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. |
We can't re-create the meteor crater in Arizona.
But we're rather confident that we know how it happened. Or is it a newly-invented rule of "creation science" that an eye-witness or perfect re-creation is mandatory for everything? Careful. If you start demanding eye-witnesses and re-creation before you can know something, a whole load of what you imagine you know will vanish in a puff of hearsay.
But suppose we could not in the laboratory duplicate the conditions for chemical combustion or found that spectral anaylsis gave inconsistant results?
Then, of course, scientists would be making rank guesses about the formation of stars.
We have not been able to show in a lab how single-celled organisms can evolve into multi-celled ones. Much less with exclusively naturally occuring processes. Much less with consistancy.
Indeed; I should think convincing Sen. Kennedy to volunteer for a high speed impact would be problematic at best.
So there it is; even if you abandon naturalism, science is necessarily logical. Christianity has never been able to square itself with fundamental logic; it has always relied on the ineffability of the Creator.
I just hate it when people attribute motives to other people, for the seemingly sole purpose of impugning arguments they disagree with, Professor. You insist ID is about smuggling the Creator in through the back door. Professor, you are entitled to your opinion in this. I do not share it.
One may infer the "attributes of the designer" if one wishes to do so. But it seem to me this enterprise would be extra-scientific on its face. That question goes to ontological, not empirical questions.
You raised the issue of theodicy -- why an infinitely good and powerful God would permit evil in the world -- which you allege Christian theology "papers over." Actually, Christianity delves into this issue with great psychological and ontological sensitivity and penetration. But at the end of the day, what can finally be said about the problem of evil in the world is that it is the mysterium iniquitatis -- the "mystery of iniquity," a mystery right up there with why God created the universe in the first place. The question is unanswerable for us humans, because there is no specific, hard evidence occurring in the space-time world in which we live that sheds such light on the problem that we can say with any kind of certainty that God's motives can be elucidated. The motive may operate in the world; but it only appears here as motif. We are free to speculate about it; but certainty is out of the question. Or so it seems to me.
Speaking of speculating about the problem of evil, here's Lance Morrow's fascinating take (from Evil: An Investigation, 2003):
"Evil has much to teach us. My answer to the dilemma of theodicy -- the mystery of why a good God permits evil in the world -- is that evil is our greatest and perhaps our only effective instructor. With so much instruction available in the form of evil, we should all be geniuses. Evil, in some strange way, is what keeps us in motion toward the unseen destination. Evil supplies us with the horrible incompleteness that we need. If we were perfected, then we would be motionless at last, and so would God. Is it blasphemous to say that evil is in some sense the primum mobile?...
"But if we view evil at a reasonable distance, it is possible to think of it as part of a larger ecology.... Although those suffering the viciousness of their fellow men can be only remotely comforted by the thought...evil is ultimately indispensable and creative, a part of the world's energy. It is one necessary half of a cosmic exchange. Good and evil are matter and antimatter. Even the unthinkable eventually recedes into the soil and fertilizes new history.
"This fairly simple and sane view has a distinguished pedigree in some Eastern religions. In the West, clarity about evil has tended to be obscured in doctrinal complexities, in forests of dense theological nicety and ecclesiastical politics; efforts at symmetry [e.g., of good and evil] have tended to be suppressed as heretical (Manichaeism, Gnosoticism, Albigensianism, and so on).
"Time is meaningless without the punctuation of events. Evil is the great agitator of events. Evil makes things happen; so does good, which makes its living -- defines itself and perfects itself -- by responding to evil....
"Time has no meaning except in stories. Stories measure time. In the beginning was the Word; the purpose of the Word is to record the stories and seek their meaning.
"Without evil, there is no time.
"Without violation, there is no trust. Without trust, there can be no violation.
"Without evil, there is no symmetrical definition of the good. In fact, there is no good. Without valleys, no mountains, and vice versa. All moral meaning -- although we may be disconcerted to think it -- depends upon the existence of evil.
"It is not the direct action of transformation -- as of catepillar into butterly -- that gives evil its meaning. It is rather a much broader chemical response, the dia;ectic of good and evgil in the human heart, that is important. It is not so much that evil is transformed directly into good, as that evil acts as foil and antagonist in the theater of the world, and without evil, you have no drama, that is to say, no life perhaps worth living...."
Morrow quotes South African author Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela on this point: "...the line separating good from evil is paper-thin."
What got evil started in the Universe, according to Christian account, was Lucifer's exercise of free will: "Non serviam." Lucifer -- an Archangel of the highest rank (i.e., on a par with Michael and Gabriel) was most beloved of God, as the lgend goes. God called him "prince of light," and "son of the Morning Star." But apparently, God and Luficer quarrelled (about God's plan to create the Universe, or of man???); and the upshot was Lucifer -- Satan -- told God to go stuff it, and irrevocably separated himself from God. He and certain personal, loyal minions chose to leave Heaven, forever to live outside of God's life, law, grace, and light -- and thus became the Absolute Negative, anti-Life, Evil. And his personal ugliness increased and flourished, for he chose to cut himself off from the Source of all beauty and truth -- which is God.
Anyhoot, Evil would appear to have the quality of an intelligent, willing entity that cycles in and out of human affairs. It has its own purposes, and it works its purposes constantly via the means of human souls, Satan's tools and alleged "future repast." One of its purposes is everlastingly to slander, to revile, to accuse Man before God; to tempt men away from God, thus to destroy as many souls as possible. Satan knows that the end of the day he cannot win; his fate is sealed. He just wants to take as many humans down into perdition with him as possible.
Or that is what the legend says. Anyhoot, Satan wants to be our "role model" -- to do as he did, and say to God, "non serviam" -- "I will not serve You."
Gosh, me too, so I didn't read the rest of your motive-assuming rant.
That's fine. That's a great way of telling you what a star is doing right now, but that's not the same as seeing one form, is it? The animal equivalent would be to catch an animal and observe it in a zoo - that'll tell you all about what this animal is like, but it doesn't tell you where it came from, what caused this animal to come to be.
Or look at the meteor crater up above - nobody has observed impacts near that scale, so therefore, we don't know what caused it. Right? That's pretty much what the science teacher will have to say, isn't it?
So without God, pain doesn't hurt?
That doesn't prove anything! All you've shown is that intelligent agents can cause craters! You still can't prove that they happen without intelligent intervention! </ID mode>
Not true! IF you use Sen. Kennedy to make the crater, it proves that NO intelligence is needed AT ALL!
;-)
No, the animal equivalent would be to observe how the chemical compound DNA reacts to particular stimula, find that this causes the code to direct the one-celled creatures to become multi-celled ones, then extrapolate that to all biology.
Now, the evidence for evolution usually presented on these threads is the fossil record, the recognition that some life is more akin to other life (phylogenic tree), and the observation of natural mutations.
Why would one be satisfied with these?
Without God, you're pain doesn't hurt me.
This simply makes no sense.
Now, the evidence for evolution usually presented on these threads is the fossil record, the recognition that some life is more akin to other life (phylogenic tree), and the observation of natural mutations.
Why would one be satisfied with these?
You tell me. What evidence would you consider compelling? What would it take to convince you that evolution is a fact?
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.