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. |
That may be true for you and for psychopaths like Bill Clinton, but it isn't universally true. The majority of people have empathy.
Man has witnessed many meteor strikes. We know what the craters look like. We know what kind of debris is left. Why should we doubt the cause of the Arizona crater?
The majority of people have a selfish gene and the ability to rationalize the suffering of others if that suffering should be for their own gain.
And that is evil and I can call it that because I know God is real and he calls this evil.
I suggest you go looking for the beam in your own eye, bb. Let me quote you from 277, addressed to myself and general_re.
I gather you both regard ID as an “interloper” and a challenge to your own metaphysical doctrines, and that is the reason you refuse to even consider it.
and
Since you absolutely reject the existence of God, you are therefore spared the inconvenience of entertaining the arguments in support of the theory of a designed universe. You have come to this conclusion via a very circuitous and – might I suggest – unscientific route.
The accusation that I reject the existence of God is, BTW, downright false.
Moving along; you haven't said why inferring the attributes of the designed is extra-scientific, in a way that inferring the attributes of an anonymous painter would not be. Calliong it ontology isn't an answer. A scientific analysis of the painter of an anonymous work isn't ontology.
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
Thanks to 12 years of Catholic education, I'm well familiar with the relevant doctrine. It's an unfathomable mystery; since Christian philosophy managed to create some sort of rational edifice over most of the rest of Christian doctrine, I don't think it's going too far to say they papered over the problem of evil. For all the rather Gnostic and existential arguments about how evil is necessary to allow good, one is stuck with a fundamental contradiction. After all, if evil brings forth good, then the Holocaust must have been the greatest producer of good in human history. But that's nonsense. If we really believed that sickness were necessary to allow the virtue of stoicism, as a society we'd promote sickness. We don't. We strive to eliminate evil. No rational person does evil to increase the opportunity for good. To suggest that God permits evil to exist for that purpose requires that God be irrational.
So, while Chrisitianity can perfectly well claim that God moves in a mysterious way, at the same time to be beyond explanation is to be beyond logic, because logic requires cause and effect. Thus my point that positing an ineffable designer puts ID beyond logic as well as beyond naturalism.
Anyhoot, Satan wants to be our "role model" -- to do as he did, and say to God, "non serviam" -- "I will not serve You."
Conflating skepticism about Christian dogma with the incarnation of evil is one of the uglier aspects of Christian doctrine. No doubt we could be living in a universe where some of us will be eternally tortured for asking for a little hard evidence. Me, I'd prefer to think we are somewhere better than pre-liberation Iraq.
No witnesses. Can't be reproduced in the lab. Therefore it's not science. It's pure naturalist speculation. Therefore biased. Deliberate elimination of any supernatural cause.
This kind of thing will cause the end of civilization. If people start believing that rocks fall from the sky, why shouldn't we all run around raping and killing each other? Hitler believed rocks fall from the sky. Where will it all end?
The observation that DNA can be re-coded via natural processes to do the things required by evolution (one-celled to multi-celled etc.)
The discovery of an animal (A) that can fertilize the seed of animals (B) and (C) while animal B cannot fertilize the seed of C.
You lost me on this one Patrick.
In other words, you want evidence that you can't have - "observing" such a thing in nature would take millions of years of watching, and neither of us is going to be around that long. And if I sling together enough mutations to do the same thing in a timely fashion in the lab, you'll simply say that this is no evidence of "natural processes" when a person does it, right?
The discovery of an animal (A) that can fertilize the seed of animals (B) and (C) while animal B cannot fertilize the seed of C.
Pick any three animals of the same species you like, and that condition is satisfied. I'll let you think about that one for a moment, and if you still don't understand, I'll explain why that condition is almost always true ;)
Inferring the attributes of a painter -- or a painting -- is not a scientific problem. The latter is a problem for aesthetics, art appreciation, etc. Is not science!
But I am not positing an ineffable designer -- at least not as a scientific problem. You are.
No, you missed the point I was making. Cruelty exists without dispute, and regardless of religion it is evil, and we all have an inherent understanding that it is.
I'm saying that if we were here by accident -- and not made in God's image -- we would not have this understanding.
Regardless of what one believes, evil exists. And God exists.
LOL, but that's not what I meant.:-)
That apparently is also true of inferring design, since no one can point to any contex-free process for inferring design. There are endless instances of bogus inferred design. The constellations, the weather, earthquakes -- all have been the subject of desingn inferences. Virtually every significant natural phenomenon has been attributed to the intenionality of some imaginary entity.
Note the word "significant". I used it to mean important. But it embeds the word "signify", which suggests intention.
I would argue that most of twentieth century art was a conscious attempt to explore the boundary between the accidental and purposeful -- a kind of esthetic Turing test, aimed at defining the very thing you seem to think is so obvious.
But it shouldn't take a million years. it should take a nano-second. Here you have this single-celled creature, now it's a multi-celled one.
And if I sling together enough mutations to do the same thing in a timely fashion in the lab, you'll simply say that this is no evidence of "natural processes" when a person does it, right?
Actually, no. Has this been done?
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.