Afarensis is a 3.5-2.8 million year old hominin from the Kada Hadar member of the Hadar formation in the Middle Awash, Ethiopia. He is approximately 41 inches tall, weighs approximately 60 pounds and has a cranial capacity of a whopping 410 cc (approximately). Afarensis is currently considered to be transitional between apes and humans and displays some traits of both. Since he spends a lot of time on the couch watching monster movies, some observers question whether he is an obligate biped (although no one has observed him climbing a tree). He also has a blog called 
Alert reader bobn has provided links to a two part essay defending Orson Scott Cards' recent rant...
I, for one, am disappointed in Brins' posts and think he should have done a little more research. For example, he says:
Consider the deleterious effects of allowing this issue to be couched as a strict, either-or dichotomy.
Evolutionists are not the ones making this dichotomy. The ID groups are the ones telling people they are not christians if the "believe" in evolution. A little more research would have uncovered this.
For example, take this comment from posted at Uncommon Descent:
KM Darwinists want nothing more than to portray blind evolution in a positive light. However, I grant you that it is hard to decipher what their “true feelings” are because their philosophy is internally inconsistent(Note: KM evolutionists are Ken Miller evolutionists - that is theistic evolutionists who do not find evolution to be incommpatible with their religious beliefs)
As it turns out, the top-most proponents of Intelligent Design claim to have no interest in disputing the scientific age of the universe, the planet, or even humanity. While they may evade the issue in order not to offend their most troglodytic supporters, many of the movement’s spokespersons -- when pressed -- will admit that they now accept -- as has the Catholic Church -- that time is no longer an issue.
*snip*
Moreover, to a large degree, top ID supporters no longer dispute the coalescing fossil record, which shows that evolution has, indeed occurred, resulting in a magnificent tapestry of species undergoing transformation and change, a story almost as relentlessly convincing as the tale of mineralogy and rocks.
These two statements are also incorrect. When the Kansas school board held their pseudo hearings all the scientists the spoke on behalf of ID were young earth creationists. Dembski rejects commom descent as well.
There are a few other issues I have with Brins' two posts, but don't have time to go into. I will say it is for thoughtfully written than Cards'. I also think Brin should have done a little more research before he wrote them...
Note: I'll probably do more on this later.
Comments
KM Darwinists
The YE creationists would call these people "compromisers". That they would be willing to bend their Biblical beliefs to accomodate science to them is worse than being atheistic. They rarely explictly come out and say that these people are not Christian (an activity which is itself un-Christian) but they will imply it as strongly as possible. If these are Christian, they are not as close to Christ as the YE creationists obviously are.
Posted by: Dave S.
|
January 23, 2006 8:26 AM
Which is another link between YEC and ID because that is pretty much the way Dembski et al view KM Darwinists
Posted by: afarensis | January 23, 2006 2:57 PM
Arrrrggggh! Why is yourt whole blog italicized!?
I have read Brin posts over the weekend. I do not unserstand how can a person who wrote such a good series on the threats to Enlightement not see that GOP is the only threat and that the liberals, aka the "reality-based community" are the defendents of teh Enlightement. Is he trying to start a Third Party and thus bashes the Left and Right equally for political purposes?
Posted by: coturnix
|
January 23, 2006 4:54 PM
Looks okay in IE. I'll have to check it in Firefox when I get home...I was kind of shocked at Brin myself.
Posted by: afarensis | January 23, 2006 5:14 PM
Wow, in Firefox it is all in italics...how bizarre...
Posted by: afarensis | January 23, 2006 6:39 PM
It looks OK now, both in FF and in IE.
Posted by: coturnix | January 23, 2006 10:49 PM
Yes, I had added a link on my blog role and instead of doing li for the list item I did i (got ta watch those typos).
Posted by: afarensis | January 23, 2006 11:31 PM
Well, to be fair, you're somewhat mischaracterizing Brin. He's not actually supporting Card's position. He's suggesting that scientists are taking actions reminiscient of past elites, and that's dangerous. He's not supporting Intelligent Design as an alternative.
Furthermore, he's not suggesting that Evolutionists are pushing a false-dichotomy. Rather, he's arguing that scientists aren't doing enough to combat this false-dichotomy, and so are coming off as arrogant and elitist. To quote:
"Like Card, I do not believe that we have to choose sides between faith and science, so long as the fundamental integrity of science is preserved. But others are pushing exactly this dichotomy between two sides that are Pro-God and Anti-God. And if we let them pose these as the only possible positions, then we all lose."
His suggestion essentially amounts to turning the tables on Intelligent Design, by framing the "debate" in terms of a concession on their part to certain aspects of "deep time" and evolution. I'll grant that he didn't exactly say it in the best manner (he did come off as a little hostile to scientists, which didn't help his argument), but the core of the message is a good one. I suggest reading the comments made to his posts. They are a bit more illuminating into what he was trying to say.
That aside, personally, while I don't agree with everything Brin said, his central message rings true to me. I have met plenty of snobbish, elitist scientists in Academia. Professors and Graduate Students who look down on people who are nonscientists, and who are loathe to even try to explain the scientific concepts behind theories like evolution. Granted, they can be very complex. But in many cases there isn't even an attempt at an explanation. The complexity of the theory becomes an excuse for not having to take the time to inform others about it.
I've also met plenty of Intelligent Design believers who were not believers in Christian Science. Now, to be sure, their idea and those ideas the primary members of the ID movement concerning the theory may have been different. But they identified themselves with the Intelligent Design movement, and often seem put off by defenders of evolution.
So it seems to me that we really do need to take a better look at how we're dealing with Intelligent Design. Not just in debates, courtrooms, or other formal places, but around the universities, in the classrooms, and heck, even in our every-day discussion. Yes, I'm sure many scientists are respectful when they find themselves in a formal situation. But I've seen many, many scientists lose some of that respect when talking in seminars and in classrooms, and that attitude is, intentionally or no, trasmitted to the students. It pushes those who agree with the scientist into further extreme, and alienates those who think the rhetoric should be toned down a bit.
David C.
Posted by: David C. | January 24, 2006 12:24 AM
Here's the link to part II:
http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2006/01/supporters-of-science-must-adapt_22.html#comments
What does Brin complain so much about Carl Sagan? The little I've read from Brin about this makes it sound like Sagan just said some beliefs were "supersitions" and never tried to explain the scientific view that he relied on. That doesn't match my recollection of Sagan's writings.
Posted by: VKW | January 24, 2006 1:18 AM
David C - Brin did back off a lot in the comments (for example he now says ID and creationism are one in the same). Which gets back to what I said about doing more research before posting. I did say it was much more thoughtfully written than Cards' rant. I guess I just disagree with Brin when he says scientists have not done enough to explain science to the non-specialist. There are tons of books out there, all people have to do is read them...
That sounds more like talking points than truth, if you approached me with that attitude I wouldn't be very nice to you either.
I stand by my statement that it is the leaders of the ID movement that are creating the false dichotomy and forcing people to choose between christianity and evolution - one just has to read Johnson, Dembski and some of their more vocal followers. I also stand by the statement concerning ID proponents acceptence of deep time - very few of them do accept the age of the earth or common descent and most of their arguments are just slightly modified versions of creationism (Dembskis' specified complexity, for example, is just a gussied up version of the tornado in a junkyard argument). I'll have more to say on the subject this evening. For now I have to be off to work...
Posted by: afarensis | January 24, 2006 8:52 AM
It is easy to understand why some of Brin's comments are disagreeable to you, and criticism is a good thing. But you may be missing what he is trying to do. Brin is trying to devise new and better tactics to fight the ID movement, and to encourage others to do the same. For example, when Brin states that SOME of the top ID proponents CLAIM to accept deep time, or common descent, his purpose was not to show that ID theory is more legitimate than creationism. His purpose was to suggest a tactic, to confront ID proponents on these issues and force them to state whether or not ID theory includes or rejects these concepts. His idea is that by doing so, no matter which way they choose it will cause dissension within the ranks of ID supporters.
Now, whether or not Brin has accurately portrayed all the facts and figures is certainly open to discussion. He seems to be quite open to entertaining criticism. But the jist of his posts on this subject, that the scientific community should examine and devise some new and better tactics to fight this battle with, sounds like a pretty good idea. The enemy has been doing just that for decades.
Posted by: Darrell | January 24, 2006 9:52 AM
Yes, I understand what Brin is trying to do. My point is you can't do it based on faulty facts. Other than Behe, who accepts common descent, I know of no other ID proponent who does. I did not argue that Brin was trying to say the ID was more advanced than creationism. I argued that he misunderstood ID and should have done a little more research.
I'm not really sure what you mean by that. If you mean I don't agree with everything Brin said in the two posts than you are correct. Could you be a little clearer?
As I have said repeatedly I thought, outside of the few areas I specifically mentioned, Brins' article was more thoughtful than Cards and have no problems with talking about ways to improve the way scientists explain science, I just don't think you can get anywhere starting from Cards false premises.
Posted by: afarensis | January 24, 2006 10:14 AM
"That sounds more like talking points than truth, if you approached me with that attitude I wouldn't be very nice to you either."
Thing is, I *don't* approach people with that attitude. I also met plenty of people who aren't snobbish, who will gladly and enthusiastically explain anything someone wants them to explain, and admit when they don't have the answer (upon which time they'll go and look it up). These people are a credit to the scientific community. But their presence doesn't negate the presence (or the effect) of the more elitist persons.
When you sign up for a graduate level course as an undergrad, and are pretty much told to shut up and listen (because clearly as an undergrad you can know nothing of what the grads in the course are talking about), or when you face clear resentment because you bothered to open your mouth, you face elitism. I can say that, for me personally, I have been fortunate enough never to face THAT situation (though people I know have). But I have been in classes where the professor inevitably utters something (usually political) in a condescending tone, and alienates part of the class. When a professor makes a snide comment about Intelligent Design, or conservatives, or libertarianism, or makes value judgements of past peoples in a textbook where they ought not to be, they alienate people, and make themselves seem like elitists.
And while I'm on the subject, your response is exactly the problem I'm talking about. Did you counter my objection? No. Did you try and, politely, suggest that I might be seeing something that is a statistical anomaly? No. You insulted me. You suggested that my view of things is brought about because of some mysterious "bad attitude", instead of my own personal experiences with academic scientists and those of my friends and co-students, which, considering you've known of my existence for all of 12 hours and one post, seems mighty presumptuous. Furthermore, in doing so, you push aside and ignore my opinions and ideas, and THAT'S extremely annoying (and you can bet it would annoy anyone else). Your remark was snobbish, it was snarky, and it was uncalled for; or at least, that's how it seemed to me. Certainly, I don't see you as the kind of person to go off half-cocked making assumptions about other people (your other posts on this subject, to me, avoid these kind of remarks), but can you see how what you just said would REALLY turn off people? Would turn them away from you, and thus they would ignore your points about scientists?
You say that scientists have done plenty. So point out what they've done. Give examples. You gave some good ones to counter a few of Brin's claims, but not his central message. Certainly, Brin should have given examples to you of his points. But by the same token, if you are going to claim that scientists are, in fact, doing plenty to counter the ID movement, bring up your own evidence. When you don't, you come off as being elitist, even if you don't mean to, even if you aren't (and again, I'm not saying you are).
I'll grant that, concerning my experiences, maybe I'm the statistical anomaly here. I haven't been to any other universities, so maybe it's different where I'm at. Maybe it's because I'm in the social sciences, and those tend to be more politicized (or so I've been told). But the attitude is there.
"There are tons of books out there, all people have to do is read them..."
Yeah, but writing books just isn't going to be enough. The IDers don't just write books. They give lectures, visit parts of the country, go on political campaigns, etc. I'm not saying we should emulate their every tactic, but certainly we can do more than write books, yes?
What about pushing for more access to scientific materials? Sending well-versed undergrads and grads out into high schools to run two to three days "Learn about Evolution" sessions? Encouraging field trips with local high schools to archaeology dig sites, labs, and whatnot, so they can see the kind of work that goes into evolutionary theory?
Heck, what about trying to update our high school textbooks? Some are terribly out of date when it comes to evolutionary theory.
I'll grant you, these are tough solutions, and not all of them are going to be possible. And if some are already being done, great! I'll also grant that I'm not up speed on the kind of things scientists are doing to counter the ID movement. By all means, if I'm wrong, SHOW me. Don't just say I'm wrong, and let that be it. It's not enough.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
David C.
Posted by: David C. | January 24, 2006 11:42 AM
"I'm not really sure what you mean by that. If you mean I don't agree with everything Brin said in the two posts than you are correct. Could you be a little clearer?"
Just trying to say that I agree with what you have said in this post about Brin's lack of research before writing on this topic. And that his lack of research has led him to some incorrect conclusions, or assumptions. I just wanted to point out that his general idea, to study the enemies tactics and devise new tactics to fight them, is worth consideration.
Whether or not ID theory was devised for that purpose or not, it is now being used by those who wish to debunk science in it's entirety to spearhead their campaign. Anything that helps "us" fight them effectively is worth looking at.
I agree that starting from false premises won't get you anywhere. But, start from a valid premise and see what develops.
Posted by: Darrell | January 24, 2006 11:51 AM
I am biased because: (1) I went to Caltech as an undergraduate with G. David Brin; (2) we're still friends; (3) I'm a big fan of his fiction and nonfiction, even when I occasionally disagree with the latter.
Having said that, let me comment that Dave Brin IS a scientist. He has a PhD in Astrophysics (as does his wife). He was seeking a professorship until his fans started buying enough copies of his novels to allow him to retire from the academic world. Because he is a trained and published scientist, who maintains ties with other scientists, it would be an error to assume that he has taken an antiscientific position.
I'm also biased by having done PhD research in mathematical genetics, and taught classes on Human Evolution and related subjects to about 2,000 students. Intelligent Design is a terrible threat to Science itself, and I applaud Dave Brin for suggesting a nuanced strategy to oppose it. I enjoy a lot of Orson Scott Card's fiction too, but Card is not now nor has ever been a scientist.
Posted by: Jonathan Vos Post | January 24, 2006 2:46 PM
afarensis,
Hrm, it occurs to me that my own post might seem rather inflamatory, when I don't mean it to.
Concerning your remark: "That sounds more like talking points than truth, if you approached me with that attitude I wouldn't be very nice to you either."
My general point above is not that you yourself are snobbish, or arrogant, or whatnot. Rather, it's that in making remarks like this one, you come off as snobbish and arrogant, and it's something the ID movement can play on. Brin's comments on the general antipathy Americans have towards authority are accurate. Americans like underdogs (which is a good thing), which the politicized arm known as the ID movement plays into. And by making comments like yours, scientists play into the ID movement's hands, and make educating the public far more difficult.
How many professors have we had that would just blurt out things that made our heads shake? I had a professor once, a very intelligent one, who would doggedly go after anyone who presented anything in his class. Was he being hostile, dogmatic, or arrogant? No, it's just how he was trained. He was trying to understand what the other person was saying in relation to his own knowledge.
But he sure did come off as being arrogant.
You are right, in that Brin should have done some more research for his proposition (as several of the commentors on his site have pointed out). However, Brin is right in that scientists have to be careful with their language, careful with what they say and when, and mindful of the fact that simply explaning their own side isn't always going to be enough. They have to also be a little bit cunning (or devious, for those more cynical ^_~).
And dimissing someone else's opinion outright isn't the way to go. Attacking my post as merely a behavioral problem of mine may feel good (and you can sure bet that after reading it I wanted to attack you ^_~), but that won't solve anything. Similarly, calling ID proponents "scum," as one of Brin's commentors does, isn't going to solve anything.
Also, while it may be true that ID proponents, the ones active in the political scene, are almost all young-earth creationists (aside: I often wonder how Behe feels about this...), there are also people who personally support ID that are NOT YE creationists. These are people who would normally be on the fence on social and educational issues concerning ID, but might slide over to the ID movement's side if they view scientists as too elitist or arrogant.
Sincerely and Respectfully,
David C.
Posted by: David C. | January 24, 2006 3:06 PM
Jonathan - Cool! I, myself, find Brins' SF fascinating. I was aware that he is a scientist. I just think he needed to research this a little more before writing on it (as I have said several times). I think using Cards' atrocious piece on ID as a springboard for his two posts was a bit of a mistake as it overshadowed the good he was trying to do (whic as I have also said was quite thoughtful).
Darrell - Thanks for clearing that up. It goes without saying, that I do agree with your response.
David C. - The only time I have ever witnessed a college professor interjecting his politics in a class room was in a history class. The professor spent about 30 minutes lambasting Clinton...I have never witnessed undergrads being mistreated in grad classes. The anthro dept. I was in insisted that juniors and seniors take grad level classes when ever possible and actively encouraged them to contribute. What I was getting at is that in some republican circles (Hindrocket springs to mind) bashing academia is something of a past time which your rhetoric had much in common with. So when I said your comment has more talking point than truth that is what I was referring to. I didn't go into a lot of details, other than books, because I do have a blog to write...but, there are lots of ways (including some of the ones you mentioned) that evolutionary scientists are trying to reach out. The National Center for Science Education springs to mind, many states of science organizations devoted to outreach, a lot of scientists also blog, I recently received an email from a teacher asking for help on simulated digs and have been researching the issue for her...there are a bunch of others that I will leave to you to find out because at this point I have to research a couple of posts.
Posted by: afarensis | January 24, 2006 7:49 PM