Intellectual Terrorist
An elitist scientific establishment actively suppresses any research that conflicts with the accepted Darwinian theory.
“Big Science in this area of biology has lost its way,” says Stein. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-American, it’s anti-science. Its anti-the whole concept of learning.”
Movie Trailer from “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” starring the New York writer and intellectual Ben Stein. The film, set for release in February 2008.
.jpg)
There are other orthodoxies that Academe is zealous to defend, as evidenced by DePaul University’s moves for the fall semester.
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — September 1, 2007 @ 10:18 pm
Shelray, I can’t believe you are buying into this ridiculous conspiracy theory.
ID scientists are not met with ridicule and skepticism by other scientists due to their ideas, but due to the lack of scientific method. Countless major discoveries in science (the real elements, a heliocentric solar system, etc.) were met with intense skepticism by fellow scientists at the time. These were ideas that went against the mainstream scientific thinking, yet through proper experimentation, were accepted on the whole by the field.
This alleged discrimination of ID theorists simply because they think differently is preposterous and ridiculous. ID theorists aren’t ridiculed for their ideas or the way they think (well, only by Richard Dawkins, but he’s doesn’t count because he’s crazy), they are met with skepticism because of the lack of science in ID theory. Science draws conclusions from observations made through proper experimentation and testing of hypotheses. ID scientists have not used science to draw any conclusions. On the contrary, it seems that ID theorists start with the conclusions and go from there - very much not science.
Other scientists are also guilty of this “non-science” method of questioning (again, Richard Dawkins comes to mind here), but it is because of this that the ID theory has been met with skepticism in the science field.
Even if ID theory is the truth, it will never be accepted by scientists unless it has withstood proper scientific inquiry through experimentation time and time again. It is the nature of ID theory that makes it “not testable” through ordinary experimentation, and as such it will never be a true science.
Comment by bink — September 2, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Too funny. I can’t wait to see this one.
Comment by Rebecca — September 3, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
Bink -
I’m afraid that you may have a naive concept of the way in which academia works. What you have stated can perhaps be sustained from a gross perspective, but the details are always quite muddy.
Unfortunately, the worst seems to come out in humanity in many institutions,and the academy is no different. Rather than a dispassionate, collegial search for the truth when sacred cows have been upset, too often the approach is character assassination through attacks on one’s intellectual credibility. If you will look at the historical details of many such occurrences closely you will find that very rarely are new ideas in science seriously considered (when they overturn old “orthodoxies”) until the old guard dies out.
Your Baconian description of the scientific method is an idealized approach that is rarely realized in practice I would argue. I would argue that your own argument is not the approach of science in arguing against ID. Attacking supposed motivations or presumed presuppositions, which most often done, let your arguments address what you find to be the shortfalls of methodology or findings.
There are countless motivations in various cases but in the case of ID, there seems to be an over riding fear of even seeming to take any of the assertions seriously lest one lose his academic credibility. There are very few places that one could go and seriously engage any ID claims (unless it is clear that one is intent on refuting them) without jeopardizing one’s academic career.
Comment by David — September 3, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
David, perhaps I should have been more clear that I was not describing how academia works, but trying to make it clear that by and large academia is not shunning ID theorists due to their ideas, rather they are shunning them due to their lack of a predictive physical scientific theory. In this way, my idealistic way of thinking was not naive, but creates a realistic picture of the progression of science while sparing us all the mundane details.
I understand perfectly well that academia has a lot to do with politics, “hot topics” in research, and selling your soul for funding, but fundamentally I must point out an important point - any scientific idea that is sound, testable, and that can better explain physical phenomenon better than the current status quo will always win out in the field. It might take some measure of “convincing” to other scientists, but I have not seen any evidence that this is not true.
If you look at the historical details of such occurrences where established scientific theories are challenged, in every case, only theories that withstand the scientific method remain. There are some especially “juicy” discourses in the literature too (complete with some carefully placed attacks on another scientist’s character), but again the scientific argument that can best explain the data prevails. While perhaps attacks on character and credibility are commonplace in the social sciences, your cynical view of the physical sciences does not seem to be so warranted.
This brings me back to the real point: why scientists are shun ID theorists. The answer is simple. Scientists refute the ID theory based on its failure to provide a testable hypothesis or scientific evidence to support any claims. This is not part of some inane conspiracy theory either, for if there was evidence to support the theory, it would be published. This attacks the theory’s credibility directly - not the scientist. ID theorists are spending more time and effort trying to convince the public that their theory is correct rather than trying to demonstrate that their theory with evidence.
From what I have read about ID theory, I do believe it is an interesting theory with some philosophical merit, but as to scientific merit?… that remains to be seen.
Comment by bink — September 3, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Ugh - some embarrassing typo there…
Comment by bink — September 3, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Bink -
Thanks for the clarifications. Actually, I believe that ID theories are problematic in their philosophical presuppositions rather than in their application of science.
About getting published, you may recall that one article was published a few years back and the editor of the blind peer reviewed journal was handed his head on a plate when the article came out because the author was an ID advocate…even though it was approved by three reviewers. The editor said he also rejected ID but thought that the article presented some interesting ideas that corresponded well with systems biology.
Human beings, in our fallen state, have an in built need for seeking and possessing the truth. When someone has developed a world view in which they have invested a sufficient part of themselves, it is the rare individual who will not first respond with an affective reaction. Those who work in the physical sciences are no different. Thus, I have to disagree. I think that what one sees is in fact, a irrational allergic reaction to what seems to (but does not) inject religion into science.
In terms of ID’s predictive, testable hypotheses. Evolutionary theory itself is neither predictive or testable in any meaningful way. Generally, the practitioners of a field of science are not well schooled in looking at its philosophy and so the evolutionary biologists themselves are probably not the best to be arguing whether ID is science or not.
In the field of the philosophy of science, Karl Popper has recognized that verifiability fails as a delimiter of the field of science. He has proposed a theory of falsifiability for a theory as to whether this theory is in the field of science or not. In other words, what he suggests is that a theory must be able to be falsified in order to be science. The problem with this is that there are many theories, especially in the field of cosmology, that fail this test as well (for example, the weak anthropic principle).
However, if we set aside the philosophical claim of ID (that a designer is implied) and look at the data they are using to draw these conclusions, I think that one can see that they potentially provide the function of falsifying the mechanisms that the English speaking world (though the rest of the evolution academy has abandoned) has assumed to be the mechanisms of evolution. This is a scientific function according to Popper. Thus, those who promote these evolutionary mechanisms ought to stop worrying about the philosophical claims, which is not their field any way, and address the specific claims which are in the field of science…which some are doing but not many.
In the end, I do not think that ID will add much in terms of natural philosophy unless the practitioners remedies their general, Kantian mechanistic presuppositions. I do think that what they have done is to provide an impetus in the physical sciences which has required some further consideration of the presuppositions that have been made with respect to biological evolutionary theory. I think that the information theory approaches of ID are very interesting and should help in promoting more investigation into the areas which I find to be one of the most problematic aspect of the theory and that is in their mechanisms. The only aspect of ID that troubles me with respect to its implication for modern science, as I understand it, is the implications drawn from the irreducible complexity theory. Irreducible complexity could suggest that one ought to stop looking further for secondary efficient causality, which is what science does, and so even if irreducible complexity is correct, this shouldn’t suggest one stop trying to find out what the efficient causality is that gives rise to the order of the structure, as classical philosophy says that there ought to be a physical correlate to the formal cause.
By the way, don’t worry about the typos…that’s the nature of combox discussions. However, there is a real time preview below the combox which might be of help in this regard.
Comment by David — September 4, 2007 @ 11:45 am
David, thanks for your response. After reading your comment, I think I can say that we do really agree on a lot of what you have mentioned. Specifically, your concerns about both ID theory and Evolution theory.
As to Evolution theory, some of the evidence certainly does seem to indicate strongly that “evolution” occurred, yet I have always been extremely hesitant to adopt the various “mechanisms” as a but cannot be verified by science. Regarding systems of high complexity, ID theory asserts that it is highly improbable that these could have been formed by random natural processes. I would agree, based on the logical argument that is presented. However, for what it’s worth (and it might not be related to this discussion in a large way but… ah… what the heck), I would also add that this can only be true at the present time - since it is possible that we will uncover new natural processes that are capable of creating systems of this level of complexity. ID theory only calculates into their statistical calculations natural processes that are known… I can’t fault them for this, but I never hear mention of this limitation, since we are continually discovering new natural processes - some of which that can account for and generate more complex systems. I believe this is what you are referring to (and please correct me if I am wrong here) when you described what troubles you about ID theory - that it “…suggest[s] that one ought to stop looking further for secondary efficient causality, which is what science does.”
So I definitely agree that ID theory has “…provide[ed] an impetus in the physical sciences which has required some further consideration of the presuppositions that have been made with respect to biological evolutionary theory“, and “…that the information theory approaches of ID are very interesting and should help in promoting more investigation into the areas which I find to be one of the most problematic aspect of the theory and that is in their mechanisms.”
I am troubled by (and at times I think I’m the only scientist who is…) the lack of concern about the shortcomings of Evolutionary theory. Also, I see your point that its predictability leaves something to be desired as well. In the most popularly held view of the theory, it is viewed as touted as something that is proven by the evidence, rather than something that is put forward to best explain the evidence. As you alluded to, conventional thinking would hold that a theory can never be proven to be correct by observation and experimentation, only proven wrong.
We do slightly differ on our views about the progression of science. While I realize that presenting views that challenge a widely accepted view is sometimes a daunting task, I still feel that in the end the evidence for the stronger theory will “eventually” be adopted. It’s happened countless times in scientific history (as we both have described), and it will continue to happen. I think based on the historical perspective we have that maybe it’s assumed that the transition of prevailing scientific ideas is easy and smooth, yet clearly it is not.
Comment by bink — September 7, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
By the way, if anyone is interested, this website has a pretty solid description of the statistical approach of ID theory.
Comment by bink — September 7, 2007 @ 4:12 pm
ID theorists are like meth-lab wackos; anybody can do it; with powerfully disruptive results. I can see nothing wrong in believing that there is an Intelligent Design to the universe — it seems to follow from the idea that we can come to some understanding of the universe. Randomness seems to imply disorder, unintelligibility.
A great deal of this dispute lies in the fact that few of us have the mathematical training to deal with ideas like randomness. To a certain extent we are all intuitive scientists: we experiment all the time. We seem, too, to have an intuitive sense of the random. But, in thought experiments, it seems that our sense of randomness, as intuition, rests on the evaluative condition: not important. This a far cry from the mathematical problem of randomness, outliers, Black Swans. Additionally, what we see as random may change as we gather more knowledge — when we have that “Oh, I see now” experience. ( X-Files episode where Scully and Mulder are investigating some kid who keeps scratching out X’s and O’s on paper in a seeming random pattern: as S & M ascend the stairs they look down on the sheets of paper and see a pattern/design.)
The universe seems quite random, in the distribution of physical attributes, the dispensation of talent. money, good looks. disease, misfortune, etc. But that is for me; I cannot see the design; I am limited, fallen even, in my vision. I trust that there is some design; I trust only because I am aware of the love that binds, that there is love - love existing even when I, bitter and angry, do not feel it for that moment.
The ID people are like amateur cooks; they cannot cook without a recipe; like meth-lab varmits; they have no idea of what is going on; they have no connection with the underlying process of creation and knowing and wanting to know. Snake-oil salesman, a patent medicine waste of time.
Comment by SamW — September 7, 2007 @ 11:30 pm