 11:38 AM64
Rely on a freerepublic article to tell us how science really works? ROTFL!!!!
Thanks for starting my morning with an uproarious belly-laugh!
posted on 01.29.2005 12:07 PM65
caerbannog :
Beautiful. Thanks for this. Yes, you're totally right: VC's and upper managers in larger companies only care about whether the technology can improve the bottom line, not whether or not it is wedded to any kind of orthodoxy.
Given the preponderance of biotech, you'd think that if these ID guys had anything at all in their cupboards they'd be wined and dined by VCs.
But they're not.
And that's the dead give-away.
And, consequently, that's why they have to go on these jihads against "scientific orthodoxy." Because they can't suceed the old fashioned way: by earning their success.
posted on 01.29.2005 12:20 PM66
caerbannog said...
"Rely on a freerepublic article..."
Typical dismissive demagogary and condescension which relies on a lie. FreeRepublic does not write the articles, it merely picks things up from various authors and disseminates them - in this case from the Houston Chronicle - but you already knew that.
If, however, you wish to assert that the article is factually incorrect, with specifics...
Oh, sorry. That would require thought.
posted on 01.29.2005 12:56 PM67
Update:
I did a little more research on the author of the above referenced article. It was written by Simon Singh, whom I think is eminently qualified to pontificate on the subject.
Or he's good for a belly-laugh, I guess.
68
@caerbannog
"I asked Wells specifically about industry support because he had been making such a big deal about discrimination against ID in the academy. Now, we all know that private investors/venture-capitalists couldn't care less about the "scientific orthodoxy"; they are simply looking for promising places to invest their money. So the Discovery Institute, even as late as 2002, (not long after the biggest bull-market run in our lifetimes, where investors had throwing money at all kinds of wacky ideas), had not been able to attract a *dime* of investors' money to develop their supposed ground-breaking "science".
So it is quite apparent to me that scientists and private investors alike agree that ID "theory" is utterly worthless."
Now that is a silly parable. Let me ask you, how much biotech money goes to paleontology? Even better, how much money goes to evolutionary scientists on the contingent of proving it successfully operates under random processes?
I agree that practically speaking, ID is quite useless. But no more useless than studies of evolutionary trees, or such fields as astrophysics (which, given our sublight limitations, probably does not even have the *potential* to become useful at some point).
Biotech is interested in the machinery itself, not who its original designer might happen to be, which quite frankly would have no relevance whatsoever to their work.
As such, your conclusion is simply a non sequitor.
posted on 01.29.2005 2:29 PM69
Jeff, yes, Simon Singh is extremely knowledgable in the areas of science and math, without a doubt one of the best journalists in his area. His work is fresh, interesting and profound; yet he explains things in a simple, understandable way (for people like me).
posted on 01.29.2005 3:20 PM70
caerbannog said:
"Rely on a freerepublic article to tell us how science really works? ROTFL!!!!
Thanks for starting my morning with an uproarious belly-laugh!"
To enlighten a bit...
The above post by Mr. Caerbannog is what is called a STRAWMAN fallacy - a poor excuse for actual thought and argument. It would most likely also qualify as an AD HOMINEM line of attack.
Look it up. Learn. Think for yourself and someday you may be able to offer something a wee bit more than parroting talking points.
And...also - thanks for making the other side's argument for them. They are grateful to folks like you.
71
sackofcatfood: I agree that practically speaking, ID is quite useless. But no more useless than studies of evolutionary trees, or such fields as astrophysics (which, given our sublight limitations, probably does not even have the *potential* to become useful at some point).
You miss the point of the story. Evolutionary theory is extremely important to biotech companies. The whole applicability of their technology relies on understanding what the relationships are between their testing subjects and models and actual human beings (or whatever they're targeting). If that's done incorrectly, then the applications they develop are useless. If ID is going to be a real science, then the test of it is going to be where its predictions diverge from evolution's. If ID were closer to reality than evolution, then a biotech company using it would have a huge advantage over those that were relying on incorrect models. The point of the story is that biotech people, who depend on the match between their models and reality to generate profit, don't find ID useful at all, exactly the same response as the academic scientific community (which also relies on the accuracy of its models to secure funding, albeit through different channels).
Biotech is interested in the machinery itself, not who its original designer might happen to be, which quite frankly would have no relevance whatsoever to their work.
Really? I seem to recall Microsoft being taken to court several years ago because they were withholding key technical aspects of Windows from competitors so that Microsoft's other products would have an inherent advantage. Are you really saying that not knowing anything about the design of a manufactured product wouldn't be useful?
posted on 01.29.2005 3:57 PM72
Reading all these comments to the effect that the Christian church is more tolerant of dissent than the scientific establishment prompts a question for those with superior knowledge of history:
How many people have been put to death by the scientific establishment for holding dissenting views on matters of scientific theory, method, or data?
Get the point? Religious people are certainly free to advocate for having their views taken more seriously, but claiming a history of tolerance is probably not their best tactic.
posted on 01.29.2005 4:18 PM73
"You miss the point of the story. Evolutionary theory is extremely important to biotech companies. The whole applicability of their technology relies on understanding what the relationships are between their testing subjects and models and actual human beings (or whatever they're targeting). If that's done incorrectly, then the applications they develop are useless."
Give me ONE EXAMPLE of where the study of evolutionary trees has led to any kind of pharmeutical, gene therapy drug, synthetic material, etc.
I think what you'll find is that biochemists prefer to simply perform the relevant experiments. But I will be quite humbled if you can actually find me an example of where they decided that, for example, looking at predicted evolutionary trees would be more useful than simply using electrophoresis to make a direct comparison between existing genetic material.
"If ID is going to be a real science, then the test of it is going to be where its predictions diverge from evolution's."
I can put that the other way around, too.
"If ID were closer to reality than evolution, then a biotech company using it would have a huge advantage over those that were relying on incorrect models."
Except that they DON'T RELY ON ANY MODELS. They don't care a rats behind whether the genetic code for kinesin spontaneously appeared out of the ether or was the decade's long work of team of extra-galactic space aliens.
So no, there is no advantage to using either ID or evolutionary theory in biotech. Because that is never even a relevant consideration.
"Really? I seem to recall Microsoft being taken to court several years ago because they were withholding key technical aspects of Windows from competitors so that Microsoft's other products would have an inherent advantage. Are you really saying that not knowing anything about the design of a manufactured product wouldn't be useful?"
LOL... surely you aren't proposing that a possible application of ID is to sue God for his original blueprints?
Otherwise, please explain to me how your analogy is in any way relevant to the question of ID vs. strictly mechanistic evolution.
I am inclined to say that, by your logic here, I would have a superior utility for the wheel if I only knew who had invented it. That's just silly. A motor is just as useful to me, and for that matter, a molecular motor, regardless of where it came from.
posted on 01.29.2005 4:22 PM74
Give me ONE EXAMPLE of where the study of evolutionary trees has led to any kind of pharmeutical, gene therapy drug, synthetic material, etc.
Well, if you just want one example, how about AIDS research? Do they test AIDS vaccines on chimpanzees because researchers like crazy simian antics? Or do they run tests on chimps because they share enough of our evolutionary history to make them an appropriate model for drug effects on humans?
That's the first thing that comes to my mind, but I'm sure an actual biologist could list a dozen others without breaking a sweat.
posted on 01.29.2005 4:46 PM75
Sack, Good points! I was trying to express similar ones here yesterday and a few weeks ago in other ID/Evolution threads. But you're hitting the points harder and more directly. The biochemistry angle is really illustrative, hammer away!
posted on 01.29.2005 4:48 PM76
From what I can discern, what Mummon et al are primarily objecting to is Joe Carter's (what I believe and hope is) rhetorical hyperbole in suggesting that scientists are somehow actively impairing the development and publishing of ID-related research on the basis of some sort of (anti-theistic) philosophical objection to the idea. In other words, anti-ID scientists are no less agenda driven than ID scientists.
In response we get such rhetorical hyperbole that implies that (big "S") Science is always open and neutral to new ideas that challenge not only the details of established theories, but those established theories themselves.
The truth, I think, is neither. ID does challenge the established scientific thinking, and therefore should expect to get a vigorous ride. No more vigorous than any other new theory, granted, but a vigorous ride nonetheless. It ought to be looked upon (by the scientific community) with suspicion. However, by in large, science does a pretty good job of sifting through good and bad ideas.
It seems to me, that those (like me) on the outside looking into this process ought to be suspicious of two positions:
(1) the position that the vigorous ride ID gets is proof of an anti-theistic bias; and
(2) the position that ID ought to be dismissed out of hand because it is not science, but rather "politics by other means".
The more dogmatically each position asserts itself, the more it confirms and entrenches the other position.
As a result, the approaches both Joe and Mummon et al take are deeply unhelpful.
posted on 01.29.2005 5:03 PM77
Well, if you just want one example, how about AIDS research? Do they test AIDS vaccines on chimpanzees because researchers like crazy simian antics? Or do they run tests on chimps because they share enough of our evolutionary history to make them an appropriate model for drug effects on humans?
You're telling me the reason we test things on chimpanzes is because of evolutionary theory? I.e., no Darwin, we wouldn't have a clue what similar creature to run tests on?
That's very backwards. The *reason* Chimpanzes are considered to be close evolutionary relatives of humans is *because* of their biological similarities. Evolution didn't discover those similarities, at it would be rather circular to use it to explain them. Obviously, the reason we use chimpanzes in medical research is because they've been experimentally proven to have similar biological responses. Coincidentally, pigs are also popular for certain biological tests because of certain similarities they share with human beings.
But come on, you only only have to *look* at a monkey to realize that it's probably going to be your ideal test subject for human beings.
(And thanks to TJones for his kind encouragement:)
posted on 01.29.2005 5:06 PM78
Richard Bennett
How many people have been put to death by the scientific establishment for holding dissenting views on matters of scientific theory, method, or data?
Consider the role science now plays in education. Scientific "facts" are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts" were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective. At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. Criticism is not entirely absent. Society, for example, and its institutions, are criticized most severely and often most unfairly and this already at the elementary school level. But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgment of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgment of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago. The move towards "demythologization," for example, is largely motivated by the wish to avoid any clash between Christianity and scientific ideas. If such a clash occurs, then science is certainly right and Christianity wrong. Pursue this investigation further and you will see that science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight. Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer. ~ Paul Feyerabend
79
bevets takes the bait and says: ...today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy.
Today hardly anyone? You mean never in history has anybody been put to death by the scientific establishment for their views, but in the history of religion, millions have. On what basis, then, can Joe Carter claim that religion is more tolerant of dissent than science?
The sad thing about Carter's post, and about ID in general, is this new-found desire among the cultural right to adopt the methods of the radical left. For decades the feminists and the multi-cultis have been playing the victim to ratchet up sympathy for their program of quotas, oppression of white men, and gay rights. This approach seems to have worked, so our fundamentalist brethren have adopted it in their war against science and reason.
It's very sad for me to see this, because I am certain that I share many of the moral values of the ID creationists; I just don't think you have to be an idiot to believe in God, the Golden Rule, or Jesus.
posted on 01.29.2005 5:25 PM80
Well, of course, without evolutionary theory, you'd have no explanation for the observed similarity between non-coding human and chimp DNA. That's the power of the twin nested hierarchy: you get the same cladogram whether you do it with phenotype or (non-coding) genotype.
Back to the point, chimapanzees are expensive. If you could use something cheaper and still be sure it'd work on humans, you would. But, if you've gotta be certain that it works before you go to human trials, you go to chimps first. Why? Evolution.
posted on 01.29.2005 5:31 PM81
Critics of Intelligent Design often dismiss the theory because its advocates rarely publish in peer-reviewed journals. But what happens when an article does pass the peer-review process and an editor includes it in a technical biology journal? According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, it gets the scientist branded a “heretic”
Well, apparently it gets you branded a heretic in the Wall Street Journal. I haven't seen that term used in the articles I've found on the controversy.
I've read the Meyer paper. (Here) It's nothing but the same old stuff.
The paper opens with a long discussion of the improbability of evolutionary moves between biological structures (significant changes in protein sequence are required to go from one functional structure to another; multiple proteins are required to create new cellular systems or new types of tissues; major changes in morphological body plan are required for phylogenetic shifts - and the obvious intermediary steps between one functional configuration and another are usually non-functional, so it is difficult to see how such moves could be made), and the claim that the various proposed sources of original configuration (e.g., genetic mutation, sexual genotypic mixing, developmental-process alterations, etc.) are insufficient. He quotes a number of studies, mostly from molecular biology, to this effect. (I suspect he's simply cribbing off Behe here, but haven't had a chance to compare the references.) This part of the paper is actually interesting and reasonable. He spins it a bit toward "intelligent design" with a few buzzwords and the citation of the usual suspects, but the issues he raises are interesting scientific questions - as scientists had known long before the creationists tumbled to it.
From there he jumps to the conclusion that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain these transisitions - the standard creationist "argument by personal incredulity" ("I don't see how this happened, so therefore it couldn't have happened."). This is nothing more than an ideological abandonment of science (the fact that something isn't known means that there is no possible non-magical explanation for it), and at this point the paper goes off the rails. He devotes the last third or so to standard creationist wishful thinking (the "argument by personal credulity" - "This fits with my religious inclinations, so therefore it must be historically and scientifically true").
In the end, the paper is a good overview of the general creationist project in its most "science-like" guise - but it's not science. It's a familiar restatement of standard arguments that Behe and Dembski (both of whom he quotes frequently) have been making repeatedly for years. There is nothing original in this paper. It appears that the only reason to publish it was to get it into a "peer-reviewed" forum. But that is not justification for publication in a research journal. (It is true that "reviews of literature" are a standard form of scientific publication which do not have to present original resarch, but this article, although it has been called a "review essay", is not a review of the literature. It offers numerous citations, mostly to the effect that proteins are really, really complicated, but then goes on to make a variety of explicit arguments. That is not what a review paper does. And the arguments this paper makes are not only not very strong, they are not in the least original. This would disqualify it from publication in any reasonable journal.)
I have also reviewed the tables of contents of each issue of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (the journal this paper appeared in) for the past two years (here). (There is, by the way, no August issue; the article appears in Volume 117, issue 2, the June 2004 issue.) Every single paper in that journal, without exception, other than Meyer's article, is on the taxonomy (scientific naming) or identification of individual animal species. There is not one single other article that deals with evolutionary theory or theoretical biology in general. The journal's official description, on its publisher's Web site, is: "The Proceedings is a quarterly publication consisting of articles focusing on systematic biology, taxonomy, biogeography, and phylogenetic studies." Note that these are all descriptive fields related to taxonomic classification, not theoretical studies.
So how did this paper - which is not strong, not original, not a review, and not on-topic for its journal, get published?
We notice this, from The Scientist:
Sternberg has ties to the intelligent design community, but he identifies himself as "a structuralist who has given several papers and presentations critiquing creationism." He is on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group at Bryan College, Dayton, Tenn. Baraminology, a term introduced in 1990, views biological creation as happening instantly, rather than through evolutionary descent. Sternberg is slated to attend a meeting in October entitled "Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Future of Biology." The meeting's Web site describes Sternberg's talk as an explanation of why "biology is better understood as a product of intelligent design."
[Note that Bryan College was endowed by (and is named for) William Jennings Bryan, as a direct result of his experiencers in the Scopes trial. It is a Christian college that has an explicit religious creed, including "that the origin of man was by fiat of God in the act of creation as related in the Book of Genesis; that he was created in the image of God; that he sinned and thereby incurred physical and spiritual death". Their biology major includes a course on "neo-Darwinism" (a term used largely by creationists, who seem hung up on Darwin in a way that scientists are not); it also includes a required course in "biological origins" in which half the semester is given to young-earth creaionism.]
So, a creationist editor slips a creationist article into a journal that has absolutely nothing to do with that subject. The article is billed as a "review essay", but it is not truly a review and does not present an original argument. And there is now a controversy over this event. What are we to make of it?
It sounds very much to me like he abused his position at the journal just before his editorship ended, when he knew they couldn't stop him. He took an article from his own religious viewpoint, found three editors (all from "biological disciplines" but none apparently from evolution studies) who thought it was interesting (though he notes in The Scientist that "The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments"), and published it under his own authority.
From unsubstantiated quotes reported by Sternberg himself, it appears that his supervisors' reaction may have been unwarrantedly intrusive. The question is not whether Sternberg has certain religious or political views, but whether he is capable of exercising scientific judgment and whether he deliberately published unoriginal work on an inappropriate subject out of personal conviction. The answers to those last questions appear almost certainly to be "no," and "yes," respectively. The answers to the previous questions are irrelevant, and if those are the questions that were asked of Sternberg then he deserves an apology just before they fire him. But that does not make his behavior any more defensible.
It seems very likely that this paper was a put-up job: creationists have been desperate for years to get their ideas into respectable publications, so now a paid staff member of a creationist institiution wrote a general argument rehashing standard "intelligent design" ideology, and the outgoing editor of a very minor publication, who is himself an officer of an organization devoted to creationism and headquarted at a creationist Bible college, published it. Now they can both claim that their "theory" has been "peer-reviewed" - because one creationist submitted it to another and he published it. (The names of the reviewers have not been published, as per standard practice, but I will bet a $25 donation to the Discovery Institute against a $25 donation to CSICOP [one taker only] that if they are revealed, at least one of them will turn out to be a member of a creationist or "intelligent design" organization also.)
It is possible that Sternberg's behavior wasn't knowingly dishonest or underhanded. At best it may be that, because of his religious inclinations, he was unable to exercise appropriate judgment about the article. He may have been inclined to view this sort of work as defensible, and thus failed to notice that it added nothing to the existing publications on the topic. That still does not explain how he could have thought it was appropriate for his journal, but perhaps because it uses the taxonomy of the Cambrian Explosion as an example (not as the main subject of the article), he may have thought he could stretch the point. It is thus just conceivable that his creationist leanings clouded his judgment to the point that he could no longer function as a competent scientist or scientific editor - but that's apparently the best you can say about him. And the fact that he continues to defend this - again, and these points can't be stressed too much - weak, unoriginal, and out-of-place publication, suggests that his actions were deliberate and not mistaken, but it's hard to say. At the very least, he has embarrassed his institution and his publication, and shown extremely poor ability to identify actual original scientific work, whether or not any of it is even true. He would naturally face consequences for that.
It's hard to be too sympathetic.
posted on 01.29.2005 5:49 PM82
By the way: spare us the comparisons to scientific martyrs real and imagined.
Sternberg's hardly being threatened with torture by the Inquisition. He abused his position and embarrassed his institution, and they cut back his lab privileges. Sounds like he got off easy.
As for de Brange, his case has been widely discussed. He has annoyed a lot of people, which makes them less interested in confirming his work for him, but that's only part of his troubles. He does have one major score behind him. But he also has several major claims that turned out to be major failures. And his current claimed proof is extremely long and would, by estimates, require several person-years of effort to verify; it is also written in a notation he invented for the specific purpose of doing this proof, meaning that he is currently the only person in the world capable of reading it and any verifiers would have to first learn his system only for that purpose. Not surprisingly, nobody wants to devote a big chunk of their careers to doing this, especially since history suggests he's very likely to be wrong.
It is certainly true that there are barriers (insitutional and psychological) to the promulgation of major new work. That may be regrettable, but it's also reasonable given that most claimed "breakthroughs" are flashes in the pan. (Academic departments are deluged with claims of major new discoveries from cranks who expect to be hailed as the new genius. Sometimes an eccentric genius does emerge, but for each such one there are hundreds of self-deluded ranters.) Skepticism is the hallmark of science, after all.
As Larry pointed out, all the ID people have to do is produce an actual predictive theory (not a lot of rants about how proteins are really, really complicated) and use it to solve a problem and they'll be taken seriously. All they have done so far is to admit that evolution theory has solved many problems and is obviously right about all of "microevolution" and at least some of "macroevolution" but that there are some questions that haven't been answered yet - and then claim that therefore they are entitled to assume some completely unfounded and invisible process as a solution. This is ludicrous. When they stop being ludicrous and produce a theory that can be understood and tested by someone who doesn't already assume their particular outlook, they'll be listened to. (A lesson that applies, in some sense, to de Brange as well.)
posted on 01.29.2005 6:05 PM83
Richard Bennett:
Thanks for the assist. I actually agree with you on a few things, among them:
1. The Trotskyite/Stalinist mode of attacking one's opposition sucks. Being a demagogue sucks.
2. The Sermon on the Mount isn't a bad thing. You don't have to be an idiot to practice it.
3. Good science/engineering is apolitical; that is, if it withstands the crucible of the scientific method, it isn't liberal or conservative. It just works.
posted on 01.29.2005 6:32 PM85
Kevin T. Keith :
Thanks also. It appears that what happened is a bunch of these creationists tried to get a thinly read publication to be the "test case" for "publishing" ID material.
I saw the same thing: all the articles are on taxonomy, none on origins.
Incidentlally, if you follow a link on the traceback, you can find Sternberg's website; his lack of forthrightness- even at describing the publication's scope- is interesting.
posted on 01.29.2005 6:45 PM87
Joe Carter:
I guess if you start posting on scientific topics, maybe you'll have to ignore all the experts who reply thereon.
You know, blogging, is an "information reformation,"...
LOL!
posted on 01.29.2005 6:47 PM88
Kevin writes:
From there he jumps to the conclusion that evolutionary mechanisms cannot explain these transisitions - the standard creationist "argument by personal incredulity" ("I don't see how this happened, so therefore it couldn't have happened."). This is nothing more than an ideological abandonment of science (the fact that something isn't known means that there is no possible non-magical explanation for it), and at this point the paper goes off the rails. He devotes the last third or so to standard creationist wishful thinking (the "argument by personal credulity" - "This fits with my religious inclinations, so therefore it must be historically and scientifically true").Heh. I will grant your above argument except for one thing – your implicit assertion that you are somehow outside of its religious and philosophical ramifications. This is a common ploy among evolutionists. The only 'scientific' ground you stand on is to dogmatically state that evolutionary mechanisms MUST explain the complex moves between biological structures no matter how improbable it may seem – and, make no mistake, the improbabilities are staggering. What is your proof? 'Why, it is the only explanation, for you see, God does not exist.' And so you arrive at your foregone conclusion. God is never allowed to enter the discussion and, conveniently, you are never said to "abandon science." Yet, that is exactly what you have done. It is as plain as the nose on your face. You will religiously cling to faith in naturalistic philosophy despite any evidence you encounter to the contrary. Therefore, take the above paragraph and apply it equally to yourself.
As for Sternberg's supposed abuse of his position, please explain to me how this is any more biased than those on your side of the debate shutting out all dissent based on your own religious convictions (i.e. faith in chance, naturalism, secular humanism, etc). You said yourself that his arguments were good ones, just not new ones – therefore his paper should have been disqualified based on that alone. But, if the arguments are so good and worthy of consideration, why haven’t they ever been published previously?
The game is rigged in favor of the house and you know it.
89
"....and then claim that therefore they are entitled to assume some completely unfounded and invisible process as a solution. This is ludicrous. When they stop being ludicrous and produce a theory that can be understood and tested by someone who doesn't already assume their particular outlook, they'll be listened to."
It's a perfectly founded and reasonable theory to infer that the pixels on my screen here represent your communication. Correct? I.e., they represent the work of your mind. Is insight visible? Do you still believe it exists? Is that scientific? Do I care if some moral degenerate wants to call it "science" or not, if it is a true view no matter what it is called?
The mythological narratives of Darwinism are "ludicrous." They are created by those who want to exchange insight for sight. E.g., "Once upon a time some avian ancestors were hopping around in trees, then some fell down and got killed while others lived. Eventually, this created the avian wing, lung, feather, heart and everything they need to fly."
You cannot understand just how ridiculous that is without some knowledge about avian anatomy.
In the "theory"/hypothesis/mythological narrative some similar type of naturalistic narrative also happend for bats, instects, etc., in the evolution of flight.
Well, it had to have happened that way because that's science, science! Correct?
If that's "science" then I have little use for it.
"....they'll be listened to."
You are wrong about scientists generally being interested in the truth all the time. The simple fact is that a lot of scientists are socialists and therefore proto-Nazis, i.e. moral degenerates. (See: Hitler's Scientists, By Cromwell) And so on, there is a history to scientism that is not what the Left likes to make it.
There are scientists who give people bigger guns while undermining civilization with their adherence to philosophic naturalism.
"Our whole cultural life for decades has been more or less under the influence of biological thinking, as it was begun particularly around the middle of the last century, by the teachings of Darwin, Mendel, and Galton and afterwards has been advanced by the studies of Ploetz, Schallmeyer, Correns, de Vries, Tschermak, Baur, Riidin, Fischer,Lenz, and others. Though it took decades before the courage was found, on the basis of the initial findings ofthe natural sciences, to carry on a systematic study of heredity, the progress of the teaching and its application to man could not be delayed any more."
(Hitler's Professors: The Part of Scholarship in
Germany's Crimes Against the Jewish People
By Max Weinreich
(New York: The Yiddish Scientific Institute, 1946) :33)
Biological thinking....well, you can't be thinking about biology because thinking might be downright invisible that way. And that's just not science!
One has to wonder....who cares if something is not "science," if it is true?
posted on 01.29.2005 9:42 PM90
"The game is rigged in favor of the house and you know it."
Indeed, I would argue it is so (with the usual censorship, propaganda and attempts to eliminate the God of the Jews) because of the proto-Nazi tendencies of evolutionists.
It is a historical pattern.
posted on 01.29.2005 9:44 PM91
Give me ONE EXAMPLE of where the study of evolutionary trees has led to any kind of pharmeutical, gene therapy drug, synthetic material, etc.
One major task in bioinformatics is to use sophisticated computational algorithms to "separate the wheat from the chaff" in the human genome. That means identifying the most highly conserved portions of the genome, as those parts of the genome are most likely to control crucial biochemical/metabolic functions in the body. The whole notion of "conserved regions" in a genome is a concept that is entirely dependent on evolution. That is, without evolutionary theory, the whole idea of a "conserved region" in a genome would make absolutely no sense.
Identifying highly-conserved segments of DNA in a genome requires the sequencing of large stretches of not only human DNA, but also that of a large number of organisms of varying evolutionary distance from humans.
Evolution is utterly fundamental to much of bioinformatics and biotechnology. Demanding to see "ONE EXAMPLE" where the study of evolutionary trees has led to any kind of pharmaceutical, gene therapy drug, etc betrays a total ignorance of the field.
It's as silly as demanding that a chemist identify "ONE EXAMPLE" where the study of atomic theory has led to any kind of useful chemical. Evolutionary theory, like atomic theory, is far more important than just an idea that leads to a neat product here and there. Like atomic theory, evolution provides an *entire foundation* for whole fields of study, and yes, entire industries.
posted on 01.29.2005 10:00 PM92
Didn't Phillip Johnson, the father of ID, say, "The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'" (1999)
Looks like Jeff has taken up the calling.
Calling on God as an explanation seems like an odd thing to do. Isn't that what the many Greek and Roman gods were all about, to explain things.
Scientists study the natural world and leave the supernatural to others. Isn't that how it's suppose to work, nowadays?
posted on 01.29.2005 10:10 PM93
"Scientists study the natural world and leave the supernatural to others. Isn't that how it's suppose to work, nowadays?"
On the situation nowadays,
"The situation I regard as quite serious, and I don’t think that in the seminaries training Protestant and Catholic clergymen, I don’t think they are really training them properly to face the modern world, to go out into a world where the average man in the str