Unitelligent Design.
A piece written in response to Louisiana now permitting the teaching of intelligent design. I'm not sure how the state legislature and the governer think they can get away with this. A Federal Judge ruled the teaching of ID a violation of church and state separation in 2005.
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intelligent design. Show all posts
19 August 2008
26 April 2008
The Fight of Words
In the battle against Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates, who together are part of the larger American traditional of anti-intellectualism, and the cult of ignorance that, as Isaac Asimov said, misunderstands democracy to mean "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge", we who stand with evidence and with reason must realize that we are not fighting enemies who will agree to our terms. We ask for evidence and they respond with ad hominem attacks. They create false dichotomies, and defend themselves by endlessly moving goal posts and asserting that there is no true scotsman. Their weapons are not facts--they have none--but words.
Reality is on our side. Pragmatism favors us overwhelmingly (ID does not enhance science's ability to do anything). But I for one desire a stronger, swifter victory. To quote Isaac Asimov again
Some language we cannot help. The false dichotomy drawn between "Fact" and "Theory" is simply a misunderstanding (or deliberate muddling) of otherwise clearly distinguishable scientific nomenclature. Fact is not a higher order of truth than theory. Fact is simply a piece of data. A Theory is an idea, generated and supported through repeated demonstration and testing, and forever buffeted by the storm of peer review. A Law, just to clarify, also does not trump a theory. It is not any truer. Rather, a law is a simple concept (relatively speaking) that can be expressed in a formula. Newton's law of motion (F=MA), the ideal gas law (PV=nRT). Theories have a larger scope and cannot be quantified into an equation. Aside from Evolution, notable theories (which are not laws) include: the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Planetary Motion, the Theory of Electromagnetism, and so on. These facts should be common knowledge. That they are not testifies to the present inadequacies of our education system.
In other areas of language, we can make clear gains over our opponents. We need simply wake up. For example, we must cease using the word Worldview immediately. We must forever strike that hideous construction from our thoughts and name it anathema. We will do this because we understand the way the human mind works.
Some of my friends swear by IPods. Others by Zunes. If I call them both MP3 Players, I bestow some measure of equality on them. I place them on equal footing. And in response to this, both sides of the debate would protest and declare their side superior.
To call both modern science and Pastafarianism worldviews places them on equal standing to those not familiar with their intricacies. This particular case is obviously and intentionally absurd. But it is directly analogous to what happens when well-meaning scientists talk about the scientific worldview while the Discovery Institute speaks of the Intelligent Design worldview, and postmodern thinkers start to classify everything from Christianity to Astrology to Nihilism as worldviews. Equality is created where it does not belong. Irredemably foolish notions like "In the lab, my Christian worldview is as good as your science" start to make sense.
Let the IDiots and the Fundies talk about worldview all they wish. Let the postmoderns put more and more under its arms. But for us, who call ourselves rational and who place our trust in evidence, in reality, let us take a stand against nonsense and irrationality and refuse the label.
Science is not a worldview.
Reality is on our side. Pragmatism favors us overwhelmingly (ID does not enhance science's ability to do anything). But I for one desire a stronger, swifter victory. To quote Isaac Asimov again
Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition.To accomplish this, we must recognize the linguistic nature of this battle, and we must equip ourselves accordingly.
Some language we cannot help. The false dichotomy drawn between "Fact" and "Theory" is simply a misunderstanding (or deliberate muddling) of otherwise clearly distinguishable scientific nomenclature. Fact is not a higher order of truth than theory. Fact is simply a piece of data. A Theory is an idea, generated and supported through repeated demonstration and testing, and forever buffeted by the storm of peer review. A Law, just to clarify, also does not trump a theory. It is not any truer. Rather, a law is a simple concept (relatively speaking) that can be expressed in a formula. Newton's law of motion (F=MA), the ideal gas law (PV=nRT). Theories have a larger scope and cannot be quantified into an equation. Aside from Evolution, notable theories (which are not laws) include: the Theory of Gravity, the Theory of Planetary Motion, the Theory of Electromagnetism, and so on. These facts should be common knowledge. That they are not testifies to the present inadequacies of our education system.
In other areas of language, we can make clear gains over our opponents. We need simply wake up. For example, we must cease using the word Worldview immediately. We must forever strike that hideous construction from our thoughts and name it anathema. We will do this because we understand the way the human mind works.
Some of my friends swear by IPods. Others by Zunes. If I call them both MP3 Players, I bestow some measure of equality on them. I place them on equal footing. And in response to this, both sides of the debate would protest and declare their side superior.
To call both modern science and Pastafarianism worldviews places them on equal standing to those not familiar with their intricacies. This particular case is obviously and intentionally absurd. But it is directly analogous to what happens when well-meaning scientists talk about the scientific worldview while the Discovery Institute speaks of the Intelligent Design worldview, and postmodern thinkers start to classify everything from Christianity to Astrology to Nihilism as worldviews. Equality is created where it does not belong. Irredemably foolish notions like "In the lab, my Christian worldview is as good as your science" start to make sense.
Let the IDiots and the Fundies talk about worldview all they wish. Let the postmoderns put more and more under its arms. But for us, who call ourselves rational and who place our trust in evidence, in reality, let us take a stand against nonsense and irrationality and refuse the label.
Science is not a worldview.
21 March 2008
The Logical Sins of the Intelligent Design Movement
Yesterday evening, Professor PZ Myers reported on his blog that he had been expelled from a screening of the soon-to-debut film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", a documentary which argues that Intelligent Design(ID) is presently suppressed in the mainstream by Big Science and which deserves to be taken seriously. In the frenzy of comments to follow this post (1000+) one responder posted a link. The poster offered it, colorfully, with "have you seen this bullshit, btw?" The link led to a supposed list of ID-based research. (Notice the mascot of the ID advocates, the bacterial flagellum, on the flag.) The research offered as evidence illustrates well a common practice amongst the ID crowd. Parading fallacious arguments and capitalizing on general ignorance of logical validity.
Allow me to clarify.
The argument presented on site claims
It's the watchmaker argument all over again. Essentially, this poster has taken the compositional fallacy and enlarged it to cosmological scale. Both the watchmaker argument and this poster's claim make the same error.
The famous watchmaker argument comes from William Paley. He argued that if one found a watch, one would assume someone had made it. Design was a priori apparent from the structure of the watch. From this we are, by analogy, supposed to move to a conclusion that all complexity requires a designer. This is blatantly fallacious. Just because all watches have watchmakers, and all shoes have shoemakers, does not mean all universes must have universe-makers.
What about the alternative? Does natural explanation fair any better on logical grounds? Unsurprisingly, it does.
The argument against design is founded on a 700 year-old principle called Ockham's Razor. "Given two explanations of a phenommenon, choose the one that entails the least premises." This idea makes intuitive sense to all rational individuals. If I say to you "I can't find my keys. Either I misplaced them, or someone broke into my house, stole the keys, did not take anything else, and perfectly covered his/her tracks" you would tell me I probably just lost them by applying the principles of the Razor.
The Razor is the heart of the argument against design. By explaining the phenomena we observe around us without invoking a god, any supernatural power is rendered an unnecessary premise and is thus removed from the equation. There's no fallacy here.
In its quarter-century (or thereabouts) of existence, ID has never provided evidence for itself. ID advocates constantly try to shoot holes in evolution and then say "See? It must have been God!" Forgetting for a moment that their "holes" have been consistently disproved, there remains a fallacy. Even if an ID advocate could one day dismantle evolution and disprove it, this would do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of ID. To argue:
Of course, none of this will ever dissuade the ID fans out there. Despite the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, as compared to the tiny piles of ultimately fallacious arguments against it; despite the continued failure of ID to provide evidence of design; despite the track record of ID advocates for information distortion and general dirty dealing(for example, drawing the false distinction between macro- and micro-evolution)--the movement remains. So long as people continue to believe faith is a good thing, ID will remain credible to some.
And, of course, to those of us of the rational persuasion, it will always remain laughable.
Allow me to clarify.
The argument presented on site claims
The following is an edited extract from a Nature paper. It is an example of real ID research. Notice that the designers only used evolutionary techniques to very slightly tweak the enzymes scaffold structure that had been designed with “borrowed components” from existing enzymes tacked together. The novel active site was completely intelligently designed.Let's translate this to argument form:
(1)The structure created by these scientists was designed intelligently.
(2)This structure is complex and alive.
(3)Therefore, all things which are complex and alive are designed.
It's the watchmaker argument all over again. Essentially, this poster has taken the compositional fallacy and enlarged it to cosmological scale. Both the watchmaker argument and this poster's claim make the same error.
(1)X possesses properties A and B.An absolute, complete non sequitur. By this same fallacious logic, all women are male since they both sexes are human (possess the property of humanity). All arguments based on complexity that intend to prove design--and Percy Bysshe Shelley pointed out in his 1811 essay "The Necessity of Atheism", for which we he was kicked out of Oxford, we cannot even begin talking about a designer until we can prove design--all such arguments eventually break down to this sort of fallacy.
(2)Y possesses property A.
(3)Therefore, Y possesses property B.
The famous watchmaker argument comes from William Paley. He argued that if one found a watch, one would assume someone had made it. Design was a priori apparent from the structure of the watch. From this we are, by analogy, supposed to move to a conclusion that all complexity requires a designer. This is blatantly fallacious. Just because all watches have watchmakers, and all shoes have shoemakers, does not mean all universes must have universe-makers.
What about the alternative? Does natural explanation fair any better on logical grounds? Unsurprisingly, it does.
The argument against design is founded on a 700 year-old principle called Ockham's Razor. "Given two explanations of a phenommenon, choose the one that entails the least premises." This idea makes intuitive sense to all rational individuals. If I say to you "I can't find my keys. Either I misplaced them, or someone broke into my house, stole the keys, did not take anything else, and perfectly covered his/her tracks" you would tell me I probably just lost them by applying the principles of the Razor.
The Razor is the heart of the argument against design. By explaining the phenomena we observe around us without invoking a god, any supernatural power is rendered an unnecessary premise and is thus removed from the equation. There's no fallacy here.
In its quarter-century (or thereabouts) of existence, ID has never provided evidence for itself. ID advocates constantly try to shoot holes in evolution and then say "See? It must have been God!" Forgetting for a moment that their "holes" have been consistently disproved, there remains a fallacy. Even if an ID advocate could one day dismantle evolution and disprove it, this would do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of ID. To argue:
(1)Theory A and theory B attempt to explain phenommenon X.is a classic example of the false dilemma fallacy, erroneously assuming there are only two possible explanations of a phenommenon. This argument attempts to look like a disjunctive syllogism.
(2)Theory A is disproved.
(3)Therefore, theory B is correct.
(1)Either X or Y is true.A disjunctive syllogism only works if that first premise is sound. And in the case of ID v. evolution it most certainly is not sound.
(2)X is false
(3)Therefore, Y is true.
Of course, none of this will ever dissuade the ID fans out there. Despite the mountain of evidence in support of evolution, as compared to the tiny piles of ultimately fallacious arguments against it; despite the continued failure of ID to provide evidence of design; despite the track record of ID advocates for information distortion and general dirty dealing(for example, drawing the false distinction between macro- and micro-evolution)--the movement remains. So long as people continue to believe faith is a good thing, ID will remain credible to some.
And, of course, to those of us of the rational persuasion, it will always remain laughable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
