|
Author
|
Topic: AAAS rejects ID
|
William A. Dembski
Member
Member # 7
|
posted 06. November 2002 16:03
I'd like to encourage discussion of the three "whereas" claims in the resolution below.
Briefly: With respect to the first "whereas" would evolutionary proponents by contrast
claim that contemporary evolutionary theory has in fact explained the origin of the diversity of living organisms? With respect to the second "whereas," is there anything that could count as "credible scientific evidence" for ID? With respect to the third "whereas," why do specified and irreducible complexity not count as scientific means for testing ID's claims?
Opinion: This is yet one more attempt by the scientific establishment to shut down discussion about ID apart from any real debate over its scientific merits. The AAAS, of which many design proponents are members (including me), presumably arrived at its conclusions after serious discussion and reflection, yet no ID proponent to my knowledge was invited to provide feedback or input. That tells me that this entire resolution was ideologically driven.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml
AAAS Board Resolution
on Intelligent Design Theory
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.
Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 06. November 2002 17:57
quote:
Briefly: With respect to the first "whereas" would evolutionary proponents by contrast claim that contemporary evolutionary theory has in fact explained the origin of the diversity of living organisms?
I think this is their primary reason for paying any attention to the claims of ID. I think they believe that evolution is the answer so fully that any challenge to it in any form constitutes the deepest of intellectual offenses and the worst of ignorance.
quote:
With respect to the second "whereas," is there anything that could count as "credible scientific evidence" for ID?
I think that because the answer to the first whereas is so completely established in their minds, not only is there nothing that could count, but there is absolutely no need to look for anything that might count. You might as well hunt for santa claus or the tooth fairy in their mind. I guess the typical argument is that If you found a hominid fossil dated 4 billion years old, evolution could be invalidated. Otherwise, forget it, one day we'll figure it all out, but for now evolution is correct minus some irrelevant details that only religious fanatics quarrel over.
quote:
With respect to the third "whereas," why do specified and irreducible complexity not count as scientific means for testing ID's claims?
Who needs to even discuss such irrelevant ideas as specified and irreducible complexity and why give these ideas any legitimacy by even trying to discount them with the public voice of an AAAS statement? We certainly wouldn't want to give ID proponents further popularity by giving specific ideas of their claim greater voice. Rather, we must be sure that evolution is the final and incontrovertible answer, and anything else should be strictly barred from our minds and consideration. Hence the language, ID theorists present "scientific evidence" that has been critiqued substantially as misrepresented facts, and conceptual flaws. Since when has any critique of "scientific evidence" become the TRUTH about that evidence. A critique is nothing like a PROOF, but then who needs proof when we already know the truth of evolution is correct??
quote:
Opinion: This is yet one more attempt by the scientific establishment to shut down discussion about ID apart from any real debate over its scientific merits.
This conclusion is obvious to me. I am surprised that this is official business. I feel it humorous that to become a responsible citizen, you are required to be familiar with theories and empirical data related to evolution. Do theories and empirical data related to ID make a person become an irresponsible citizen of our contemporary technological world? Does knowledge of ID theory make a person more uninformed somehow? Perhaps mostly criminals and derelicts believe in ID instead of evolution. Does a farmer/ lawyer/ businessman need to know evolution to be a responsible farmer/ lawyer/ businessman? How does knowledge of evolution help a nurse give the proper care for her patients or a doctor prescribe the right medicine? What aspects of evolution theory prevent people from becoming followers of the likes of Charles Manson, or David Koresh? What ethics or morality is implicit in the theory of evolution that enables us to be responsible members of our contemporary technological world? I guess such arcane ideas such as morality and ethics apply only to the ancient technologicaly deficient world way back when people needed religion, but not nowadays. In our day, what we need is familiarity with empirical data and theory, informing us that evolution is in fact correct, religion is in fact irrelevant, and God is indeed quite dead and always has been.
Finally, in what world is the most responsible way to recognize conceptual fallacies, fact misrepresentations and credibility lacked evidence to IGNORE it?? In fact such things serve as the perfect springboard for identifying the truth, and clarifying why a particular theory is correct! If evolution is so right, the options should be presented and so thoroughly dismantled that no student in their right mind could ever believe it.
[ 06. November 2002, 17:59: Message edited by: Josh ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 06. November 2002 18:10
The "related article" link from the AAAS statement above states:
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
I wonder if they have in mind the teaching of such clear, perfectly represented teachings such as the Miller experiments, peppered moths, and Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 06. November 2002 19:05
quote:
While asking policymakers to oppose the teaching of ID theory within science classes, the AAAS also called on its 272 affiliated societies, its members, and the public to promote fact-based, standards-based science education for American schoolchildren.
I wonder if they have in mind the teaching of such clear, perfectly represented teachings such as the Miller experiments, peppered moths, and Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.
Just a point of correction - no one has supported "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" for over a hundred years. The concept - originally proposed by Ernst Haeckel - was essentially dead on arrival, and was discarded almost as soon as it was proposed.
Josh might be referring to the use of Haeckel's fraudulent pictures of embryos in a small number of science books. The use of these pictures was NOT to provide evidence for Haeckel's incorrect theory, but rather to illustrate the point that vertebrate embryos have many features in common at an early (although not the earliest) stage of their development. Although there is some debate between embryologists as to whether this so-called "phylotypic stgae" is a useful concept, there is no real dissent with the idea that shared features between vertebrate embryos can be taken as evidence for common descent.
Just my $0.02.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
rossum
Member
Member # 463
|
posted 06. November 2002 19:48
It seems to me that the argument of the AAAS, as stated in the three whereas clauses runs like:
- ID makes scientific claims.
- ID does not offer any scientific evidence for its claims.
- ID has not proposed any means of scientifically testing its claims.
I am sure that there is no disagreement with the first. ID does indeed makes scientific claims.
For the second I would like to quote Dr Dembski from "Becoming a Discplined Science":
quote:
We have done amazingly well in creating a cultural movement, but we must not exaggerate ID's successes on the scientific front.
and
quote:
Because of ID's outstanding success at gaining a cultural hearing, the scientific research part of ID is now lagging behind.
It seems that what scientific research ID is producing has not been publicised enough. As an example there have been a number of requests on Brainstorms for summaries of the research presented at the RAPID Conference, none of which appear to have been answered. Surely this is a missed opportunity. As Dr Dembski points out, the scientific research part of ID has fallen behind the cultural movement part. Perhaps more emphasis on scientific research is needed at this point.
Once there is a larger volume of scientific research available to support ID then it will be possible to show the AAAS that their point two is incorrect. Currently all I can see are some philosophical arguments about IC and CSI which are not backed up by experimental data.
Surely there must be some research which points to examples of IC and CSI other than the bacterial flagellum etc. which have been discussed back and forth ad nauseam?
The AAAS's third point is also correct at the moment. How can the claims of ID be tested? Surely ID scientists should be working on ways of identifying design, and then testing them against known examples of designed and non-designed objects to check that the proposed tests work correctly.
For example, there are many examples of intelligently designed electrical circuits. There are also examples of electrical circuits designed by evolutionary algorithms. We know independently whether or not any circuit was intelligently designed. Have the tests for ID been tried against examples of both types of circuit to see if design is correctly detected in all cases?
Further to this point, in his same keynote address Dr Dembski proposes:
quote:
1. Catalog of Fundamental Facts (CFF)
One of the marks of a disciplined science is that it possesses an easily accessible catalog of fundamental facts. Think of the magnificent star cluster catalogs in astrophysics. ID needs something like this. It would be enormously helpful if we had and could make publicly available a catalog of irreducibly complex biological objects or processes. The catalog should contain as complete a list as possible, organized more or less as a table, with very complete descriptions. Under the bacterial flagellum, for instance, the catalog would list: found in the following; involving these biochemical parts; requiring this level of energy; these substrates, etc. etc. The catalog should move from simple to profound examples of irreducible complexity (such as the mammalian visual system).
I would like to propose an addition to the catalog. It should also include agreed non-IC and non-designed biological objects or processes. This is to allow testing against agreed non-IC and non-Designed objects. Thus any proposed method for detecting design must not only detect the designed objects in the catalog, it must also reject the non-designed objects.
As a start I would propose the following as candidates for not IC and not intelligently designed objects:
- Bacterial aquisition of immunity to antibiotics.
- Insects aquisition of immunity to insecticides.
- Camouflage markings.
- Distinctive warning markings on poisonous species.
- Mimicry.
Returning to the AAAS after that little diversion. The AAAS do not see ID as science because of points two and three. They do seem to have some justification for this as there is a distinct lack of ID scientific research available currently. Until this research is available it will be difficult to justify teaching ID in science classes. Apart from anything else, what is to be taught if there is no research to provide substance to the lessons? There will need to be textbooks with worked examples. Where are these examples to come from if not from the ID research literature?
In my opinion the attitude of ID to the AAAS should be:
quote:
We disagree with what you say, and we are going to show that you are wrong both by doing ID research to provide evidence for our claims and by testing those claims in a scientific manner.
Once this is done the AAAS claims will be very thoroughly refuted.
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 06. November 2002 20:07
"Just a point of correction - no one has supported "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" for over a hundred years. The concept - originally proposed by Ernst Haeckel - was essentially dead on arrival, and was discarded almost as soon as it was proposed."
Perhaps I am more rusty than I thought, but I learned this terminology in upper level embryology as an undergrad as evidence for evolution. I was not taught that it was dead on arrival 100 years ago (sites I've seen quote the idea being discarded in the '50s). Here is an interesting website for your pleasure...
http://www.geocities.com/prasarns/ontogeny.html
IP: Logged
|
|
Moderator
Administrator
Member # 1
|
posted 06. November 2002 20:35
I'm watching this thread closely. This thread will be allowed to proceed only so far as it seems to be fascilitating productive and positive discourse.
Also, Dr. Dembski, please remember that at Brainstorms we are intentional about avoiding politics, conspiracy theories, and motives. These all lead to heated debate minus substantial discussion. In the future, it would be best to avoid statements such as the following:
"This is yet one more attempt by the scientific establishment to shut down discussion about ID"
"That tells me that this entire resolution was ideologically driven."
I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, only that such comments are better suited for other venues of discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
Irving
Member
Member # 535
|
posted 06. November 2002 21:07
It appears that the AAAS defines a Scientific Warrent as having two conditions:
1) Credible Scientific Evidence
2) Means of Testing
The first runs the risk of a Tautology if a scientific warrent is defined as having scientific evidence. The second requires some apple to apple discussions regarding the rules of engagement. I think everyone understands that Origins Science is not a physical science and that testing in origins science cannot mean quite the same as it does in something like Chemistry and Physics. As arbitors of the arena, it is incumbent upon the AAAS to define the rules of engagement regarding testing (i.e. define how evolution is testable), before it can make claims about the testability of ID.
Regarding evidence, I believe the problem herein lies with counter claims regarding the same physical evidence. Evidence, like exhibits in a courtroom, don't make claims for themselves. It requires a prosecutor or defender to make claims about them. If the same piece of tangible evidence can be used to explain both theories, then they must be removed from the evidence set used to establish a scientific warrent. It is false to claim that a radiometric date for a piece of rock can be scientific for evolution, but the same radiometric date for the same rock cannot be scientific for ID. The date is either scientific or it is not.
So this leaves us with listing purely the scientific evidence that is unique to the theory. That which lies outside any other theory. I would propose that the sudden appearance of forms in the fossil record lies outside of Gradualism, but inside ID and Punctuated Equillibrium (PE). Of what evidence lies soley within PE?
IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Szlazak
Member
Member # 391
|
posted 06. November 2002 21:16
AAAS like the AMA, etc., is a political orginization, one of it's roles is to protect and expand turf, and they probably see ID as a treat to their communities ideological turf.
They do have lots of power but on scientific merit, don't automatically assume that because they reject something that they really have any legitimate justification to do so ... beyond maintaining status quo.
IP: Logged
|
|
William A. Dembski
Member
Member # 7
|
posted 06. November 2002 22:05
Moderator,
Point taken about adding my gloss on the AAAS's motivations. The three "whereas" points raised by the AAAS, however, do need to be discussed in a forum like this, so please don't shut this forum down prematurely -- prune rather than uproot if needs be.
IP: Logged
|
|
andyg
Member
Member # 415
|
posted 06. November 2002 23:18
quote:
Briefly: With respect to the first "whereas" would evolutionary proponents by contrast
claim that contemporary evolutionary theory has in fact explained the origin of the diversity of living organisms? With respect to the second "whereas," is there anything that could count as "credible scientific evidence" for ID? With respect to the third "whereas," why do specified and irreducible complexity not count as scientific means for testing ID's claims?
Here are some brief thoughts on Bill's questions:
1. WRT the first "whereas", it is much harder to demonstrate a negative statement to be true than provide evidence for a positive statement.
That said, the statement is a little unfair, as it fails to recognise that the ID movement is a rather broad church, containing as it does members such as Michael Behe who accept an old earth and common descent, and Paul Nelson, who is a young earth creationist. Behe has been quite clear that he believes evolutionary mechanisms can account for much of life's diversity.
2. I think that the thrust of the second "whereas" is to follow on from the somewhat unfair first statement, in that many scientists feel that ID is attempting to promote itself by first demonstrating that evolution cannot acoount for certain processes, and thus winning by default. I don't really want to re-hash arguments about what would count as positive evidence for ID, as I think the moderator has heard them all before and is sick of most of them.
3. With respect to the third "whereas", Behe has himself admitted that his current formulation of IC needs fixing. Critiques of the concept of SC have been made many times before, and I hesitate to enumerate them again.
AndyG
IP: Logged
|
|
Frances
Member
Member # 169
|
posted 06. November 2002 23:21
Hi Josh
quote:
I wonder if they have in mind the teaching of such clear, perfectly represented teachings such as the Miller experiments, peppered moths, and Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny.
May I infer from your statement that you consider that there are reasons why Miller's experiments, peppered moths should not be taught?
Miller's experiments showed how in principle many of the building blocks of life could be generated in a straightforward manner. Of course Miller hardly solved all the problems but the experiment is quite important in its historical value.
As far as the peppered moths are concerned, I wonder why people keep mentioning the peppered moth as if there is something wrong with it? Perhaps one may want to read the works by such researchers as Kettlewell, Majerus and Grant to find out what the peppered moth is really all about.
One may understand why Bruce grant states that
quote:
Certainly there are other examples of natural selection. Our field would be in mighty bad shape
if there weren’t. Industrial melanism in peppered moths remains one of the best documented and
easiest to understand.
This may not be the right forum to discuss these examples but I would encourage you to explore the available research on these topics.
The peppered moth makes for a fascinating story of exquisite experimental research (certainly for its time). I have seen and experienced these 'arguments' against Miller and the Peppered Moth, often in relationship with Intelligent Design and/or by ID scientists, and I feel that they merely serve to distract and open up ID rightfully to scientific criticism in an unnecessary way.
Far more effort could be spent on providing for positive evidence supporting ID inferences. IMHO of course
[ 06. November 2002, 23:24: Message edited by: Frances ]
IP: Logged
|
|
warren_bergerson
Member
Member # 262
|
posted 07. November 2002 08:45
The AAAS statement of position, IMO, should be interpreted in terms evidentiary standards. The statement says in effect that 1)based on current ‘peer review’ standards of evidence 2) "The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry" 3) "to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution" and 4) "the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims".
The statement is unambiguous. If you accept the AAAS peer review standard of evidence than there is no merit or substance in any of the ID arguments or analysis. The options available to ID as a science are also unambiguous. Either 1)accept the AAAS peer review standards and abandon ID, 2)reject the AAAS evidentiary standards and begin building a new science based on new more rigorous standard, or 3)reject the AAAS peer review standards and begin building a new science based on less rigorous standards.
Most of the ID arguments/analysis take the general form "evolutionary theory has not or can not explain X". To my knowledge, none of the "In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts." counter arguments have actually attempted to explain the phenomena which has not or can not be explained. There would thus appear to be valid ground for questioning the validity and soundness of the AAAS evidentiary standard.
But if the AAAS standards are flawed, they can not be flawed just for evaluating ID. If peer review standards are fundamentally flawed, then they we must expect that these standards are producing seriously flawed scientific evaluations in other areas of science. As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, it would useful to have a forum for discussing/analyzing the soundness of the peer review standard. [It is important to note in this context that peer review processes are relatively new and serious scientific distortions resulting from flaws in these procedures/standards may only now be emerging.]
If the peer review standard of evidence is rejected in developing a new science of ID then an alternative standard must be adapted. There are obviously evidentiary standards which are even less rigorous than peer review standards. ID science could be based on these less rigorous standards. It is, however, highly unlikely that ID as a science would ever gain general acceptance if based on such evidentiary standards.
As has been discussed elsewhere, there are ‘engineering standards of evidence’ which provide ID with a more rigorous alternative to peer review standards. As I have stated elsewhere, I believe it is possible/practical to develop a science of ID or design based on engineering standards. Such a strategy provides a basis for addressing the AAAS position by establishing design science as more rigorous and thus as superior to the form of science supported by AAAS. Adapting the engineering standard is not, however, with out a price. Most obviously, adapting the engineering standard will mean abandoning many of the metaphysical beliefs and concepts which have been central to the early ID approaches.
The AAAS statement is useful in that it helps clarify the issue the science of ID. ID is not and can not be an acceptable part of peer review science. If ID is ever to be established as a science, it must be established outside of peer review science. IMO, the fact, that peer review science rejects ID should be viewed as an opportunity to develop a form of science superior to peer review science.
IP: Logged
|
|
Paul A. Nelson
Member
Member # 26
|
posted 07. November 2002 10:50
The AAAS resolution is the 2002 equivalent of papal statements condemning the translation of the Latin text of the Bible into the vernacular. And, in the long run, the AAAS statement will have the same effect (namely, total impotence in the face of changing reality). Science cannot be done by stringing together a long series of "whereas" clauses. Interesting ideas such as ID, whether right or wrong, will not go away; they'll simply go underground.
I've been a member of the AAAS for almost 20 years. Every time they do something like this, I'm embarrassed.
IP: Logged
|
|
Josh
Member
Member # 405
|
posted 07. November 2002 12:06
quote:
May I infer from your statement that you consider that there are reasons why Miller's experiments, peppered moths should not be taught?
No, not that they should not be taught. My point is rather to illustrate examples that AAAS considers suitable for our children's education and thus must live up to the criteria of being properly represented, not containing conceptual fallacies, etc
quote:
Miller's experiments showed how in principle many of the building blocks of life could be generated in a straightforward manner.
Sure, give a nobel-prize winning physical chemist access to a sigma catalogue and a graduate student, and biomolecules can be easily synthesized in the lab "in a straightforward manner." How do you think sigma offers these chemicals? Do you think Urey and Stanley believed that the earth's early atmosphere lacked oxygen due to empirical data, or assumptions supported by a commitment to evolutionary principles? How many texts have you seen state that oxygen kills the reaction and that many scientists today believe that the early earth most likely had oxygen in the atmosphere?
quote:
As far as the peppered moths are concerned, I wonder why people keep mentioning the peppered moth as if there is something wrong with it? Perhaps one may want to read the works by such researchers as Kettlewell, Majerus and Grant to find out what the peppered moth is really all about.
If you really want to know the criticisms, take a look at Wells' Icons of Evolution. For your review, please see the following link:
http://www.discovery.org/viewDB/index.php3?command=view&id=1275&program=CRSC
I really don't see how you can defend these examples as NOT having any misrepresentations, conceptual fallacies, etc. Regardless of the ultimate truth about these examples, misrepresentation is not warranted. There seems to be a double standard here by the AAAS.
quote:
Certainly there are other examples of natural selection. Our field would be in mighty bad shape if there weren’t. Industrial melanism in peppered moths remains one of the best documented and easiest to understand.
So students need to learn easiest to understand examples at the expense of misrepresentation and conceptual fallacies, etc.??
quote:
Far more effort could be spent on providing for positive evidence supporting ID inferences. IMHO of course
That has a time and place, but when discussing what constitutes scientific standards and examples of classroom qualified theory and empirical data, these issues are central. I think the point is clear that examples used in high school to graduate texts clearly show signs of misrepresentation, conceptual fallacy, etc., thus making the AAAS statement itself misrepresentative and hypocritical. AAAS in effect is saying "We expect a standard to be met that we currently do not enforce for evolutionary education, therefore we urge anyone in power to persuade such decisions to influence the suppression of the non-science ID theory."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic