Posted on 09/19/2005 6:01:22 PM PDT by gobucks
In 1993, the journalist Jonathan Rauch published a book called Kindly Inquisitors, in which he catalogued contemporary threats to the Enlightenment tradition of seeking truth through logical or empirical discourse. One of Rauch's points was that, while this (classical) liberal system for amassing knowledge appeared to be under attack from both the religious right and the multicultural left, in fact the two groups were making a version of the same argument: Mainstream science didn't accord their beliefs the respect they deserved, whether it was creation science on the one hand or feminist or Afro-centric science on the other.
Rauch's book has held up remarkably well in the twelve years since it was published. This is particularly so in light of the current debate over intelligent design (ID)--the idea, popular on the right, that life is too complex to have resulted from random variation. Even President Bush has suggested, as the creation scientists (and multiculturalists) of the 1980s and 1990s did before him, that both sides of the supposed debate be treated as legitimate in public school curricula.
But there was one thing Rauch didn't anticipate. At the time, he suggested that, even though creationists had adopted the tactics of the academic left--the demand for equal time--they still believed in objective truths. They just didn't think all of these truths were discoverable by science. By contrast, today's IDers have gone further and adopted the epistemology of the left--the idea that ostensibly scientific truths may be relative.
The animating principle of the postmodern left is the notion that truth follows from power and not from its intrinsic rightness. It's a conceit that began in the humanities but eventually spread to hard sciences like physics. "The point is that neither logic nor mathematics escapes the contamination of the social," as postmodern pooh-bah Stanley Aronowitz has put it. What makes this approach so radical is its implication that the way to win intellectually is to win politically.
In making their arguments, the postmodernists rely heavily on the work of historians of science like Thomas Kuhn. It was Kuhn who famously argued that scientific knowledge proceeds as a sequence of "paradigm shifts"--revolutions in the way we understand the world--and that the shifts occur not simply when the evidence in favor of the new paradigm becomes overwhelming, but when the people invested in the old paradigm are in some sense defeated (which may not occur until long after they're proved wrong). Mainstream science has taken from Kuhn the belief that evidence and logic are necessary, if not quite sufficient, conditions for a paradigm shift and that, in the long run, successive shifts bring society closer to objective truth. Where the postmodernists go awry is in their emphasis on Kuhn's relativism.
Unfortunately, these postmodernist ideas have become a staple of the ID movement. As laid out in a strategic memo produced by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the leading backer of intelligent design, "Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces." There was nothing particularly objective about this view, according to the IDers. Instead, applying the same reading of Kuhn that the postmodernists embrace, they argue that it was simply the result of a political struggle between insurgents and the establishment. (In fact, the IDers frequently cite Kuhn to this effect.) Probably the clearest example of this comes courtesy of Bruce K. Chapman, the Discovery Institute's president. "All ideas that achieve a sort of uniform acceptance ultimately fall apart, whether it's in the sciences or philosophy or politics, after a few people keep knocking away at it," he recently told The New York Times. But that's nuts. Germ theory, relativity, the idea that the earth is round--with apologies to Tom Friedman, the fact that all have withstood the occasional challenge suggests that truth counts for something.
Chapman might protest that he's simply proposing a more accurate alternative to evolution, the same way Darwin proposed a more accurate alternative to creationism. But ID isn't a new theory, just a new attempt to advance an old one, with some new empirical claims thrown in for good measure. As Jerry Coyne has pointed out ("The Faith that Dare Not Speak Its Name," August 22 & 29), scientists can discredit ID using the exact same evidence they used to debunk creationism. Once you realize this, it's no longer possible to interpret Chapman as echoing the belief in a steady progression toward truth.
Like all conservatives, of course, the IDers claim to decry relativism and to embrace absolutes. But, for them, the claim is logically incoherent in a way it wasn't when it came from their creationist predecessors. When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID (to the extent that it makes empirical claims) are, you're free to assert its truth; you just can't call it science. The creationists had no problem with this; they just rejected any science that contradicted the Bible. But the IDers aspire to scientific truth. Unfortunately, the only way to claim that something empirically false is scientifically true is to question science's capacity for sorting out truth from falsehood, the same way postmodernists do.
Conservatives were quick to point out the danger of this view in the '80s and '90s. They argued that a science that rejected the idea of truth was vulnerable to the most inane forms of intellectual hucksterism. And they were right. It's not hard to imagine scams like cold fusion or the Scientologist critique of psychiatric drugs gaining ground in a world where science's ability to identify knowledge has been undermined. (Among other monuments to postmodern thought was the idea that E=mc² might be a "sexed equation" that "privileges the speed of light over other speeds," as Belgian-French theorist Luce Irigaray once asserted.)
Americans don't like thinking of themselves as backward. As a result, the risk from science-rejecting creationists hasn't been particularly acute in recent decades. But most people don't have very strong views on the philosophy of science. If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution.
Not really. One can make beautfiully logical arguments based upon false premises, as in the case of ID. These do not belong in science. That's why science relies upon empirical data and not upon heroic efforts of rhetorical persuasion.
This is the real danger in ID. That it destroys the integrity of science itself. As the Kansas school board is attempting to do right now.
The scientific community has a bit of blame itself in this. It has allowed the political left to use the ambiguous evidence for global warming as a political weapon, without chastising scientists and institutions (like NASA) that have taken advantage of the political money bags. Science needs to adopt a method of separating the sources of the money from the specific research it funds. A "double blind" method if you will.
The scientific community needs to shake itself away from politics like ID and the Green political issues alike if it is to retain the respect of the people.
But it seems to me that such "lumping" is one of the distinctive purposes of the whole Intelligent Design movement. Note that ID'ers resolutely refuse to posit any claims -- even hypotheses -- about when or how "design" is instantiated. They restrict themselves to "inferring" THAT acts of design have occurred, but restrict themselves from asking any further questions. (Indeed this may be saying too much because ID'ers don't really even commit themselves to the notion that design is the result of discrete "acts" by a designer. They merely suggest that there "is" design, that it at least some of it couldn't happen naturally, and that design somehow "implies" an "intelligent designer".)
Now this is pretty odd. A mechanism, model -- or some manner of understanding and explaining how and in what circumstances things actually come to happen -- is central to any scientific theory. Even if we grant (correctly in light of the history of science) that building the groundwork for a new scientific theory might commence before a mechanism has been clearly conceived, the notion that even speculation on the matter should be actively avoided as part and parcel of an entire investigative approach is completely bizarre. At least it's bizarre if we're talking about science.
My view is, whether the strategy is conscious or tacit, that this approach of focusing exclusively on the "design inference," while studiously avoiding any other focus, is itself "designed" so that ID can function as an umbrella or catchall ideology for the antievolution movement.
Look at the modern history of antievolutionism and you'll find constant bickering and schism. Not only did progressive, old-earth creationists argue with young-earth flood-geology creationists, but young-earth creationists were often at odds with each other. For instance Harold Coffin and Henry Morris argued bitterly about the importance of "ecological zonation" versus "hydrodynamic sorting" in explaining how a global flood produces the apparent order in the fossil record. Morris argued with Kofahl and other young earthers about whether the second law of thermodynamics applied before the fall and the flood. There were multiple disagreements about the "canopy theory," e.g. whether it was vaporous or solid, or whether there was a "canopy" at all.
Now such disagreement and argumentation is all to the good if one is pursuing science, but it's debilitating for a popular movement pursuing social or political aims. In the former case you want competing factions criticizing each other and pushing distinct ideas, in the later case you want the largest possible coalition supporting the broadest and most palatable possible agreement.
Which pattern does the ID movement fit? I think the answer is obvious.
If you really want to know what ID is all about with respect to questioning the dogma of evolution read Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." He is not a biblical literalist, though he is a Christian. They are certainly not mutually exclusive except to the ignorant.
This book, which you yourself designate as representative of ID, is a good example of what I've been saying. I've talked with Johnson, and he does (or did) indeed claim that he is not a "literalist" or a flood-geologist or young-earther. Yet the strange thing is that this book of his is peppered with young-earth and flood-geology arguments (particularly in the chapter on the fossil record). That is he uses many antievolution arguments that don't make any sense, or lose their point, outside of this context.
Why is this, if ID -- let alone Johnson's own views -- exclude a young earth and flood geology? The answer is that ID doesn't exclude anything that an ardent antievolutionist might believe. That's the point of it.
I'll second that.
Conservatives have persuaded the electorate in the last 20 years because we've had rational arguments on our side. The promotion of ID is a break from that into irrationality.
Many conservatives like Bush obviously just haven't been exposed to the massive evidence for evolution (or have been hoodwinked by slick arguments against it, without spending any real quality time with the evidence). Once the MSM gets in gear on this issue, and they are beginning to, the public will reject touchy feely ID and accept the evidence for evolution as truth.
Conservatives will lose this argument, if they continue it. Which will be the first argument in recent memory where they are factually wrong. It will demonstrate the conservatives can be factually wrong on something, which means they *could* be factually wrong on other things.
We need to end this fight before it really gets started.
It's an example of what happens when you try to have a large and successful governing coalition. Some marginal constituent groups can be expected to have a single issue that is difficult to digest. The dems are a coalition of nothing but crazy single issue groups, so the republicans have a tremendous advantage. But still, when you reach out to the dropouts in the double-wides, you have to expect some oddities.
Good point. 'Rats also have a tougher time marginalizing their extremists, even when/if they would wish to, because liberals in the 60's and 70's foolishly went along in adopting the (communists devised) taboo against "red baiting". Thus it became presumptively improper to even identify left extremists as such, let alone exclude or marginalize them.
At the same time marking and marginalizing right extremists is socially acceptible and socially reinforced. Thus we have the effect that your typical library wouldn't think of stocking a book written by David Duke, but probably has dozens by Noam Chompsky who is easily as far to extreme left as Duke is to the right (and not much less antisemitic).
Much as we might justly complain about the double standard involved, it's actually benefited conservatism and Republicans in the long. We have come to be seen as having our extremists in check, whereas the left loons are running the asylum. Thus moderates and independents are more likely to trust, and vote for, conservatives.
So it will remain, unless creationists become too visible. But I fear that cat's already out of the bag. Now the whole game is to keep the lid on.
For in truth, I really don't have any desire to be the leftist's fool, and it is quite possible I am wrong in my outlook. The last thing I want is an authentic Freeper to think I subscribe to 'postmodern nihilism'. If that were true, then, by definition, it would be ME who is the leftist, disguised as a conservative, who is attempting to 'split' the core of the true GOP.It's not that you're a leftist yourself. It's that you have started your fight with the left by capitulating to the core assumption of one of their most radical elements: That there is no objective truth in the real world. Where leftists try to thrive within that world of moral subjectivism, you try to get out of it by inserting God-as-lawmaker to impose a moral code from the outside as a surrogate for the objective truth that you wrongly assume doesn't really exist.
If God does exist, He could enforce the law, or He could encourage us to follow the law, but it's wrong to think He needs to think up some law in order for there to be one for us to follow in the first place.
The Intelligent Design crowd fears evolution because they fear that if people lose their belief in God, they'll lose any reason to act morally - because they don't believe the real world contains any compelling reasons to act morally.
Resources for those interested in understanding creationism as a capitulation to postmodernist subjectivism:
I see that you have a sense of humor ... of course I didn't mean that awful music dude!!
"ID cannot look for causes because it starts with a statement, then ignores evidence."
ID starts with a statement? I though ID started by looking at the presence of Life - and then looked at the explanation of the incredible variety of Life as thoughtfully and forcibly provided by Darwinists. (Interestingly, Darwinists make a statement: Natural Selection is fully unguided, fully unplanned... ).
And then IDers do what Darwinists refuse to do .... look at, rather than ignore, as you claim, the evidence. But clearly, you don't believe this...
Really? How? Please do elaborate. You know what my screen name is...
"I see that you have a sense of humor ... of course I didn't mean that awful music dude!!"
I know I have a sense of humor.
But... what are you talking about? When did I mention music?
:)
"When he doesn't realize it, that makes the tableau all the more enjoyable."
I had to come back to this remark. For you know what doesn't fit? Tableau.
PH, people, normal people don't use this word. Especially not in idle internet chit chat. However, people who live in NYC use this word, esp if they live near the Village.
Esp if for a living they work for the NYT fashion section, or music review section ... esp opera.
Juana la Loca .... Gian Carlos Menotti...opera. Folks who can talk about this kind of stuff, who look forward to writing about Spoleto in May ... these are the kinds of folks who use the word 'tableau' in everyday usage....
I bet you have a large opera collection. And I'm betting you like, ....yes ... Mahler.
"...doesn't realize it" .... sheesh.
" ... and ironically, coming from a guy who had to have a subscription to TNR in order to be able to get the text to post! :-)"
Well, maybe, maybe not. I think you'll find that google cache is an alternative way to get the same info...
But, tell you what. Let's pretend you are right .... it'll make us both feel pretty good, a win-win; everybody loves win-win, right? :)
" This is the real danger in ID. That it destroys the integrity of science itself."
no offense, but this is a simply silly remark; nonsensical hyperbole.
Shoot. My dyslexia tendencies are killing me...
there is this guy named Yanni, and James Randi (now I know one of the leading critical thinking dudes) somehow turned into Yanni in my mind...
But, I'm guessing you still have a sense of humor anyway..;)
"here is this guy named Yanni..."
Ah! Music for the prozac crowd. Brings back scenes from MST3K.
Referencing Post #102, if conservatives do indeed manage to seriously question the ability of science to produce objective truth, then how does this not destroy the integrity of science?
Perhaps your goal is to destroy science as it exists and replace it with your own version of "truth"?
Sorry, leave me out.
I see, I think, what you mean...
. Let's say you are correct, and it is indeed 'wrong' to think this. So, to continue your 'If God exists...' train of thought ... What if God WERE real, he Does Exist ... would any 'right' way to think about him even exist at all, from your point of view? If God exists, is it possible to think about Him rationally?
" Perhaps your goal is to destroy science as it exists and replace it with your own version of "truth"?"
Please. 'Science' is not some delicate porcelin vase, nutured and protected on some seismically-rated shelf somewhere. Science can't be 'destroyed'. Gee whiz....
Since you ask, I will tell what my goal is - to be in some measure pleasing to God through the way I live my life. It is the way I live, if I do it with the proper attitude, which will reveal what 'truth' is ... and 'science' will be no worse nor no better because of it.
What I can't see is the threat you seem to perceive from folks like myself. Just what exactly do you think we want?
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.