Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
|
A Response to Eugenie Scott and the NCSE By William A. Dembski Discovery Institute November 1, 2003 |
| Originally published Oct. 10, 2003 Eugenie Scott’s letter of September 30, 2003 to members of the Texas State Board of Education purports to show that intelligent design research is not published in the peer-reviewed literature. But in fact, Scott has purposely failed to disclose certain key items of information which demonstrate that intelligent design research is in fact now part of the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature. I can substantiate the charge that Scott has purposely failed to disclose key information in this regard. Scott and I have met at several conferences and debates, and we correspond typically a few times a year by email. Here is a paragraph from an email she sent me on December 3, 2002 (in context, Scott is disparaging my work on intelligent design because, so she claims, it has not been cited in the appropriate peer-reviewed literature): “It would perhaps be more interesting (and something for you to take rather more pride in) if it were the case that the scientific, engineering, and mathematical applications of evolutionary algorithms, fuzzy logic and evolution, etc., referenced TDI or your other publications and criticisms. In a quick survey of a few of the more scholarly works, I didn’t see any, but perhaps you or someone else might know of them.” The abbreviation “TDI” here refers to my book The Design Inference (more about this book in a moment because Scott disparages it also in her letter of September 30, 2003). Now the fact is that this book has been cited in precisely the literature that Scott claims has ignored it. I pointed this out to her in an email dated December 6, 2002. Here is the key bibliographic reference, along with the annotation, that I sent her: Chiu, D.K.Y. and Lui, T.H. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Vol.4, No.3, Sept. 2002, pp.766-775. The article begins: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to The Design Inference. Not only does this article cite my work favorably, but it makes my work in The Design Inference the basis for the entire article. When I sent Scott this information by email, she never got back to me. Interestingly, though, she has since that exchange dropped a line of criticism that she had previously adopted; namely, she had claimed that intelligent design is unscientific because intelligent design research is not cited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There’s no question that it is cited (and favorably at that) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. What about actual intelligent design research being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Scott doesn’t want to allow that my book The Design Inference properly belongs to this literature. In her letter of September 30, 2003, she remarks that this book “may have undergone a degree of editorial review” but it “did not undergo peer-review in the sense in which scientific research articles are peer-reviewed.” She then adds that The Design Inference “does not present scientific research -- Dembski’s book was published as a philosophy book.” Every one of these remarks is false. What’s more, their falsity is readily established. Editorial review refers to a book submitted to a publisher for which the editors, who are employees of the publisher and in the business of trying to acquire, produce, and market books that are profitable, decide whether or not to accept the book for publication. Editorial review may look to expert advice regarding the accuracy, merit, or originality of the book, but the decision to publish rests solely with the editors and publishers. Peer-review, on the other hand, refers to journal articles and academic monographs (these are articles that are too long to be published in a journal and which therefore appear in book form) that are submitted to referees who are experts in the topic being addressed and who must give a positive review of the article or monograph if it is to be published at all. The Design Inference went through peer-review and not merely editorial review. To see this, it is enough to note that The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University Press as part of a Cambridge monograph series: Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Scott doesn’t point this out in her letter of September 30, 2003 because if she had, her claim that my book being editorially reviewed but not peer-reviewed would have instantly collapsed. Academic monograph series, like the Cambridge series that published my book, have an academic review board that is structured and functions identically to the review boards of academic journals. At the time of my book’s publication, the review board for Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory included members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. As it is, The Design Inference had to pass peer-review with three anonymous referees before Brian Skyrms, who heads the academic review board for this Cambridge series, would recommend it for publication to the Cambridge University Press editors in New York. Brian Skyrms is on the faculty of the University of California at Irvine as well as a member of the National Academic of Sciences. It is easy enough to confirm what I’m saying here by contacting him. Scott either got her facts wrong or never bothered to check them in the first place. What about Scott’s claim that The Design Inference “does not present scientific research—Dembski’s book was published as a philosophy book.” It is true that Cambridge University Press officially lists this book as a philosophy monograph. But why should how the book is listed by its publisher be relevant to deciding whether it does or does not contain genuine scientific content? The Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) for The Design Inference is QA279.D455. As any mathematician knows, QA refers to mathematics and the 270s refer to probability and statistics. Is Scott therefore willing to accept that The Design Inference does present scientific research after all because the Library of Congress treats it as a mathematical and statistical monograph rather than as a philosophical monograph? How this book is listed is beside the point. I submit that the book makes a genuine contribution to the statistical literature, laying out in full technical detail a method of design detection applicable to biology. Scott can dispute this if she likes, but to do so she needs to engage the actual content of my book and not dismiss it simply because the publisher lists it one way or another. Also, it’s worth noting that up until I pointed out to her that The Design Inference is cited in the peer-reviewed mathematical and biological literature, her main line of argument against the scientific merit of my work was that it wasn’t being cited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As I showed above, this line of criticism is no longer tenable. I’ve discussed at length Scott’s treatment of my own work because this is where I’m best qualified to speak to the issue of peer review in relation to intelligent design. As for the other claims in her letter of September 30, 2003, let me briefly offer three remarks: **Discovery Institute is only the tip of the iceberg for scientists who support intelligent design. Intelligent design research is being published in precisely the places Scott claims it is not being published. What’s more, intelligent design has a developing research program. For some details, see the attached ID FAQ that I handed out on September 10, 2003 at the textbook hearings in Austin. It is also available on my website: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf. **Scott’s charge that critics of Darwinian evolution, like me and my colleagues at Discovery Institute, “misquote” or “quote-mine” the work of scientists has degenerated into a slogan. As a slogan, its effect is to shut down discussion before it can get started. Scientists have no special privileges over anyone else. If they say things that are false, inaccurate, or stupid, they need to be called to account. Reasoned discourse in a free society demands that people, and that includes scientists, confront the record of their words. One can dispute what the words meant in context, but it is not enough merely to assert that the words were quoted out of context. **Finally, in her letter of September 30, 2003, Scott objects to my use of a statement she made in an interview with Salon. I am supposed to have implied that “Scott believes that textbooks should not discuss arguments about how evolution occurs.” She protests that she “was not discussing doubts about how evolution happened but rather doubts about whether evolution happened.” (Emphasis hers.) But if she really believes that there are many views of how evolution occurred, why does she and her lobbying group the NCSE support only one view on how evolution occurred, namely, the Darwinian view? Why, for instance, isn’t she demanding that the biology textbooks describe the controversy between neo-Darwinists (like John Maynard Smith) and self-organizational theorists (like Stuart Kauffman)? Neither disputes whether evolution has happened. Yet the self-organizational theorists strongly dispute that the Darwinian view adequately explains how evolution occurred. All the textbooks ignore the self-organizational challenge to Darwinism. If Scott is such a champion of pluralism concerning how evolution happened, why isn’t she pressing for the inclusion of self-organizational theory in the biology textbooks? Why do all her lobbying efforts promote neo-Darwinism as the only view of how evolution occurred that’s appropriate for the textbooks? I submit it is because, as she said in her Salon interview, to do otherwise will only “confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.” In other words, to ensure that kids are not confused about whether evolution occurred, textbooks need to tell them only one story about how evolution occurred, namely, the Darwinian story. This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination. THREE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN Textbook Hearing, Austin, Texas, September 10, 2003 (available at www.designinference.com after September 10, 2003> by William A. Dembski What is intelligent design? Intelligent design is the science that studies how to detect intelligence. Recall astronomer Carl Sagan’s novel Contact about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (or SETI). Sagan based the SETI researchers’ methods of design detection on scientific practice. Real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from distant space. But if they encountered such a signal, as the astronomers in Sagan’s novel did, they too would infer design. Intelligent design research currently focuses on developing reliable methods of design detection and then applying these methods, especially to biological systems. Does research supporting intelligent design appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Here are a few recent peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design in biology. There is also a widely recognized peer-reviewed literature in physics and cosmology supporting intelligent design (see, for instance, the work of Paul Davies, Frank Tipler, Fred Hoyle, and Guillermo Gonzalez). • W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. • D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. • W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. • D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s The Design Inference. • M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit. What research topics does a design-theoretic research program explore?
|
 Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org. |
Really, the problem for ID theorists is that most people don't actually want God in the science classroom - after all, if most folks really wanted such a thing, we would have it. But that's not the case, of course - people who advocate introducing sectarian theology into science classes are uniformly rejected by the public at large. And so professions of designer-agnosticism become a mere stalking horse, whereby people advance a cause that they don't actually believe in - that the designer could be aliens or whatever - in order to impose their wills on an unwilling populace, by sneaking in through the back door to get what they can't gain honestly and openly. I am immediately suspicious, and you should be too, when I see people advancing a belief that they themselves do not accept.
And then designer-agnosticism is seen for what it is - the thin end of the wedge, in anticipation of that special moment at long last, when a group of wide-eyed innocents asks their science teacher who he thinks the designer is. Call me cynical, but something makes me doubt that agnosticism will be the order of the day, behind closed doors, when it is thought that nobody will be watching.
Whether or not it's factually accurate, it's not a bad way to live.
The scientific method is a product of Western civilization and a gift from God. It is not, however, designed to answer the "why question." Nor is it meant to be used to challenge God's existence.
I don't think anyone has done so on FR, but I'm open to correction.
I do believe, however, that when a belief is established that all is the result of random chance, hell breaks loose on Earth.
I don't think anyone who has looked around him, or thought about existence with any degree of discernment, dismisses it all as random chance. Regardless of how you think the Universe arose, we can find beauty, and love, and virtue all around us. To some extent, whether all this is the product of a God formed in man's image, or just a spectacular result of a particular set of physical constants, is irrelevant.
The embryo is directed by the morphogens that flow into the consciousness.
How people fail to realize the gravity of it all is beyond me… It’s mindless chemistry.
For, when everybody's somebody, then no one's anybody.
Teachers must be agnostic? Litmus test…
Do you think most teachers (for children) are agnostic?
For, when everybody's somebody, then no one's anybody.
A theory that can be used to explain anything at all explains nothing.
Teachers who claim to be agnostic about the designer in order to slip the ID thing into the classroom better actually be agnostic, you betcha. Otherwise, they're simply lying. And why should an agenda that can't be advanced honestly be embraced by anyone? If there's something to it all, why lie about what you believe?
Who do you think the designer is?
This question much resembles your earlier claim: " nobody has yet managed to explain what "design" in the absence of a designer means."
If there is any consistency in these questions, it is the inference that those who make claims about agency make no substantial distinction between original and secondary or contingent causes. This may be the case for "nobody on this forum," but it cannot be said for Aristotle or Aquinas, or even Kant for that matter.
Language of the totality of existence will often exclude the possibility that an original cause is unique and in some way transcends the posited totality of existence.
Perhaps even Descartes was not in a bady way to think that infinity was outside this the totality of finite existence.
It may be that Dembski and "nobody on this forum" collapse the distinction Aristotle and Aquinas have made.
I think the ability to appreciate these things are written on the hearts of all, although all also have the ability to reject or ignore them. I think most cultures have honored these things to some degree, although I won't say all cultures have done so. Perhaps, I just being too cynical or unimaginative.
To some extent, whether all this is the product of a God formed in man's image, or just a spectacular result of a particular set of physical constants, is irrelevant.
Of course not. There is a reason for beauty, love and virtue and why they are good. And there is a reason why many loath beauty, love and virtue. Recognizing that there are reasons for these things is extraordinarily relevant.
A minor point of sensitivity. Why would you qualify God with "formed in man's image"? All it would do is get my, or somebody else's, back up and muddy the point you're making.
Teachers shouldn't claim anything about their personal beliefs. They should say that evidence exists of design in nature and our culture is founded on a belief in a creator who endows us with inalienable rights. What could be wrong with that?
That being said, my initial reaction is that we would be extending the notion of "design" to cover a "designer" who set in motion a causal chain of events, but did not necessarily intervene after that initial push. If we posit that the causal chain is fixed, that each event must occur in a particular way, much as each domino in a line must fall when pushed by the one before it, then I think we can safely extend the idea of design to cover this notion, much as we can say that the last domino in line falls by design. This is not especially conducive to the notion of free will, but there you go.
If, however, the "designer" simply gives the initial push, and where the chain goes from there is wide open, then I don't know if we can really call that "design" in any meaningful sense. If I take some bacteria and seed an otherwise lifeless planet, and they then evolve into a diverse and complex ecosystem after a few billion years, then we might be able to say that life exists by design, but there is really nothing specific on that planet you can point to and say "yes, that thing there was designed". And the further problem is, I don't know that you can detect that life exists by design in such a case - the "design" aspect of such a thing is very likely to be so subtle as to be unknowable, as a practical matter, to anyone who wasn't there four billion years ago to watch me pour my beaker into a pond.
The first part is mostly not true - it's a lot of assertions about design, but precious little actual evidence - and the second part doesn't really belong in a science curriculum. History class would probably be a better fit. Other than that, it's fine ;)
That isn't exactly agnostic, but certainly a commmon opinion in scientific thinking not much different than positing the existence of a designer on the basis of the way we think. I'm always amused how easily epistemological consideration translate into existential claims--on both sides of the aisle. Logical demonstrations will only give you a conclusion making existential claims in some way plausible or sensible.
Is there evidence of there being no design in nature?
the second part doesn't really belong in a science curriculum. History class would probably be a better fit
Should the science curriculum contradict the history class?
ME: Why must Betty answer this question different than you?
YOU: Because Betty's not really an agnostic when it comes to who or what the "designer" is.
ME: Teachers must be agnostic? Litmus test… Do you think most teachers (for children) are agnostic?
YOU: Teachers who claim to be agnostic about the designer in order to slip the ID thing into the classroom better actually be agnostic, you betcha. Otherwise, they're simply lying. And why should an agenda that can't be advanced honestly be embraced by anyone? If there's something to it all, why lie about what you believe?
Now, are teachers to be asked if they believe in a designer - and if so who is it? Again, litmus test? Who has an agenda here?
I am a Christian, but as a teacher and asked, “Who you think the designer is?” (because a student believed design is present) I would say if that is a good question for you to discuss with your parents.
Intelligent Design is not part of any public school program though as far as I know.
Now what would you say and what do you believe?
Well, I should clarify that "I don't think there is one" was meant as "I don't think there's an issue in there for science to address".
Logical demonstrations will only give you a conclusion making existential claims in some way plausible or sensible.
True enough. One of the first things you have to do in symbolic logic is dump the blanket presupposition of existential import anyway ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.