But Is It Science?

NRODT via John Derbyshire's official website ^ | February 14 2005 | John Derbyshire

[RightWingAtheist]

The Derb published this back in February, but is now archived at his website along with the rest of the wit and wisdom of one of conservatism's brightest lights. It is by far the best defense of evolution and criticism of ID which I've read in a mainstream publication, and now it's here for everyone to read, with the most brilliant point made by Derbyshire (an obvious one which even evolution's defenders fail to point out enough) placed in bold by your's truly.

He's a conservative, written several popular mathematics books, a defender of science and reason against silliness of all kinds, and was in a fight scene in a Bruce Lee movie. John Derbyshire is the coolest man alive.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[RightWingAtheist]

For the list?

[snarks_when_bored]

I, too, enjoy Derbyshire's work. But I wish he wouldn't be quite so ready to acknowledge 'the ineffable':

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

I see in this the fallacy of the appeal to awe (as it were). Why should one believe that the thoughts of a deity—should such a being be—are 'higher' than the thoughts of we denizens of the physical world? Indeed, what does this 'higher' even mean? It seems to me to be a roundabout way of saying, "Wow, man, wow!", and not much more than that.

Still, Derbyshire's book, Prime Obsession, is a first-rate piece of popular writing about mathematics. I recommend it, er, highly!

[PatrickHenry]

We have a lot of threads going right now, but this is a goodie. At the risk of overloading the list, I'm cranking up the ping machine ...

[PatrickHenry]

EvolutionPing

A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names. See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage. Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

[Gumlegs]

Thanks for posting this. IMHO, this is the money-quote: I had written it off as a 1990s fad infecting religious and metaphysical circles, not really touching on science at all, since it framed no hypotheses that could be tested experimentally.

Some things haven't changed since the 1990s.

[Dumb_Ox]

In my opinion, the best smackdown on ID was laid by Edward T. Oakes in his First Things review of Johnson's Wedge of Truth and his response to critics in a following issue. First Things had been publishing lots of IDers previously, but they tapered off considerably after Oakes' critique.

[RightWhale]

the fired-up young biologists who will revolutionize our lives in these coming decades take the standard evolutionary model

Darwinianism is a method moreso than a theory. As such, it has gone far, and seems to reside naturally and easily, in the field of social science. ID, however, may have equally wide application in social science and law. The question becomes whether history itself is Darwinian or ID. Darwinianism was very popular among Republicans a century ago; now the radical wing seems to think it is a Progressive thing and they must have something of their own.

[curiosity]

Next time put a hook in the title. Like "intelligent design" or "evolution" or Darwin. It won't atract much attention otherwise.

[DaveTesla]

I want to know God's thoughts... the rest are details.
Albert Einstein

God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically.
Albert Einstein

God always takes the simplest way.
Albert Einstein

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean.
Albert Einstein

God does not play dice.
Albert Einstein

That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.
Albert Einstein

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation and is but a reflection of human frailty.
Albert Einstein

We should take care not to make the intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.
Albert Einstein

Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish.
Albert Einstein

[RightWhale]

Einstein was master of the soundbite before there was such a thing as a soundbite.

[silverleaf]

Funny that he didn't mention that Einstein believed in Intelligent Design.

[DaveTesla]

"Funny that he didn't mention that Einstein believed in Intelligent Design."


Oops...

Where did everybody go??

[AntiGuv]

Einstein did not believe in "Intelligent Design" as it's currently advocated by the ID movement. The quotes above from Einstein express a belief in 'theistic evolution' which is very distinct from contemporary ID.

theistic evolution: "it happened this way because God did it this way"

Intelligent Design: "it could not have happened this way and therefore God must have done it that way"

[Physicist]

Why should one believe that the thoughts of a deity—should such a being be—are 'higher' than the thoughts of we denizens of the physical world?

Because the Bible says so (Isaiah 55:9). This matters a great deal to all but four or five ID'ers.

[snarks_when_bored]

Why should one believe that the thoughts of a deity—should such a being be—are 'higher' than the thoughts of we denizens of the physical world?

Because the Bible says so (Isaiah 55:9). This matters a great deal to all but four or five ID'ers.

I reckon so. But (as I'm sure you recognize) replacing an appeal to awe with an appeal to authority doesn't improve the argument...not that that matters much to those folks.

[DaveTesla]

Actually I think Einstein invented ID.

God does not play dice.
Albert Einstein

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man... I am satisfied with the mystery of life's eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence -- as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."

"The World As I See It"
Albert Einstein

[grey_whiskers]

Appeal to authority is not logically sound, I agree.

But many of the Biblical texts are not intended to be exercises in syllogisms.

Rather, they are purported to be either exhortations or warnings, from people who know better.

"Connaitre" vs. "Savoir"--their knowledge is based on revelation, not experiment.

As such, science has no method for distinguishing the genuine from the garbage(*)--and in some cases the signal to noise ratio appears so high that it is tidier to place a kibosh on the whole business...

(*) It is an interesting exercise to compare and contrast the "ECREE" claim with the biblical account "and He could do no mighty works there, because of their lack of faith" paraphrased from Matthew 15:38... Cheers!

[snarks_when_bored]

"Connaitre" vs. "Savoir"--their knowledge is based on revelation, not experiment.

As such, science has no method for distinguishing the genuine from the garbage(*)--and in some cases the signal to noise ratio appears so high that it is tidier to place a kibosh on the whole business...

Indeed...which is why trying to dress up Biblical stories as scientific theories is such a crock. Putting lipstick on a pig doesn't alter the pig-icity of the pig. (BTW, I think you meant that the signal-to-noise ratio appears so low, but I take your point, g_w.)