SMU profs protest intelligent design conference

Dallas Morning News ^ | 03/24/2007 | JEFFREY WEISS

[SirLinksalot]

Professors opposed to the Bush library aren't the only angry faculty members at Southern Methodist University this week.

Science professors upset about a presentation on "Intelligent Design" fired blistering letters to the administration, asking that the event be shut down.

The “Darwin vs. Design” conference, co-sponsored by the SMU law school’s Christian Legal Society, will say that a designer with the power to shape the cosmos is the best explanation for aspects of life and the universe. The event is produced by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based organization that says it has scientific evidence for its claims.

The anthropology department at SMU begged to differ:

"These are conferences of and for believers and their sympathetic recruits," said the letter sent to administrators by the department. "They have no place on an academic campus with their polemics hidden behind a deceptive mask."

Similar letters were sent by the biology and geology departments.

The university is not going to cancel the event, interim provost Tom Tunks said Friday. The official response is a statement that the event to be held in McFarlin Auditorium April 13-14 is not endorsed by the school:

"Although SMU makes its facilities available as a community service, and in support of the free marketplace of ideas, providing facilities for those programs does not imply SMU's endorsement of the presenters' views," the statement said.

The school also will review its policies about who is allowed to hold events on campus, Dr. Tunks said.

The size of the dispute reflects two ongoing battles about academic freedom and responsibility.

One is local: The concern that some SMU professors have that the proposed Bush library and an accompanying policy institute would create the impression that the school tilts politically toward the positions of the current administration.

[b_sharp]

"What bothers you the most, is that we use the same evidence that you rely on, but come to a different conclusion.

No, what bothers me the most is that creationists want to bend the evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the Bible rather than let the evidence inform the theory. The attempt to fit the evidence to the hypothesis is inherently unscientific.

When the evidence is examined in light of other known evidence and within the bounds of known physical laws it tells us what the theory should be. Theories are routinely corrected and made more accurate by new information and better testing methods. That is impossible for Creation 'Science'.

"The best argument to refute creationism seems to be a slur against the creationist as a Luddite who believes the Earth is flat, and the stork brings babies. Pure genetic fallacy.

If that is what you believe then you have not dispassionately examined the evidence and the interpretations derived from that evidence which refutes the opinions of Creation 'Scientists'.

["Just as an experiment..."]

"Just as an experiment, when I'm done with yours, why don't you put together a bowl of promordial soup, add whatever ingredients you think will work best, and let me know when new life forms. Tell me what you get and show me your work."

That is being done by a number of scientists as we speak. Let's give them time and the technology and we'll see what happens. (BTW, the conditions for life has never been supposed to be a simple bowl of primordial soup.)

Your experiment entails just a little research into what initial conditions need to been included in a probability calculation and then a little calculus. Well within your capabilities.

[Southack]

"The inability to form tests which can falsify ID is the very reason it is not science."

The inability of people to learn that ID can be falsified separates scientists from posers.

Intelligent Design is dependent on bias. If there is no bias in the event in question, then ID is falsified for that event.

No bias, no ID.

Now, for the intellectual lightweights, this does not mean that ID is everywhere there is bias. What it means is that ID is *falsified* in those instances where there is no bias (e.g. a completely random coin flip).

[js1138]

What it means is that ID is *falsified* in those instances where there is no bias (e.g. a completely random coin flip).

Are you saying that coins are not intelligently designed, or are you saying it is impossible to design a system that has no bias?

[rudy45]

Hypothetical question: next week, if I'm standing somewhere on earth, and I drop a pencil, which direction will it go? up or down? What if I do it two weeks from now, or a year from now? Thanks.

[rottndog]

Science professors upset about a presentation on "Intelligent Design" fired blistering letters to the administration, asking that the event be shut down.

If these "Science professors" are so well grounded in their own beliefs, why try to shutdown debate?

Stalinists, one and all.

[Coyoteman]

Hypothetical question: next week, if I'm standing somewhere on earth, and I drop a pencil, which direction will it go? up or down? What if I do it two weeks from now, or a year from now? Thanks.

Your comment has nothing to do with my post.

[rudy45]

Yes it does...I'd appreciate an answer in any case. Thanks.

[Southack]

"Are you saying that coins are not intelligently designed, or are you saying it is impossible to design a system that has no bias?"

Neither.

Design *is* bias. If there is no bias in an event, then there was no design.

You can flip a coin, but unless you rig a system to result in your desired outcome, there is no bias (e.g. the coin toss is typically a 50-50 probability event) in the result of the event.

[A6M3]

In science, theory means possible explanation, not explanaton.

[Coyoteman]

In science, theory means possible explanation, not explanaton [sic].

Here are some good definitions (from a google search, with additions from this thread):

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices."

Proof: Except for math and geometry, there is little that is actually proved. Even well-established scientific theories can't be conclusively proved, because--at least in principle--a counter-example might be discovered. Scientific theories are always accepted provisionally, and are regarded as reliable only because they are supported (not proved) by the verifiable facts they purport to explain and by the predictions which they successfully make. All scientific theories are subject to revision (or even rejection) if new data are discovered which necessitates this.

Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

Model: a simplified representation designed to illuminate complex processes; a hypothetical description of a complex entity or process; a physical or mathematical representation of a process that can be used to predict some aspect of the process; a representation such that knowledge concerning the model offers insight about the entity modelled.

Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence). When a scientist speculates he is drawing on experience, patterns and somewhat unrelated things that are known or appear to be likely. This becomes a very informed guess.

Conjecture: speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence); guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence; reasoning that involves the formation of conclusions from incomplete evidence.

Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information.

Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"

Impression: a vague or subjective idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying."

Opinion: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty.

Observation: any information collected with the senses.

Data: Individual measurements; facts, figures, pieces of information, statistics, either historical or derived by calculation, experimentation, surveys, etc.; evidence from which conclusions can be inferred.

Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Religion: Theistic: 1. the belief in a superhuman controlling power, esp. in a personal God or gods entitled to obedience and worship. 2. the expression of this in worship. 3. a particular system of faith and worship.

Religion: Non-Theistic: The word religion has many definitions, all of which can embrace sacred lore and wisdom and knowledge of God or gods, souls and spirits. Religion deals with the spirit in relation to itself, the universe and other life. Essentially, religion is belief in spiritual beings. As it relates to the world, religion is a system of beliefs and practices by means of which a group of people struggles with the ultimate problems of human life.

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without evidence.

Some good definitions, as used in physics, can be found: Here.

[Last revised 9/26/06]

[A6M3]

All that verbage to say just what I said in post # 21. Evolution is a theory and never will be anything more than that, just a theory. Case closed.

[BnBlFlag]

SMU "Profs". Kinda says it all right there.

[A6M3]

All that verbage to say what I said in post #21. Evolution is just a theory, and will never be anything more than that, just a theory. Case closed.

[jim35]

["You did a bit of quote mining here."]

Yes, but the context is accurate.

And, as for where I get my statistics... oh, brother. I'm not going through all this again. Try showing me some stats that support the primordial soup hypothesis of abiogenesis. I dare you.

["The first steps of life? Which steps would those be?"]

Isn't that what you've been arguing all along? It's not my theory. As I understand it, isn't it yours?

["Are you saying that there needs to be a conscious decision made for each mutation and selection process?"]

Yes, absolutely. How else do you explain the adaptation to an environment?

["So far your 'evidence' is an assertion that it looks designed so it must be designed."]

So far your 'evidence' is an assertion that it looks designed, so it cannot have been designed. And you will bend over backwards to make others believe it.

["So, if I make a claim that it is not scientific I am making a claim that it is philosophy? Why are you making them mutually exclusive?"]

I am arguing the exact opposite. Science and philosophy, as I have previously stated, are inextricably entwined. It appears to be your (and Coyoteman's) assertion that you cannot allow philosophy to intrude into the realm of science. Your views are becoming schizophrenic, as you are arguing both sides of this. And yes, I understand how science and philosophy work. Using scientific evidence, we arrive at conclusions. Sometimes those conclusions are easy, sometimes they require some interpretation. You are interpreting this scientific evidence to suit your philosophy, when creation makes much more sense, based on the evidence.


["So, it is your opinion that the interpretation of a large number of independent and dependent streams of data and the conclusions drawn from the convergence of that evidence derived from Cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics, Physics, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Genetics, Genomics, a number of fields of Biology, Statistics, Paleontology, Archeology, Anthropology and a number I'm am probably missing is unscientific?"]

It is my conclusion, based on the evidence of all of these sciences, that evolutionists have jumped to far too many conclusions based on this evidence. All of this evidence points to creation as the most logical inference from the knowledge gained by these sciences. You stretch and strain to avoid this conclusion. That is unscientific.

["Yet the vast majority of all life forms that inhabited the Earth failed in their adaptation and are now extinct."]

What do you suppose that odds are, that ANY species could adapt to a new environment, in a timely fashion, if adaptation was random and unguided? Seriously, the whole notion is insane. It may be theoretically possible, but in the real world it is statistically as good as impossible. You really have to stretch to believe it.

["I let the evidence convince me there is no creator."]

Then it is my assertion that you have misinterpreted the evidence.

["Your claim that we are being unscientific because we reject the obvious without some testable evidence is, at best, misguided."]

["The difference is in the testing. Those mechanisms related to evolution can be tested by making predictions which are subject to falsification."]

Their is evidence, all right. Of ID. Scientists have proven that an intelligent designer can make genetic changes in animals, by making a pig secrete human growth hormone. This is at least some proof that ID is possible.

And at the very least, it is now known that it WAS NOT DISPROVED in the laboratory, even though it was scientifically falsifiable. Show me the same is true with evolution, if you can.

But you can't, and you never will, because what you assert as the unvarnished scientific truth, that only a Luddite would be skeptical of, can NEVER be proven, or disproven, in a laboratory. It is not subject to falsification.

["The origin of life is well within the range of known processes and physical laws."]

That is utter nonsense. It is certainly not.

["The realization of this is behind the attempt by IDists to lump all of Methodological Naturalism/Materialism under the banner of 'Evolution' and hope to bring down MN through attacking the small segment of science which they feel, incorrectly, is most defenseless."]

That is the single most ridiculous statement to date. ID and those who support it's idea of creationism is what is under siege by every force in academia, which has the full backing of the courts. ID is on the defense, not the offense. We are muzzled at every turn, scorned by self-styled intellectuals, and compared to the lowest, most ignorant, most ineducable fanatics since the flat-Earth society.

It is insulting to hear evolutionists whining about their defenselessness.

[jim35]

I wonder if you purposely misinterpreted my statement?

What I'm saying, is that ID is falsifiable, scientifically, but that it WASN'T falsified, under laboratory conditions.

[MHalblaub]

"The author in the math cited above simplified the probability math even further in order to show that even life forms orders of magnitudes simpler (i.e. shorter sequence of codons) than the most basic known life need external bias even when given 17 billion years of available, active time."

There is a small word what appears twice in your posting: "known". But does the author know the origin of life? "[...] for the most basic/simple known life form." So how simple was life 3 Billion years ago? The author didn't know this. That is the problem with his probability calculations. His initial data is insufficient to calculate something worth to argue about.

My dice argument wasn't about a 29-letter code or a 4-base genetic code. It was about the nonsense to make calculations about an unknown system.

"TO BE OR NOT TO BE, THAT IS THE QUESTION."
Do you know one ancestor of that sentence?
Maybe 'To have or have not, is that a question?'
Do you know the forebear of a Mercedes SLK 55 AMG?

Do you know how impossible it is, that I wrote that to you what I wrote?
You can calculate a probability and claim it is impossible for me to wrote that.
Pardon, but I wrote it.
Well, I'm not a monkey but for me the best explanation still is that we have common ancestors.

[js1138]

Design *is* bias. If there is no bias in an event, then there was no design.

I fail to see the point here. First of all, the absence of bias is really hard to achieve. Coins are designed. It is difficult to find natural objects in nature that are as unbiased as coins or well made dice. To achieve long strings of unbiased data we turn to radioactive decay, and the process requires a fair amount of technology and design.

Where are you trying to go with this?

[Southack]

"So how simple was life 3 Billion years ago? The author didn't know this. That is the problem with his probability calculations. His initial data is insufficient to calculate something worth to argue about."

That's incorrect. The author is showing in his math the *probability* for a sequence of data. You can apply that math to many fields/areas, such as to the sequence of codons that form DNA.

Since DNA has sequenced codons, the author's math holds true even though he wasn't there circa 3 billin years ago for the first DNA life form.

If you want to claim that a very small sequence of codons could possibly form life, then your claim could be verified and his math will still apply to that small sequence, by the way.

[Southack]

"I fail to see the point here. First of all, the absence of bias is really hard to achieve."

Doesn't matter.

If there is no bias in an event then there is no design. No bias means no Intelligent Design.

Thus, ID is falsifiable.

It's not even debatable. Anyone who claims that ID isn't "falsifiable" is either uneducated, illiterate, or a liar.

No bias means that ID is falsified.

Game Over.

[Coyoteman]

What is intelligent design?

It's the missing link between creationism and religious instruction masquerading as biology.

Bruce Bower, Science News, vol. 168 (Nos 26 & 27), 2006, p. 414.