I am a Deist. That means that I believe in God whole-heartedly but reject all religious dogma. My beliefs are a combination of certain elements from Hinduism, Sufism, and Buddhism and I try to pray and meditate daily and abide by a belief in karma. During the day I am a Fellow at the Center for the Study of Evolution and the Origin of Life. I study the oldest life on Earth (dating back to ~4 billion years) in order to unlock the secrets of life, how it began, and how it evolved until the present. I am an example of how one can embrace God and still believe at the same time that scientific explanations should always trump religious ones.
Over the last two days Deepak Chopra has been making arguments that basically support “Intelligent Design” on the liberal Huffington Post blog (which is an excellent website). Such an embarrassing event can occur when you have too many bloggers in one space and can’t keep track of it all. I am not a Deepak Chopra reader. I find his writings too…elementary. I don’t begrudge anyone that does enjoy his writing though. We all have different tastes is all. Chopra however has a lot of people that listen to him and take his words as “gospel.” That is why I was pained greatly to read his post. Here are some “scientific questions” he poses in order to demonstrate an openness to divine intervention:
1. How does nature take creative leaps? In the fossil record there are repeated gaps that no “missing link” can fill.
Wrong. It is the rock record that is incomplete. Tectonic activity is continually resurfacing the Earth and destroying the rocks containing fossils. Nature does not take “creative leaps.” The biggest such “leap” occurred around 535 Ma at the Cambrian boundary and over the last 40+ years the “gap” has been slowly filled in with solid fossil evidence showing gradual evolution.
2. If mutations are random, why does the fossil record demonstrate so many positive mutations — those that lead to new species — and so few negative ones?
Because organisms with negative mutations die out sooner making their preservation potential less. Only a tiny fraction of dead life survives the fossilization process without being destroyed. That’s why you don’t find dinosaur bones in your backyard.
3. How does evolution know where to stop?
Evolution never stops. Many prokaryotes (single-celled life) have remained virtually “un-evolved” for close to 3 billion years. This is because they are generalists that are suited for life in extreme environments and because they reproduce asexually which allows for less mutation. Give them an environment extreme enough though and they will either evolve or die. Evolution doesn’t stop at some perfect “design.”
I am going to stop here. Rest assured that I could systematically de-bunk every pseudoscientific point Chopra makes and I don’t even have my Ph.D. yet. Maybe Razib and his pals at GNXP want to take a shot at swatting down a few more (although I fear I’d be insulting their intelligence with such an easy task).
As you can imagine HuffPost readers let him have it in the comments following his post. In fact he had to write a follow-up post containing seven more fundamentally flawed arguments:Reviewing the negative reactions to yesterday’s post, I was struck that both “secular humanists” and fundamentalist become extremely emotional when the debate on evolution is brought up. However, new ideas are attacked with emotional vehemence some times and then turn out to be right.
Yes, its always easy to counter a rational attack with a wave of ones hand and then point to some historical examples of “persecuted ideas,” as if his argument has anything in common with them.
If you are opposing my comments with passionate vehemence, I’d suggest that you are not friendly to the open discussion of evolution, no matter which camp you belong to.
This coincidentally is almost verbatim what IDers say. Also let’s clarify. There is NO SUCH THING as “Intelligent Design.” Years ago the Creationists realized that the word “Creationist” was a conversation stopper. They then repackaged it and came up with a new word that was easier to swallow. Their PR people are brilliant.
There is also some poetry thrown into Chopra’s rebuttal in-case real scientists are still angry with his arguments:
You and I are such islands, and there is no reason on the face of it why we don’t blow away and disperse in waves of radiating heat the way a rock cools off after a hot day, the same way a star eventually expends its heat and dies.
Chopra promises to answer his thirsty minions in his next post which I eagerly await:
In my next post I will offer a picture of how these questions might be answered.
A picture is after all worth a thousand words.
If you would like to learn more about the truth then here are some links:
Would the real Gotham Chopra please stand up?
According to our system, comments #89,91,92, and 99 were left by the same IP address. More than likely a prankster whom we will ban if they continue with their foolishness.
some of you may find this amusing.
http://www.venganza.org/
Yep, check the bottom of my original post.
Abhi, Would love to hear your break this one down… And, your credentials when responding would be appreciated. Thank you. Aditya
From Deepak Chopra to Normal Creature at http://www.intentblog.com
Dear Normal Creature,
I am going to reply to your points one at a time without using pejorative terms like agenda and propaganda, a courtesy that we should all extend to each other. I majored in biology and am a board-certified internist and endocrinologist with an advanced specialization in Neuroendocrinology. I took my training at Harvard affiliated hospitals and teach at Harvard once a year. I hesitated in mentioning my credentials; however, since you suggested that I take an elementary course in biology, I wanted to share this information with you. I pursue scientific topics as even-handedly as I can, but at the same time I feel that falling in line with current orthodoxy isn’t a virtue. Being open-minded and asking interesting questions, on the other hand, is a definite virtue, in my mind.
Also, for the sake of integrity at this site, I would appreciate posters doing at least a minimum of fact-checking before they write. Divya, for example, might have entered the two words “teleology biology” at Google. If she had done that, she would have been able to read several hundred entries that fully justify using the notion of teleology in biological discussions.
Now, on to the points raised by you. 1. There were no ‘leaps’. A self-replicating molecule didn’t evolve in a day. It took one or two billion years of trail and error for a self-replicating molecule to evolve. What other ‘leaps’ or you talking about?
Reply: A leap is a jump from one state to another without intervening steps. It doesn’t matter how long Nature took to create a new emergent property. When hydrogen and oxygen fused to form water, the liquid nature of water, as opposed to the gaseous nature of hydrogen and oxygen, was a leap into a new property. Likewise, DNA’s ability to replicate itself was a leap. There were no intervening steps…how could there be? Either a molecule can replicate itself or it can’t. I do mention crystals, which can add to their lattices by drawing in new atoms. This resembles replication, and certain chemical reactions do turn into chain reactions. However, in organic chemistry “a localized molecular assemblage should be considered alive if it continually regenerates itself, replicates itself, and is capable of evolving.”
It is self-evident that life constitutes a quantum leap from inorganic chemistry.
Reply: This is pure speculation since the fossil record doesn’t contain primordial DNA, and mutations must occur on the genetic level. How do we know how ancestral DNA mutated if we can’t see any? There is DNA in recent Ice Age remains, but again we don’t have enough to spot a line of mutations for good or ill. Nor has anyone actually observed your supposed “neutral mutations” becoming positive. If the definition of “positive” is survival, a “neutral” mutation in the past would have to survive to be found. The actual point is statistical and has nothing to do with randomness versus purpose. Statistically, we do not currently observe many mutations in animal or plant populations to begin with, and those that are observed tend to benefit the species. At the genetic level, again, one does not see DNA constantly mutating in the gross way that gave rise to such dramatic innovations as wings or flight. To say that it takes a long time begs the question.
In the field of sociobiology there are interesting speculations that DNA may know more about its own survival than previously given credit for. The classic example, from Edward O. Wilson at Harvard, is altruism, the sacrifice of one batch of DNA to benefit an entire society, as when a honeybee dies to protect the hive.
Since no one will observe how DNA mutated over millions of years, the basic issue may have to do with parsimony, a principle in science. If two theories compete to explain the same phenomenon, the one that is simpler is favored over the one that is complex. Randomness is a very roundabout way to explain evolutionary innovations, while intelligence is simple. It may prevail in the end once the kinks in random theories become too great, just as the Ptolemaic universe became too complicated and was replaced by the simper Copernican system.
Dismissing the question, which is your chief mode of argument, is a weak approach.
Reply: The taxonomy of insects, reptiles, and amphibians has been firmly set in place–or stopped–for hundreds of millions of years. The fact that we have new kinds of butterflies, for example, doesn’t mean that any of them aren’t insects, just as all sharks are sharks, no matter how big or small they become.
Your other point, that species adapt by finding specific niches is a self-evident fact in evolution. It does no harm and commits no intellectual crime to ask exactly how this is done, given the incredibly complex interrelationship in eco-systems. I was asking a question posed by ecologists every day.
Reply: It is a basic necessity in current Darwinism that gene pools must be separate and unmixed, yet we only have to look close to home, at the admixture of Neanderthals an Cro-Magnons, or of hominid species and lower primates, to see that this kind of genetic isolation may be a fiction. In the ocean, aren’t all fish basically in the same soup? By using the word “simultaneous” I meant what you mean by parallel. To say that scales, feathers, and hair are simple adaptations to different environments makes little sense, since birds, mammals, and reptiles al share many of the same environments.
You have reduced a complex adaptation to a simple mechanism that wont’ fit.
Reply: I have no reply to someone who believes human beings aren’t intelligent. The fact that you can write and understand language is prima facie disproof of your assertion. That you are disillusioned with humanity is an age-old concern everyone shares.
Reply: Yes, basic physical laws apply throughout Nature, which is why we can rely on them. But advanced design, such as the helix, gets repeated under wildly differing circumstances. Fractals arise in elegant patterns out of apparently random interactions of basic particles. Given all that, my question remains valid. How does something like a spiral repeat itself in sunflowers, chambered nautiluses, and galaxies, given that there is no obvious physical law to bind such diversity? I offer that the binding is intelligence.
You are arguing backward from your own premise, that intelligence couldn’t account for anything; therefore, any other explanation, however weak, must apply. You even find that the absence of a credible explanation is better than resorting to a different mode of explanation, which is all I’m doing. Sometimes in science you have to shift gears.
Reply: I am afraid you are arguing my point. The ability of a molecular machine to precisely fit in an oxygen atom is the same ability as the oxygen atom fitting in. In both cases we see an inorganic chemical entering the organic world. Your analogy doesn’t apply since pens and typewriters aren’t made of the same things as human beings. In any case, if you want your analogy to apply, you are asserting that intelligence in our brains uses pens and typewriters to carry out certain tasks. A cell is using oxygen in the same way.
You observe intricate activity that is precisely coordinated while insisting that at all costs it must not be called intelligent.
Reply: Systems do appear as a coordinated whole; in fact, that’s what makes them systems and not accidental juxtapositions. Ecosystems are interrelated, and although parts of any ecosystem change and evolve, the ability of overall balance to remain constant hasn’t been explained. The equivalent in the human body is homeostasis. Inorganic systems can return to balance in a mechanical way without any need to call them intelligent, but the human body preserves balance simultaneously on dozens of fronts. As a specialist in hormones, I can assert this without equivocation. The body’s ability to do this has given rise to rich speculation on the presence of intelligence in many areas outside the brain, including the immune system and digestive tract.
You dismiss the question without reference to any research past or present. I don’t know in what way that is considered respectable debate.
Reply: I don’t quite know what you mean by saying that “DNA creates an environment,” an odd proposition since DNA actually responds to the environment. Or are you referring to the Gaia hypothesis, which speculates that DNA created the entire ecosystem? But “survival of the fittest”has long been considered a tautology since any species that survives would be considered fittest ,and the only criterion for fittest is survival. We have no way of differentiating a positive or negative mutation in many cases except to look at how it turned out in the long run. The advent of ecology and sociobiology testifies to the need for a new, more sophisticated explanation of adaptation. I merely asked if intelligence doesn’t answer these issues better? It can’t, of course, as long as one is a strict materialist.
But materialism isn’t the end-all and be-all of thought. It is a prevailing paradigm waiting for the next paradigm to arrive, which will only succeed if it can explain phenomena better than the current paradigm. I happen to enjoy looking over the horizon at the next paradigm. You enjoy defending the current one, apparently under the belief that final truth has been attained.
Will his credentials serve to validate or detract from the quality of his answer?
Actually, yes Deepa, credentials would be helpful.
Lets see if Abhi actually can respond with valid arguments, or if he is joining the band wagon and making lots of noise for the sake of it. To me, that would be pathetic, as it is the easy way out. But, I will not make any assumptions yet.
Whatever you want to say about Deepak Chopra, he is a smart man and would be an idiot to talk about things he doesnt know about. He would not risk his reputation on that.
Its easy to say that someone doesn’t know what they are talking about, but does Abhi?
I personally know nothing about this topic, so am open to both sides.
Credential Wars: First, Do not Lie, and then do Hide Beneath Them
1) First, Do not Lie Perhaps one of the Harvard Graduates will “correct” me, if I am wrong anywhere.
Chopra claims: I took my training at Harvard affiliated hospitals and teach at Harvard once a year [www.intentblog.com].
From Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepak_Chopra]: Chopra is a trained physician and was board-certified in internal medicine and endocrinology. According to Stephen Barrett, an outspoken critic of Chopra, he graduated from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in 1968, and after interning at a New Jersey hospital, trained for several more years at the Lahey Clinic in Burlington, Massachusetts and at the University of Virginia Hospital. He later became chief of staff at New England Memorial Hospital.
Lahey Clinic is not Harvard affiliated. No connection between New England Memorial Hospital and Harvard University is established.
Lahey Clinic Medical Center is a teaching hospital for Tufts University School of Medicine [http://www.lahey.org/About/]. In my research at Harvard University Website [http://hms.harvard.edu/hms/home.asp], I do not find any link between New England Memorial Hospital and HMS Affiliated Hospitals & Institutions, unless the name of the hospital has changed since then.
Granted: Deepak Chopra has given seminars at Harvard only as a Guest Faculty [http://cme.hms.harvard.edu/cmeups/pdf/00251264.pdf] but there is no proof of formal affiliation to Harvard University.
2) Second, Do not hide in Degrees
Satyendra Nath Bose, one of the greatest mathematical physicist never had a PhD but worked with Albert Einstein (Bose-Einstien Condensate), Madame Curie and other luminaries and left a legacy for a lifetime.
“Upon his return to Dhaka (Univeristy), he was made a professor in 1926. He did not have a doctorate, and so ordinarily he would not be qualified for the post, but Einstein recommended him.” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose]
It is not the credentials that matter, it is the ideas and the rigor. Deepak Chopra is misusing his credentials.
Since, we are at credential wars, I would like a biologist take a crack at his assumptions and ideas. This said, my credentials, PhD (Geophysics) and currently research scientist at College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR.
Just google = Kush Tandon
Title Correction for above post:
Credential Wars: First, do not lie, and then do not hide beneath them.
You want to be an academic snob, lets do the whole deal. I want to see Deepak Chopra’s track record in peer-reviewed publications.
I repeat “peer-reviewed” publications. Deepak Chopra and his apologists are walking on a very thin ice.
Dr. Strangelove
Aditya, in the future, when asking someone to present their “credentials,” its best not to do so while you remain an anonymous coward. Also I have never attacked Deepak Chopra the person, only his recent arguments. I don’t read him but I don’t read Rushdie either. Everyone has different tastes. Here are my credentials anyways:
Age 3- I saw Star Trek 1 at the drive-in. My interest in science began.
Age 5- I made a kick-ass diorama of a scene from the Jurassic in kindergarten. My interest in evolution began. This girl Kim, who I had a mad crush on wasn’t impressed though.
Age 10- They used to bus me to another school every Thursday for “gifted and talented children.” We solved puzzles and practiced telekinesis.
Age 14- I took the test to gain entry to MENSA and passed with an IQ of 154. I don’t even know what MENSA stands for though.
Age 17- I won first place in the state of Maryland Physics Olympics competition in the “catapult event.” All the girls were on my jock.
Age 17- I worked as a telemarketer and was almost fired after 3 days because nobody would buy from me. Although this isn’t a good “credential” I am still traumatized by it and wanted to provide full disclosure.
The rest of my accomplishments have admittedly been minor.
Now, to get to the issue at hand. The debate in question is long over. In the blogosphere things move very fast young one (although not faster than the speed of light which would be impossible…except for possibly tachyons). Go to technorati.com and search for this debate. See what comes up. Judgement has been rendered.
I hope you don’t honestly think that a single guy like me, still in his twenties (just barely), is going to spend his Friday night at home wasting his time typing up a response to yesterday’s news? No. I am going to go out tonight and hopefully, maybe, finally, I’ll meet a nice girl with whom I will one day share some DNA. Given my eccentricities I have no doubt that we shall produce X-Men. This will demonstrate that man isn’t a perfect “design” and that we still do evolve.
“Actually, yes Deepa, credentials would be helpful.”
I suppose this is because…
“I personally know nothing about this topic”
…and you hope that weighing credentials will help you understand how good his answers are?
No help for it but to research, I’m afraid.
Thanks, Abhi. At least, I know what you are all about. Its instant for you – no depth. Wont bother you anymore. Kush, you seem to have a great backgound. Would be great to hear your arguments on this issue — that is, if you dont think its old news. Honestly, would love to hear your thoughts based on Deepaks responses.
Aditya,
What I will do is write a small, yet not loaded with jargon opinion on earth history, time, and life from a geological perspective in a week or so (I do have a day job, karate, other important activities, etc.). I honestly believe that scientists are to be blamed quite a bit for not presenting their ideas clearly to non-scientists. I can only give an insightful geological critique. IÂ’ll inform here, and post it at RazibÂ’s and my blog.
My knowledge of biology is very rudimentary. Deepak ChopraÂ’s ideas presented here are mostly biology, and therefore, I am not the right person for point-by-point analysis. Yet, you can read my piece (get an earth scientistÂ’s perspective) and from other people (far more insightful than me) too in Scientific American, Science, and Nature magazines. Some of these magazines have parts open access to all via web (no subscription needed).
I do not intend to pick fights over Deepak Chopra, if it was Aishwarya Rai, then the gloves are onÂ…Â…Â…Â….
Dr. Strangelove
I’ve been studying both sides of this debate the past few days. Neither, to my mind and, admittedly, limited reading (so far), extricates itself from a priori postulation.
The following might summon the old controversy about the two cultures – C.P. Snow’s book of the same title is among the most boring and poorly written bits of blather ever unmeritoriously applauded – but experience as a reader of world literature, history, poetry, and difficult philosophical/cultural texts instructs me that many scientifically trained individuals possess meagre skills in the interpretive and explanatory arts.
The badly, badly written stuff (jejune argumentation, baseless self-congratulation/bravado, embarassing sentence structure mis-direction, etc.) I’ve been enduring to get a hold on this topic only confirms this.
In my opinion, in the act of engagement, neither the evolutionists nor the ID advocates get much past question-begging in interpreting evidences that carry a very high noise to signal ratio.
The primordial world is gone forever. In its wake, adversarial litigants harass each other. The details of the demise and the meaning of the present inheritance are in contention. The death, like any other, is final, and a largely disintegrated and indecipherable will remains to fuel the hostilities.
Perhaps my father, a broadcast engineer extraodinaire, might characterize this inciting testament as an unclear transmission due to a meaningfully weak source radiation.
How the combatants characterize themselves is an interesting spectacle in itself.
Aditya – Abhi has provided link after link after link dealing with this topic (scroll up this page), and you then accuse him of lacking depth because he doesn’t want to spend a few hours personally addressing some issue you have? You’re really offensive. The man works in aerospace engineering! At least he had the sense to answer you tongue-in-cheek rather than rip you a new one. Go to the library if you want answers, or sign up for a basic science class at your local community college.
My bf is a graphic designer and I’m a video editor. How would you advise non-scientists to go about having X-Men kiddies, Abhi? 😉
(I have nothing to say, I just wanted to post up that line again)
Fortunately that is incorrect Christopher. That sentence, once corrected should read, “The primordial world on Earth is gone forever.” That is why the field of astrobiology exists (which is by the way what my current degree is in). Take for example Saturn’s moon Titan. Many scientists believe that Titan’s present day atmosphere is like that of Earth’s primitive. Whether or not that is true is testable. Even if we can’t find the chemistry that led to the origin of life here on Earth (because all the molecules are highly soluble) we can still hope to find it elsewhere. When trying to prove things which people assume are “unprovable” one is only limited by their lack of imagination and curiosity.
amurrican atheist, I have only one piece of advice to that question. Lots of practice 🙂
Remember that episode where Q took Picard back to see the first amino acids forming a protein? I bet it looked NOTHING like that.
Is there any truth to the following?
http://www.fixedearth.com/theoretical_science_establishmen.htm … ?
Hi Abhi,
Thanks for the useful correction.
Among the great things that scientific enterprise inspires are the imagination and curiosity you cite.
Anyone should ponder, however, whether they are enough to overcome the base-line incredulity inherent in an attempt to divine the meaning of ambiguous at hand signatures from ever more distant ones.
In other words, I’m skeptical.
It is easy to be skeptical or pessimistic a priori about science’s ultimate ability to investigate certain questions.
But if a body of work exists regarding one of these questions, it is only responsible to get a sense of that body of work rather than retaining the a priori skepticism from an aloof perspective.
deepa, induction justifies induction? 🙂
Actually Deepa,
My experience in engaging different canons of knowledge is that it is reasonable for skepticism to be strengthened by inconclusiveness.
That is not aloofness. It is sensible and mature judgement.
To me, it is irresponsible and foolhardy to rhetorically buttress obscure and massagable data from a sanctioned and orthodox position.
That is akin to the Thomistic tactics of the 13th century.
chris, what are you trying to say? your responses are extremely eloquent and clearly erudite, but i doubt that deepa was trying to say anything that resembled an apology for thomism. frankly, trying to track your comments is like following a a windy trail where you compresses and conflate various issues and comments into a particular construct in mind that you have.
it doesn’t seem to me that anyone here is promoting scientism or vulgar logical positivism. if you have a weblog, i’d like to read your positive position rather than merely critiques. for example, my impression from just your responses to kush tandom’s rather provisional and moderate (to my mind) comments is you would think he was a true believer of the vienna circle.
the original point of this post was rather mundane. on a log scale the frequency of scientists who credit intelligent design is trivial. we weren’t making any grand existential or ontological claims.
you know science and technology (and yes, i don’t think distinguishing the two is totally kosher, there are even fields like biotechnology where the two now work simultaneously) by its fruits. a particular “canon,” which perhaps can be worked back to liebniz via von neuman et al results in the computer which you are viewing my comments with at this moment. that’s the pith i think of the comments about science from scientists. we certainly don’t need to be lectured on the sloppy manner in which science is done or the ethical lapses committed by many scientists, we’ve seen the massaging of data and adherence to weak hypotheses.
Hello Razib,
I’ve learned from your remarks, especially (a lot) in the Great Balls of Fire thread.
I also had a good laugh reading your conceit about “Deepa…an apology for thomism”. I admit Ican be undisciplined in the unlikely associations I bring to bear on an issue. That reflects my own omnivorous curiosity and reading/learning.
As far as my own positive postion, you make a fair request. Basically, I agree with the direction of Abhi’s own personal philosophical/religious conclusions that are detailed in his original blog.
Probably I would call myself a strict materialist. But in my view, that does not preclude the idea of God or of something “higher” (If you will permit me this metaphoric language for now.). I do not believe that science is the single or (contra to Abhi) priority source for information about existence.
As an important aside, I must state that I am very suspicious of reductionism in science. Jacques Barzun, who is a singular treasure, has succinctly summarized the problems with this methodology in his majesterial “From Dawn to Decadence”. I can only fail here in trying to paraphrase his already razor-like treatment.
Science is a contributor to a network of kinds of knowledge that also includes essential input from philosophy and (most importantly) human experience as well.
And so, I’ve read with profit both E.O Wilson and Annie Dillard. I’ve had a harder time with S.J. Gould and Steven Weinberg because, in spite of all the applause, I find their respective prose styles and reasonings not completely satisfactory.
Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that there are varieties of skepticism. A continuum of skepticism might run from extreme to very modest. On the extreme end you will find the withdrawn, unengaged, and unconvincible. Toward the very modest end you will find the open, investigating, and interested. I locate myself far nearer the latter point.
A continuum of skepticism might run from extreme to very modest.
continuity is important, my impression of your comments is that two often we (you, kush, abdhi, i, etc. etc.) are shadow-boxing perceived types. that is, kush says A, you infer B, respond with C and kush responds with D based on his perception that your response was E, etc. etc.
i don’t make grand ontological claims for the importance of science, which is a social enterprise that is fruitful because of its particular self-correcting mechanisms. my own interests are relatively wide, and i don’t have contempt for history and the humanities, and my own worldview tends to be synthesis. but,
1) in the narrow sense, the post was about intelligent design.
2) a few people on this thread have a misimpression about what ‘intelligent design’ is.
3) on the other hand, some of the perfunctory and truncated responses to #2 elicited in some a response (you, the fellow who cited alvin-pressupositionalist-plantiga) as if abhi et al were promoting a quasi-dawkinsian is -> ought paradigm. i’ve read some philosophy, but i didn’t want to get side-tracked because the basis focus of this thread was the problem of the ubiquity of #2.
4) so, perhaps you are correct that some scientific inclined people make grand claims for their enterprise which are not ontologically justified (i view the world as based on provisional operational “truths”). nevertheless, the problem before us is #2, the fact that a great majority of the public perceives intelligent design as legitimate science when it is by common sense (ie; the overwhelming preponderance of scientists).
Hi Razib,
I like your well-put evaluation of aspects of this discussion.
You are right about “shadow-boxing.” It’s also a useful metaphor.
My original reaction (you probably got this)was to the logism “pseudoscience” in the title. Even if I was in perfect agreement with Abhi, I would advise against that. I know that this usage is firmly in the vernacular, but that does not alter my resistance to it.
The best arguments are made with neutral, steady language. It’s also fine (and effective)to punctuate with flourishes, but I would conceive original expressions for that purpose and not clutter up my prose with empty pejoratives.
There is also a tactical consideration to this. The best way to begin the hard work of softening your adversaries is not to immediately impugn their position with insult. I accept that this might be a matter of style, but in my experience, finer thinkers can effectively and creatively sustain a point without the handicap of obvious devices. (I’m not including the skill of satire here. That is a special situation.)
. The best way to begin the hard work of softening your adversaries is not to immediately impugn their position with insult.
there isn’t a hard and fast rule. i employ all sorts of tactics depending on the situation. in this case, i have debated/discussed/read about ID/creationism for 15 years now. it is clear impression to me that most people who promote ID are not arguing in good faith. if you have third parties observing the argument perhaps you could make the assertion that you are pushing, but if it is a us vs. them argument than i have no problem getting down and dirty. there are more than two, three, or four ways to go at this. i think there is something to the idea that treating someone as if they are worth being treated with gives them legitimacy. the decision of how to go about engaging people who promote ID is (in my opinion) conditioned upon what your ends are and how you weight the various factors.
myself, i vacillate between the disrespect and treat-them-like-they-are-sincere positions. it all depends on context.
Razib:
I haven’t engaged with the IDists quite so long as you have. But my encounters have also left me pessimistic about the utility of public debate with them: It does make uninformed third-parties think that there is a genuine scientific debate on evol. biol.
I’m not quite sure about what’s best tactically. Certainly, biologists can’t afford to ignore them entirely. Perhaps biologists should focus more on ‘outreach’ to the public.
Kumar
Razib,
I think there are lots of third parties observing this argument in this forum. (I’m included in that grouping.)
We will have to disagree on this. To me, the ridiculing epithets and bristling dismissiveness are plausibly symptomatic of the following.
1)The evolutionists can’t get enough traction.
2)Their arguments are not solid enough.
3)Frustration results.
And in my view, this
4)cognitive dissonance emerges in the disdain you characterize as an optional resource.
I call it something else: undisciplined self-display.
How do the idiots reduce their masters to bawling, name calling simpletons?
This is what gives an objective, non committed reviewer pause.
An irresistable logic has no worry about legitimizing its rivals. It rises like a giant against them and they flee the field without a whisper.
Heh, y’all should print out these parody ‘science’ postage stamps at Stayfree Magazine:
http://blog.stayfreemagazine.org/2005/08/science_stamps.html
“To me, the ridiculing epithets and bristling dismissiveness are plausibly symptomatic of the following.”
No, they’re symptomatic of the fact that you’re not responding to the arguments already on the table. It’s how you’d treat a crazy homeless person muttering in your face.
Yamuna,
I’ve already stated that it makes no difference whether I am in perfect agreement with the evolutionists in this debate.
My interest is in examining the structure of argument and in deconstructing language.
The arrogance, pomposity, self-congratulatory tone, etc. in tandem with the radical question-begging and inescapable a-priori reasoning of their position makes these evolutionists ridiculous.
But I’ve had it with this topic. Go ahead and believe adolescently spitballed reasonings.
More serious is the following:
I hope you will learn to be grateful to have escaped the condition of homelessness.
Your comment indicates you have not escaped the stain of presumed superiority.
Shame on you for further degrading those who are defeated in life.
You should re-think this attitude.
Christopher
I recently read an article that finally answer’s some of the discomfort that I have had with ID/Creationist push to put this into classrooms. I believe it was recently published in the NYT.
To me the thinking process here is the same I have with most religions. Why?
Why would some being(s) do this? What was the purpose behind the creation of say the scorpion or the platapus? Typically this would mean believing that there is a purpose. Belief(or faith) and science aren’t the same. At least to me. Pushing for ID in classrooms would essentinally then convert them into churches/synagogues/mosques/temples.
“I hope you will learn to be grateful to have escaped the condition of homelessness.”
Mr. John, you have proven that you can make mincemeat of a throwaway metaphor. For that I congratulate you.
But the main course lies yet on the table, untouched. I can understand if it remains unappetizing. One needs a strong stomach to deal with the “arguments” of the Church.
I reiterate: you haven’t addressing the arguments laid out in detail on this thread. Your ball.