Pharyngula

Posted by: Roameo | November 17, 2009 11:59 AM

well professor, if carbon evolved, how come we still have helium!?!

Posted by: Nathan | November 17, 2009 12:00 PM

Dr. Meyers,

I was hoping that you would post about this – glad to hear about your blog last night (you have a new reader).

I attended the debate last night and think you did quite well (esp. pointing out the lack of theory, method, evidence in I.D., things I wish Dr. Bergman would have responded to [or if he did, in a better way, because I missed it]). You have quite the wit as well, although I think that Dr. Bergman is not the slouch many in the crowd seemed to treat him as (certainly we can respect the fact that he has been widely published and is evidently quite a competent doctor).

I am someone who is sympathetic to some of the concerns those in the I.D. movement bring up. I should have asked my questions last night, but for some reason, my brain was not working to well… here is what I wanted to ask:

“Don’t scientists who think belief in an Intelligent Designer has nothing to do with their work inconsistently (they are consistently inconsistent) consider the world like "as if" it were a deliberate work of genius having depth, harmony, precision, intelligibility, elegance, beauty, order, meaning - i.e. having an underlying natural order? Don’t they, using the scientific method, seek for all this much like the careful reader of Shakespeare who searches diligently for layers of meaning? But given the premise that science properly defined only includes undirected natural causes, does this not seem somewhat peculiar?”

I suppose one could argue that this is all about the evidence we can see, observe, experience – and the evidence scientists see tell us that we know the process of the scientific method works, and points to an ordered universe we can study… But doesn’t this beg the question – e.g. would evidence have been discovered in the first place if the early practitioners of science had believed, like most all their contemporaries, that the world was chaotic, and did not act in regular, consistent, ordered ways that could be observed?

Again, it seems to me that scientists, whether they are “believers” or “unbelievers” do act “as if” there is an underlying order in the cosmos. And does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”? And does not admitting to “purposeful arrangement” imply mind, which implies intelligence, which implies, at the very least, an intelligent (directed) life-force of sorts (but why not an intelligent being, since we have experience only with these – i.e. beings, or persons – and not intelligent forces?...)?

I noticed on your blog, you countered the I.D. idea of “molecular machines” by saying: “…the molecules in cells do not resemble human-made machines, except in the sense that they use the forces of physics and chemistry to do work. I notice that our own machines do not require supernatural forces to explain them; why should cellular machinery demand them?”

Right – we do not require supernatural forces in order to explain our own machines, but we *do* invoke intelligent sources (“directed forces”) do we not?

I understand if you are too busy to address my questions, but I thought I’d give them a shot.

I'll just listen now – as you or others take apart my reasoning. : ) I’m afraid I won't have time to comment again until Thursday.

Thank you,
Nathan

Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 17, 2009 12:02 PM

Apparently, everything is religion, and he seemed to be on the verge of claiming that teaching science in the science classroom was a violation of the separation of church and state. He had this bizarre case of a teacher somewhere who was fired for posting the periodic table in his classroom. The periodic table was his religion, you see.

Do you ever notice how the value of "religion" changes depending on whose religion it is?

If they're talking about evolution or biochemistry as a religion, then it's not valid as science and therefore deserves no respect.

But if they're talking about Zombie Jesus on a Stick or the Invisible Skyfairy who punished a rib woman for taking dietary advice from a talking snake, then religion is sacred and exempt from criticism.

Which one is it, IDiots? Protect one religion from inquiry and criticism, protect 'em all.

Posted by: Equisetum | November 17, 2009 12:05 PM

There was a point in the debate where I did just throw a stack of my notes over my shoulder. They were pointless.

Heh. I read this earlier in Greg's description and thought it was meant figuratively.

Posted by: Greg Laden | November 17, 2009 12:06 PM

excellent overview. I did forget to note in my review that this was a HUGE audience, SRO. And thanks for not blaming me for making you late. Even though I did.

Mark did do an excellent job, and you did an excellent job improvising, which was necessary since the topic of the debate shifted so completely.

Posted by: Islander | November 17, 2009 12:08 PM

The creationists are in charge of the video? Ech, no thanks, I've seen enough sleazy editing to last me quite a while.

Posted by: UXO | November 17, 2009 12:10 PM

I am so confused as to why people always say evolution leads to Hitler, I think bring that up leads to me thinking they are stupid and don't have any real arguments to go on.

... doesn't that question answer itself?

Posted by: Yossarian | November 17, 2009 12:16 PM

It's at the point, I think, where we have to preemptively rebut the "argumentum-ad-hitler" before every debate. That way, at least, they'll look somewhat foolish at bringing it up.

Well, somewhat MORE foolish. If that's possible.

Posted by: truthspeaker | November 17, 2009 12:20 PM

Again, it seems to me that scientists, whether they are “believers” or “unbelievers” do act “as if” there is an underlying order in the cosmos. And does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”?

No.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 17, 2009 12:22 PM

Nathan wrote:

Dr. Meyers,

I often wonder why you creationist morons can't spell PZ's name correctly.

You have quite the wit as well, although I think that Dr. Bergman is not the slouch many in the crowd seemed to treat him as (certainly we can respect the fact that he has been widely published and is evidently quite a competent doctor).

According to what I read in a previous thread, his degree is from a diploma mill. And Bergman is obviously as hopelessly stupid as you are.

I am someone who is sympathetic to some of the concerns those in the I.D. movement bring up.

It's called the Magic movement. ID = Magic. Why do you creationist retards think calling magic by a different name makes it any less childish?

Posted by: nigelTheBold | November 17, 2009 12:24 PM

And does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”?

Non-sequitur alert!

No, order does not imply "purposeful arrangement" at all. That is "begging the question" (a phrase which you used incorrectly). You see how your conclusion is embedded in your question? That is, your question "begs" the person to answer the question with your non-sequitur conclusions.

This is like the questions, "Have you stopped beating your wife lately?" or, "How are those drugs treating you?"

As it is, you are treating a trivial observation ("the universe appears to be consistent and coherent") as a profound revelation ("the universe must have been designed"). How is this logical in the least?

Further, your conclusions seem to be based on your own incredulity, as if the universe itself could not be orderly in some ways. But, your "solution" to the non-existent problem of orderliness is to imagine something with even greater order than the universe! How does this make sense?

Sorry. Your argument fails on several different levels, not the least of which is just plain old sloppy thinking.

Posted by: Jon Pugh | November 17, 2009 12:27 PM

#4 quote: does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”?

This is the crux of so many people's belief in a deity. Order does not imply intelligence, it simply implies that the universe obeys physical laws/rules about how it behaves. Those rules were not written down by anyone or anything, they just emerged from the physics of matter and energy. For example, elemental particles stack into balanced elements. It's not that other arrangements are forbidden, it's that they are unstable, so they don't naturally exist.

Once you lose the supposition that order implies intelligence, then you can admit that the search for natural behaviors is just people trying to determine how things work, and science is our best method for discovering universal truths.

Deities are not universal. Everyone has a different one, even though they've conspired to assert that they are all the same one.

Posted by: John | November 17, 2009 12:31 PM

Well debates have been ruined by the fact that your allowed to sit there, not answer a single question (as in dodge it) and simply utter lies after lies..

I mean its fucking Nov 2009 and it's still clowns like d'souza (go watch the new trio harris-dennet-hitchens debate) who seem to represent the defence, with the usual hitler/'morality from religion' bullcrap.

NOVEMBER 2009...........

Posted by: kopd | November 17, 2009 12:33 PM

So he thinks C14 is irreducibly complex? I guess by his definition the Sun is an intelligent designer because it is constantly creating irreducibly complex helium.

Posted by: tfk | November 17, 2009 12:34 PM

Until last night, I thought that PZ's descriptions of his opponents were exaggerated. No longer--in fact, his description of Bergmann's daftness is understated.

Nevertheless, the creationists sitting by me golf-clapped for every one of Bergmann's points. There's hope, however, since they sat in stunned silence when PZ spoke (no negative comments, that is). While walking out, one commented to his girlfriend (who seemed to be considering PZ's points) that the reason PZ thinks there's so much evidence for evolution is that he's never been to a creationist conference. I wanted to tell her to dump the loser.

Posted by: AJ Milne | November 17, 2009 12:38 PM

Why do you creationist retards think calling magic by a different name makes it any less childish?

Hey now... There is too a difference between Magic and Intelligent Design...

One is a facile, transparently childish appeal to unreason... The ludicrous, infertile and long-discounted notion that where we lack an explanation, or merely personally do not understand the current explanation, or merely personally dislike what we believe to be the implications of an explanation for a natural phenomenon, we may imagine fairies with wands standing there instead, magically conjuring a universe we happen to prefer to this one... A mistaking of the sources of occasionally entertaining fictions for useful explanations... An attempt to dress a witch doctor rattling bones in a three-piece suit and to pretend his incoherent, garbled hexes have some value beyond historical interest and the insights they may offer into the way such sleights of hand, emotional manipulations and placebos work upon human pscyhology...

(/...And the other is a card game.)

Posted by: Ewan R | November 17, 2009 12:42 PM

On the whole evolution leads to Hitler front - isn't this a great pro-evolution anti-ID arguement rather than the other way around?

Rather than the whole 'belief in evolution' leads to Hitler, more literally evolution leads to Hitler (or can, as it is amoral). Whereas one would hope that a benign, omnipotent, omniscient being intelligently designing life would design out the capacity for the appearance of Hitler(or shouldn't, as they are generally regarded as the source of morals).

Posted by: TimJohnsonMN | November 17, 2009 12:44 PM

Aside from irreducible complexity means that something is what it is otherwise if it isn't what it is then it's something else, I liked when Bergman said, "You don't teach religion in science class just like you don't teach astronomy in math class... er, well I guess you could."

Posted by: madbull | November 17, 2009 12:44 PM

Which part of Dawkins' book did he say supports ID? I'm very curious about the extent of quote mining

Posted by: Francesco Orsenigo | November 17, 2009 12:46 PM

First of all, Nathan wrote in very polite terms, so why all the slander and name calling!?

Nathan, scientists assume only that our universe follows laws that are somehow constant in time and space.
This is the only assumption they (we, I'm a physicist) make, and is a very reasonable assumption: indeed one you have to make for any kind of day to day activity.
For example, you assume that the floor you walk on will not suddenly swallow you.

Science attempts to describe the rules that the universe follows in a way that our brain can understand.
If the rules are rational, it's because we make them rational in order to be able to understand them.

The only order existing in the cosmos is the one we impose to it in order to be able to understand it.

Posted by: charley | November 17, 2009 12:51 PM

And does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”?

I think this is crux of the problem with your reasoning. Order arises without purpose all the time. Consider the transition from water vapor to the complex symmetry and variety of snowflakes, for example.

Posted by: TimJohnsonMN | November 17, 2009 12:55 PM

I've listened to other debates with Bergman and he has stated that he doesn't have a problem with evolution, that the fact that things adapt by natural selection is true. In fact, he says, YEC's believe in super-evolution. Last night he even mentioned he "teaches Darwin's finches, too." But last night he kept on spouting that he does cancer research and that he's found that mutations only are bad. What does he think natural selection acts upon?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 17, 2009 12:57 PM

So it doesn't sound like it was much of a debate. Go figure. Don't they get how dishonest it makes them look when they do that?

Oh, and the irreducible carbon notion - fail. At the very least, can't its constituent parts (i.e. electrons, protons, etc.) be used for something "useful"? And at the very very least, what about e=mc^2? Carbon has mass, which can be converted to energy - which could be used for something "useful". I don't understand his line of thinking.

They invent these poorly formed concepts, wrap it in interesting terminology, and call it "real". It's all hand-waving and pirouettes.

Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 17, 2009 1:03 PM

Bergman's responses to the "Creationism and Racism" FAQ at talkorigins.org are illustrative of his mode of argumentation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bergman-and-racism.html

The appendixes on that page include the text of his letter to the National Association for the Advancement of White People and notes on a talk he gave at the International Creation Conference.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2009 1:05 PM

But given the premise that science properly defined only includes undirected natural causes, does this not seem somewhat peculiar?”

How do you explain archaeology, then? And why did Darwin take Paley seriously enough to falsify his claims?

No, that is not the definition of science, although that things must be "natural" to be science is the "definition" some bring up, largely to provide space for religion, as if there were some reason to leave space for the "supernatural." The "natural" bit is more Anglo-American, while continental science tends to follow more the continental philosophy, which knows nothing of "natural" and "supernatural."

The aforementioned Paley had (potentially, at least) falsifiable ideas that involved the "supernatural," and he had to be, and was, adequately answered by Darwin. Nothing really has given us any reason to reconsider Paley's ideas, save for answering religious apologists.

I suppose one could argue that this is all about the evidence we can see, observe, experience – and the evidence scientists see tell us that we know the process of the scientific method works, and points to an ordered universe we can study… But doesn’t this beg the question – e.g. would evidence have been discovered in the first place if the early practitioners of science had believed, like most all their contemporaries, that the world was chaotic, and did not act in regular, consistent, ordered ways that could be observed?

And why would early practitioners of science have believed that the universe was orderly, except by observing that it was orderly?

Order was noted early on, particularly in the heavens. However, the Western belief harks back especially to Pythagoras, and the remarkable empirical observation that what we find to be harmonic sounds happen to also have mathematical relationships--meaning that there is a connection between our "subjective" mental representations and the "objective" observations we make about the world. Nothing mystical in that, although the Pythagoreans in fact went in a very mystical direction with it.

Again, it seems to me that scientists, whether they are “believers” or “unbelievers” do act “as if” there is an underlying order in the cosmos.

Because such a view happens to work out well.

And does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”?

This is where you leap to wholly unwarranted conclusions. Order exists with or without human purposes--which is why we can discover it, and don't necessarily have to create it.

And does not admitting to “purposeful arrangement” imply mind, which implies intelligence, which implies, at the very least, an intelligent (directed) life-force of sorts (but why not an intelligent being, since we have experience only with these – i.e. beings, or persons – and not intelligent forces?...)?

Yes, but you made that unsound leap above, the teleological bias toward assuming purposeful arrangement when you see order. You have yet to demonstrate any reason to accept that such an assumption is warranted.

I noticed on your blog, you countered the I.D. idea of “molecular machines” by saying: “…the molecules in cells do not resemble human-made machines, except in the sense that they use the forces of physics and chemistry to do work. I notice that our own machines do not require supernatural forces to explain them; why should cellular machinery demand them?”

Right – we do not require supernatural forces in order to explain our own machines, but we *do* invoke intelligent sources (“directed forces”) do we not?

Yes, and he made the sound point that "molecular machines" don't happen to be truly analogous with machines that we know were made via intelligence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 17, 2009 1:12 PM

I forget that the blockquote often fails here if more than one paragraph is included. The last two paragraphs of my post (#50) should have been formatted thusly:

Right – we do not require supernatural forces in order to explain our own machines, but we *do* invoke intelligent sources (“directed forces”) do we not?

Yes, and he made the sound point that "molecular machines" don't happen to be truly analogous with machines that we know were made via intelligence.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: jonnerk | November 17, 2009 1:15 PM

Another great moment from the debate (I am uncertain when and if this "DVD" might ever become available) was prior to the audience Q&A. Drs. Bergman and Myers were allowed to ask each other questions.(The following are not direct quotes, but my best recollection as I did not write them down). Dr. Bergman's question to PZ was "Do you know any scientists, who are IDers, out of the closet, who have tenure." He seemed rather proud of his question and prefaced it by saying he had asked it many times and never found an opponent who could say yes, even once.

PZ's response was simpler yet: "No." Followed by a comment along the lines of: "so what?" and a wonderfully reasoned response that individuals who lack basic understandings of biology (e.g. natural selection) are very unlikely (and shouldn't) be granted tenure. I doubt Dr. Bergman successfully followed PZ's argument to its logical conclusion. Based on Dr. Bergman's lack of coherent argumentation for his side of the debate, my guess is his brain stopped working half way through.

Posted by: Jim Lippard | November 17, 2009 1:17 PM

BTW, my favorite part of McIver's and my response to Bergman:

At that point, Bergman suggested that perhaps someone else had used his name, or that David Duke had published a private correspondence. Cole asked Bergman if he would file a lawsuit for misappropriation; Bergman indicated that would be too expensive. At one point, Bergman (who has occasionally published under the name "Havor Montague," and sometimes cited his works under that name without noting that it is his own work) asked why Cole thought that "Jerry Bergman" was his real name, stating that "I have to live a dual life--I have to go under a different name, a different person and a different background where I'm teaching. They know I'm here, and you don't know where I'm at! I use different names. ... Well, fortunately, my real name is not Jerry Bergman so I can't tell you the name I use."

Posted by: Damian | November 17, 2009 1:19 PM

As others have already pointed out, it is highly likely that a universe that has not been purposely designed could only have been ordered and coherent. If the universe was different to the one that we find ourselves in, say, chaotic and random, then I would be much more convinced by the ID argument. After all, similar to the observation that an intelligent designer would have no need to use the same building blocks for life throughout the animal kingdom, the same is true for the rest of the universe. That doesn't rule out intelligent design, of course, but it is telling that we see so much order, given that the nature of any intelligence that would be capable of creating a universe like ours would have no need to create in such a way.

To illustrate my point, imagine that you want to teach a young child to carry out a particular task that requires them utilize skills that they don't ordinarily have and are unfamiliar with. It would be far easier, I would imagine, and may only be possible, if that task is simple and repetitive. Anything too complicate would likely be beyond them. Intelligence can generally handle much more complex tasks with relative ease.

The same is also true for animals. Despite some animals being able to create elaborate constructions, the method that they use is often simple and repetitive, due to their cognitive limitations. Although humans are often predictable, my experience with animals is that they are usually far more limited in their behaviors than we are.

So it is only if, at bottom, the laws of nature are relatively simple, repetitive, consistent and coherent that a materialist universe could come about. An intelligent designer — and particularly one of maximum (only limited by logic) power and intelligence — would have no need to use simple and repetitive rules and laws, and I would be far more convinced that a designer was behind it all if there was at least some evidence of inconsistency.

Posted by: Discombobulated | November 17, 2009 1:25 PM

Nathan@4:

Great job! Your post totalled 558 words, and that's only one post!

You're well on your way to getting extra credit in your assignment for Dembski's Amazing World of Wacky Wonderful Wizardry and Woo.

Posted by: howard hershey | November 17, 2009 1:29 PM

Is my chemistry really that rusty? Isn't it the case that if you remove or add electrons to the carbon atom (admittedly hard in the case of carbon), you get ions of carbon? Carbon certainly is willing to share its electrons. Not something new wrt its properties. And isn't it the case that if you add (or remove) neutrons from carbon, that you still have carbon (albeit often less stable forms of carbon)?

Posted by: Jim B | November 17, 2009 1:29 PM

Carbon atoms are irreducibly complex? You can add and subtract neutrons to get isotopes of carbon; all are still carbon. Atoms commonly lose or gain electrons to form ions.

Even I know this, and essentially I have high school understanding of chemistry from 30 years ago. And Bergman is writing books to educate people on this subject? Shudder.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 1:32 PM

Nathan:
Science makes one assumption. That the scientific method can be applied to the universe.

If you have particles that always react the same way in a universe, then you will get order and patterns. If I drop sand grains from a height, it will form a cone. There is no magic hand telling the sand how to form, only gravity.

Oh and welcome. You will always have certain pharyngulites go on the offensive immediately as they are used to dealing with people who bold all their text and talk about hell a lot. Unforuntately sometimes inquisitive people get caught in the crossfire.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 17, 2009 1:38 PM

PZ:

Apparently, everything is religion, and he seemed to be on the verge of claiming that teaching science in the science classroom was a violation of the separation of church and state.

This is one of my recurring fears about this debate: This assertion is a predictable, willfully confused response to our assertion that the existence of God is a hypothesis that can be judged and rejected on a scientific basis. We say that assertions of the existence of God should be evaluated in the same way science evaluates any other hypothesis: Is it consistent with known facts? Does it explain known facts better than other, competing, hypotheses? Does it make specific predictions that can be confirmed by experiment, or by the discovery of new facts?....

But what they hear us saying is that God-belief is the same as science, and they turn that around into the assertion that science is religion.

I'll be shocked if we don't see attempts to ban the teaching of evolution (not to mention aspects of Earth science and cosmology that conflict with a Genesis-based view of the origins of the universe) on exactly these grounds: that it is a religious position, forbidden from public funding by the establishiment clause.

I know that sounds crazy, but if you don't think it will be seriously proposed by some legislator somewhere, I'm guessing you haven't attended any of the healthcare "Town Hall" meetings. It's gotten awful crazy out, really quickly!

I know NOMA is wrong, but sometimes I yearn for some sort of intellectual insulation layer between science and religion, to protect us from the mental ice storm that rages just outside the walls.

Re Nathan, I give him a pass on misspelling the good name of the Founder of Our Feast©, because even bestselling authors of teen vampire books manage to get that wrong. Others have responded adequately to the substance (if that's the right word) of Nathan's comments, but I just wanted to say this:

Don’t scientists ... consider the world like "as if" it were a deliberate work of genius having depth, harmony, precision, intelligibility, elegance, beauty, order, meaning - i.e. having an underlying natural order?

What part of "...underlying natural order..." is so hard to grok, I wonder? I'm no scientist, but I clearly do see the natural world as "having depth, harmony, precision, intelligibility, elegance, beauty, order, meaning"; why should that make it "a deliberate work of genius"? It's sheer hubris to believe that beauty can only arise from the action of intellect... in this case, our own human intellect projected onto the canvas of a fictional deity.

Of course, even nonscientists like myself who've read Dawkins know that nature's "design" is usually not perfected, in the sense of absolute efficiency and functionality, but there is a kind of harmony, elegance, beauty, and order in the natural world. It's the harmony, elegance, beauty, and order of natural systems, though, and not that of designed systems. We admire designed systems when they can embody some of the qualities of nature, but they usually do not.

To me, it's sad to think of people who are incapable of registering awe at the cosmos without first slapping a coat of theistic paint on things.

Posted by: woozy | November 17, 2009 1:47 PM

First of all, Nathan wrote in very polite terms, so why all the slander and name calling!?

I think it's got a lot to do with the smug attitude with which "new meat" trots out the same old tired bullshit arguments... One gets tired. It may not be the best approach, but I for one have taken the gloves off and call bullshit when and where I see it

1) Also, (call this cynical if you like) we are hypersensitive to the tactic of obsequious false politeness. Often it's purpose is to evoke an emotional response of "I was nice to you and acknowledge evolution is possible. Shouldn't you in turn be nice to me and acknowledge that ID is pssible? Won't you feel like a big meany if you don't?"

2) The protocol of a stage debate is politeness. Appearantly the accepted cultural ettiquette of an internet forum is not.

3) Name-calling? Sure. But slander? Purhaps I missed the post where someone seriously accused Nathan of sleeping with goats.

Posted by: OpenMindedNotCredulous | November 17, 2009 1:47 PM

The TSSC web site is almost as painful to look at as timecube. They mention the debate and that they have a letter they want posted on the debate participants web sites. Here's what they say:

So far it has been impossible to post this letter on Dr. Myers's Blog due to technical difficualties.

Since they seem to have difficulty with spelling, not to mention logic, I'm not surprised they're having difficulty posting their crap. Too, why in the world did they capitalize blog? Sheesh, what a bunch of "morans".

Posted by: BobK | November 17, 2009 1:48 PM

It got me to wondering if this is the same Nathan who appeared in the comments section of Orac's Respectful Insolence in the guise of a holocaust denier.

first appearence comment #8

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/11/schadenfreude_again_over_david_irving.php#more

Posted by: Insightful Ape | November 17, 2009 1:52 PM

I wonder where Nathan got that "as if there is an underlying order in the cosmos" bit from. These creationist get wackier in their claims all the time.

Posted by: Knockgoats | November 17, 2009 1:58 PM

kiki@73,
That's neat, but it's from "Hitler's TableTalk", which is not a very reliable source.

Posted by: Sanction | November 17, 2009 2:02 PM

I was at the debate and it seemed to me that any of us posting on this blog could have defended "intelligent design" better than Jerry Bergman did (to the extent one can defend the indefensible).

Agreed. Many of the commenters here (well, at least the regulars) are capable of presenting a coherent argument, one that is internally consistent. Bergman didn't do that.

Posted by: Kichae | November 17, 2009 2:05 PM

Nathan @#4

“Don’t scientists who think belief in an Intelligent Designer has nothing to do with their work inconsistently (they are consistently inconsistent) consider the world like "as if" it were a deliberate work of genius having depth, harmony, precision, intelligibility, elegance, beauty, order, meaning - i.e. having an underlying natural order? Don’t they, using the scientific method, seek for all this much like the careful reader of Shakespeare who searches diligently for layers of meaning? But given the premise that science properly defined only includes undirected natural causes, does this not seem somewhat peculiar?”

Your premise is weak. If postulating intervention by an intelligent supernatural agency was at all useful in explaining or predicting known phenomena, it would likely be embraced by scientists world wide. Science properly defined does not explicitly exclude directed supernatural causes, it simply hasn't found any situation where such causes are better than nothing.

I suppose one could argue that this is all about the evidence we can see, observe, experience – and the evidence scientists see tell us that we know the process of the scientific method works, and points to an ordered universe we can study… But doesn’t this beg the question – e.g. would evidence have been discovered in the first place if the early practitioners of science had believed, like most all their contemporaries, that the world was chaotic, and did not act in regular, consistent, ordered ways that could be observed?

Who are these people which believed the world to be a chaotic, inconsistent realm? Anyone can find regularity in nature. The Sun rises regularly in the east, spring follows regularly from winter, the waxing crescent moon follows regularly from the new moon. Mercury and Venus never stray far from the Sun, Mars is in retrograde every 25 months, the Nile flooded every summer. These are regular, consistent, ordered cycles that plain to all but the most willfully ignorant, and they were believed to be caused by intelligent supernatural agencies until natural, unguided causes were discovered.

At some point, we simply started leaving out the middle man.

Again, it seems to me that scientists, whether they are “believers” or “unbelievers” do act “as if” there is an underlying order in the cosmos.

This order is empirical. As I've mentioned, it's been seen since the dawn of eyes, and was originally attributed to gods and spirits.

Cause and effect is not an axiom of scientific inquiry. It's something that we've learned to expect through repeated investigation.

And does not admitting to order imply “purposeful arrangement”?

No. Does asking such a loaded question imply that your curiosity is not genuine? It's starting to sound like you're not seeking honest answers, but a pulpit.

All "order" implies here is a common or frequent sequence of objects or events. We've long attempted to explain this order, and of the various methods of explanation that we've developed rational skeptical evidence based inquiry has been the most useful. Not demanding evidence to support a claim has lead us astray countless times in the past.

Science would be more than happy to accept a mystical magical puppet master pulling all the strings of the universe. Someone just has to come up with something a little better than sophistry to demonstrate the existence of such a being.

And does not admitting to “purposeful arrangement” imply mind, which implies intelligence, which implies, at the very least, an intelligent (directed) life-force of sorts (but why not an intelligent being, since we have experience only with these – i.e. beings, or persons – and not intelligent forces?...)?

Given that you are now begging the question, this is moot.

Right – we do not require supernatural forces in order to explain our own machines, but we *do* invoke intelligent sources (“directed forces”) do we not?

We invoke intelligent sources when we talk about sprinklers and watering the lawn. Do we invoke Zeus, then, when we discuss the rain?

We don't actually invoke intelligenct sources when explaining how a human made machine works. They're explained entirely using the naturalistic laws of physics and chemistry. We only invoke intelligence when we seek to answer why a human made machine exists. And we really only do this because our experiences tell us that these devices are created by people to perform an act or fill a void.

We can explain the existence of molecular "machines" without such agency, therefore we don't feel compelled to invoke an unnecessary creator. Not only do they work as expected based on the laws of chemistry and physics, but they also come together using the same laws.

As an analogy, we know that backhoes and other construction equipment can be used to dig out channels and caverns. This does not immediately imply, however, that every cavern or channel has been dug using a backhoe. We've known for centuries that running water over geologic timescales can perform the same feats. We don't have to picture each drop or even each molecule of water as having a big steel bucket and a black CAT stamp on its side, though, for this to make sense.

To put it simply, the analogy of molecules as machines breaks down at this point. No analogy is perfect, after all. Consider, as one last example, the analogy of Einstein's space-time as a rubber sheet, and stars and planets as marbles and ball bearings. It's a visualization that's very common when explaining relativity theory. It breaks down, however, when you consider that the sheet deforms due to the Earth's gravity. This doesn't mean that the universe has a large planet beneath is, however, just that the analogy cannot be stretched to cover the exact mechanics involved.

Thus it is with "molecular machines". You're stretching it beyond its breaking point.

Posted by: Kraid | November 17, 2009 2:12 PM

@32

Love it. Mind if I steal it?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 17, 2009 2:29 PM

Nathan #4, I hope you paid attention to Alyson Miers's response; it took the words right out of my mouth:

the "order" we perceive actually makes purpose more improbable; predictable and reliable order implies that the laws governing the cosmos are not subject to idiosyncratic decisions, which implies the absence of purposeful arrangement.

Well said, Alyson, and we do know enough about how the universe started to make a designer unnecessary even there. Adding an intelligent designer into the mix is redundant.

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 2:38 PM

Nathan #4 wrote:

“Don’t scientists who think belief in an Intelligent Designer has nothing to do with their work inconsistently (they are consistently inconsistent) consider the world like "as if" it were a deliberate work of genius having depth, harmony, precision, intelligibility, elegance, beauty, order, meaning - i.e. having an underlying natural order?"

Although this question has already been addressed very well in comments, I wanted to point something out: Nathan is lumping objective measurements together with subjective ones, as if they're all the same sort of evaluation. We can coherently talk about mindless patterns having a built-in depth, harmony, precision, and order. But we can't act as if they have a built-in "intelligibility," "elegance," "beauty," or "meaning" -- not unless there is something mind-like about the patterns themselves.

If no living things ever existed, the universe could still be ordered. But we couldn't say it would still be intelligible, elegant, beautiful, and meaningful if there were no living things to consider it so. Those words involve an evaluation, a relationship between an agent that values, and what is valued.

A supernatural universe is one that is inherently shot-through with meaning, as part of its basic essence. Bill Dembski divides it this way: “Is reality fundamentally mindful and purposive or mindless and material?” Supernaturalists assume the former; naturalists, the latter.

A natural universe is one where creative intelligence and values grow up from things that are neither intelligent nor valued. I think Nathan then is begging the question even before he gets to the "order implies design implies mind" assumption. He should not lump "order" in with "beauty" as a basic, objective characteristic.

Posted by: Don't Panic | November 17, 2009 2:44 PM

BobK@74,
I wondered that exact thing about "Nathan".

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2009 2:45 PM

kiki@73,
That's neat, but it's from "Hitler's TableTalk", which is not a very reliable source.

The following, however, is from Mein Kampf.

Walking about in the garden of Nature, most men have the self-conceit to think that they know everything; yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work. This principle may be called the inner isolation which characterizes each and every living species on this earth. Even a superficial glance is sufficient to show that all the innumerable forms in which the life-urge of Nature manifests itself are subject to a fundamental law–one may call it an iron law of Nature–which compels the various species to keep within the definite limits of their own life-forms when propagating and multiplying their kind.

Posted by: Martin Christensen | November 17, 2009 2:57 PM

Nathan,

As several others have already said, order does not imply design. There are a great many things that to our eyes appear designed, and as Alyson Miers has stated, this is because we are disposed to see agency and premeditation whether it's there or not. Our brains are exceptionally good at this because without all the specialised hardware in our brains, common social interaction as we know it would simply be too complex for us to handle. It's highly intriguing, and I suggest you look into it a bit.

Now, this whole thing about order... I find it immensely fascinating. I'm a bit of a science geek and also a photographer, and among the motifs in nature that fascinate me the most are the little patterns that always pop up everywhere. It's late autumn in the northern hemisphere, so I'm sure you have plenty of opportunity to see how the wind has blown leaves in neat piles here and there. Simple wind, a rather chaotic force in itself, making something as ordered as a neat stack of leaves. Sometimes, in corners and such, a pile will be arranged such that the edge is maybe a hand's breadth from the wall along the inner limit of the pile while the outer limit traces a perfect curve. I find it fantastically beautiful in the way that one can almost see the mathematics of it.

Other such examples of order, all generated by very simple forces, are dunes, the little ripples in the bottom of the sea (and the big ripples, i.e. reefs) and various shapes and forms made by the snow. We know that the wind and the rain and the tide are inanimate and unfeeling, yet they are the makers of many beautiful and highly ordered things. These works of art that we see are just the inevitable products of the mindless forces of nature at work. When we go to Mars and Venus and beyond, we will see the exact same patterns repeated (at least where there's a sufficiently dense atmosphere to generate such a phenomenon as wind).

Another thing that I find immensely exciting is how these simple building blocks that are the laws and forces of nature can stack and stack and yield immensely complex results, e.g. you and me. Take the working of cells, for instance. They're so fantastically complex that the mind boggles... but if we drill down at look at each component individually, eventually it's all just chemistry. It's overwhelming to try to comprehend all of the functions of a cell, let alone the complex organisms in front of your keyboard and mine, as just chemistry, but there's no barrier that we can point at and say, "Chemistry can't bridge the gap between these processes."

I hope you'll stick around for a bit and try to soak up some knowledge (and excitement about the world). There are plenty of people here who'll kick you in the nuts for not immediately agreeing with them (somewhat in their defence, we've seen enough stupid here to be a bit too quick to anger), but most people will gladly share whatever wisdom they have with you if you are open to the answers they provide.

Martin

Posted by: Sastra | November 17, 2009 3:01 PM

woozy #87 wrote:

Granted, politeness has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of their arguments. That actually explains why I tend to get irritated when creationists try to be obsequesly polite; the are attempting to give credence to their arguments via politeness which has nothing to do with its validity.

I guess I make a distinction between "polite" and "friendly." Bare, keep-to-the-issue civility is, to me, a bottom-line way to respond, no matter how the 'opponent' is behaving. While a mocking or insulting response might be a good idea, I'm not particularly good at it myself, and aesthetically I think it only really works when it's cleverly done. On the other hand, I don't think it's ever going to be an actual mistake to be more polite than you need to be.

But I am not friendly. That's where I see dishonest tactics coming in, when a side without adequate evidence tries to slide to credibility on the fact that they're so nice. That's often their only real argument. Truth makes people friendly; see how friendly I am -- and how mean the skeptic is. I win.

I'll grant good will with basic politeness, and return same. I'll return it even if it's not there, as a way of keeping to the issue, and forcing them to keep to it as well. But having cut my debate teeth with pseudoscientists, new agers, and the terminally adorable advocates of spiritual bullshit, I don't trust friendly. They're trying to shift their case to personalities, and are quite likely to turn into the Personality Police given half a chance. Screw that, I say.

Don't play their game by trying to out-friendly -- but don't give them an easy handle to grab, either. At least, that's my approach.

Posted by: bobxxxx | November 17, 2009 3:10 PM

From the website abb3w linked to @71:

TCCSA STATEMENT OF BELIEF

We believe in God: The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs; this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of actual historical truths.

We believe that the origin of matter and all basic types of living things, including man, came about through direct creative acts of God during the six-day creation week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since the creation week have accomplished only changes within the created kinds.

We believe that the great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event, world-wide in extent and effect.

We accept the account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as the first man and woman. Their subsequent fall into sin, by disobedience of God's direct command, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Savior for all mankind.

Therefore, we believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and only Savior and that personal faith in Him is necessary for salvation.

------

A person who believes in this bullshit will never be able to understand any scientific concept. It's impossible to be more insane than a Christian fundamentalist and Idiot America has millions of these people.

Posted by: Name Withheld out of Fear | November 17, 2009 3:16 PM

Just want to say that somebody was very impressed that PZed Mairs asked the guy she was with to help him find his garage because a certain Dr. Laden got him lost on the way from the parking garage to the auditorium.

You may have thought I was doing you a favor, but, sir, no. It was you who did me a favor.

Posted by: woozy | November 17, 2009 3:23 PM

To Nigel the Bold from woozy the mistaken.

Oops. You're right. But ... slander? I dunno. Kinda hard for my to see anything we say about nathan as slander... I mean, Merriam Webster defines slander as defamation and to defame someone doesn't he have to have some "fame" to start with? I'm really just making conversation but doesn't "slander" seem a bit ... much?

Posted by: lose_the_woo | November 17, 2009 3:29 PM

TCCSA STATEMENT OF BELIEF

We believe in God among other many ridiculous things...
blah
blah
blah

I would add the following:

Why we believe these things we can not explain using reasoned logic, nor can we demonstrate their veracity. Furthermore, a large body of empirical evidence exists that contradicts and/or renders moot many of the foundational precepts of our beliefs. It is the notion that unquestioning submission and blind devotion to our unsubstantiated beliefs is the highest of virtues and thus elevates them above all scrutiny, cementing their reality in our minds.

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 17, 2009 3:38 PM

Larry Moran thinks it should be 'taught' in school.

And in the sense that Larry Moran uses the term, PZ does indeed teach students in his class what ID is, and why it isn't science.

Posted by: davej | November 17, 2009 3:49 PM

Nathan,

The underlying nature of the universe is a quantum mechanical sea of randomness which according to your preconceptions should have sent scientists home in dismay and disgust. Instead they continue to try to establish what can be known.

Posted by: Vidar | November 17, 2009 4:01 PM

Is this going to be on youtube in the near future?

Posted by: June | November 17, 2009 4:07 PM

Screeching and flinging feces at Nathan (#4) does not invalidate his question about scientists trying to find order in the universe. But studying how PZ deflates Bergman should teach us how to argue without Ad Hominem. Here is PZ:

That was [Bergman's] second key point: everything is irreducibly complex. He has this radical, dare I say insane, version of irreducible complexity in his head in which everything except sub-atomic particles are irreducibly complex. A carbon atom, for instance, has a specific number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and if you change those, it is no longer a carbon atom, and therefore it fits Michael Behe's definition of IC perfectly.

Exquisite! PZ starts with Behe's definition as base, shows that Bergman's definition diverges, and deftly proves that he confuses complexity with composition. PZ doesn't call him an imbecile; he calls his version of IC insane. He attacks the content, not the speaker.

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | November 17, 2009 4:20 PM

H.H. (@93):

Oh, Bill, creationists have tried this already.

I should've been clearer, I guess: I know full well that they've made this argument before; what I'm worried about is that they'll take concrete steps to make the argument into policy.

But it's a fairly transparent ruse that the courts haven't been inclined to take seriously. ... I haven't seen a lawsuit of this nature ever reach trial, having been dismissed by the judge as frivolous long before then.

Probably right... but I didn't have courts in mind so much as legislatures, state Boards of Ed., etc. What worries me about the current political dynamic is not so much the craziness of the ideas — there are always crazy idea floating around — but that crazy ideas seem to be getting treated, even in ostensibly mainstream media, with more respect than ever before.

Yeah, it's unlikely we'll see evolution excluded from public school curricula under the establishment clause argument... but the mere fact that it's "unlikely" instead of fucking impossible means we're living in spooky times indeed.

Posted by: Nathan | November 17, 2009 4:22 PM

Hello all,

Hey, I had a few minutes to pop in here and I want to thank everyone for giving me so much to think about. I haven't had time to read much of it yet (as I have work to do : ) ), but I certainly will.

I did notice some of the posts seem a bit hostile though: I can assure everyone that I really am interested in hearing what you have to say. I did think Dr. Myers (sorry I got your name wrong last time) did a good job during the debate and I really did want to get some feedback on what I wrote, which seemed to make good sense to me (I read an article in the NY Times a couple years ago in which Paul Davies said: "Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality." This made an impression on me.) I am very interested in hearing more and trying to understand everyone's arguments - but I'll confess that this does take hard work, and time these days is short (kids and job will do that to you)

I'll be straight up about the fact that I grew up as a Christian and my faith in God is very important to me (I've also always loved science and got my Bachelors in Bio and Chem, graduating at the top of my class). Still, I'm aware that people convert all the time, and I think that evidence and good argument have a lot to do with it even if the process is slow (look at someone like Flew). I think that we should assume in good faith that people really are open to being influenced by the evidence...

In any case, thanks again. I promise I will read everything and respond to it (hopefully within a few days).

~Nathan (my real name)

Posted by: Coryat | November 17, 2009 4:37 PM

Nathan,

Are you the same Nathan who describe the Holocaust as "so marketable" at Respectful Insolence? I don't want to make false accusations, but if you two are one and the same I seem to remember you had a similar obsequious tone masking inanity over there too.

Posted by: Justin Chase | November 17, 2009 4:52 PM

I was there I can confirm that it was a total rout. In fact Bergman down right embarrassed his cohorts. Maybe they should have a review process of his notes before they these people to defend their position. It actually made me uncomfortable to watch to be honest.

Posted by: Kichae | November 17, 2009 5:02 PM

UXO @ #119

OK, I wasn't hostile before - but now I call bullshit. There's NO way somebody with a Bio and Chem degree legitimately asks these kinds of questions.

Troll at the gates! Unleash the hounds! :)

I don't think that's fair. My ug physics degree taught me very little about the actual scientific method, the philosophy of science, or about skeptical and rational inquiry. Sadly, I learned most of that off the internet, in my free time.

I doubt I'm alone in that.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 17, 2009 5:15 PM

Richard Eis: Science makes one assumption. That the scientific method can be (successfully) applied to the universe.

Correct in anthropological practice; in philosophical discipline, that "assumption" is actually achievable as an inference resulting from the prior assumption of pattern.

Indeed, however by connecting science to the scientific method, it makes it clear why science has to make that assumption in the first place and nicely ties the whole thing up.

You have the slight pain of having then to describe the scientific method (where you then bring in the reference to patterns) but it leaves no room for squirming by creationists. I would add "successfully" in there to also remind them of how well science has done.

Posted by: Nathan | November 17, 2009 5:19 PM

OK... I have computer access and I had a hard time staying away. Real quick - Paul, I would have also put the name of a prominent theist who converted to atheism (preferably in old age, to go with Flew) in my sentence above, precisely because it crossed my mind that people might read me wrong - but I couldn't think of one. That doesn't mean there aren't any, I'm sure there are (feel free to name them).

And Coryat (118), that was not me.

Can't be too careful around here I guess. : )

~Nathan

Posted by: mindofthewolf | November 17, 2009 5:31 PM

You know, PZ, I'm sure, that the creationists will make that DVD, and I'm sure that they'll find a way to quotemine you for something like you supporting Behe's "irreducable stupidity"... I mean complexity. Yeah.

It's sad, stupid and quite annoying D:

Posted by: Paul | November 17, 2009 5:34 PM

@126

Can you see how that might make your call for discussion of evidence seem a bit one-sided? You're just asking to be flamed and duly dismissed as a concern troll at best (and a holocaust denier at worst -- I don't suppose you noted people requesting clarification if you are the same Nathan that participated in some of that over at Respectful Insolence).

Paul, I would have also put the name of a prominent theist who converted to atheism (preferably in old age, to go with Flew) in my sentence above, precisely because it crossed my mind that people might read me wrong - but I couldn't think of one. That doesn't mean there aren't any, I'm sure there are (feel free to name them).

If you're not looking for senile, most prominent atheists were at one point theists. It's not hard to find converts (among them our host, if I recall correctly). Unfortunately, most people become less rational when senility sets in, so you're not going to find people converting to atheism due to failing mental faculties.

Posted by: Dianne | November 17, 2009 5:43 PM

If that's irreducible, then irreducibility doesn't mean much.

The definition of irreducibly complex is irreducibly...complex? simple? confused?

Posted by: Daffyd ap Morgen | November 17, 2009 6:02 PM

What struck me most about the reports of the debate was you were talking about science and addressing science education, whereas Dr. Bergman was speaking in terms of metaphysics. IMO bad metaphysics at that.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 17, 2009 6:20 PM

If the creationists are the ones with rights to the video, I think we can all kiss goodbye the chance to watch PZ in all his glory. (And I so wanted to see the notecards go flying.) The Myers v. Durston debate video was similarly owned by the creationists and it has not yet been released. I don't wonder why, either. Removed from the debate format, arguments for science hold solid while arguments for intelligent design vanish in a puff of irreducibly complex smoke.

Posted by: eyespy | November 17, 2009 6:21 PM

"A carbon atom, for instance, has a specific number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and if you change those, it is no longer a carbon atom, and therefore it fits Michael Behe's definition of IC perfectly."

eyespy here, once again reminding the readership that Michael Behe teaches at Lehigh "University" and that anyone with children, relatives, friends or even enemies should try their best to talk them out of attending a place that would employ and tenure a creationist to teach science.

Posted by: FlameDuck | November 17, 2009 6:43 PM

It's entirely about how cruelly Intelligent Design creationists' careers were cut short by a reactionary establishment that unfairly silences new ideas.

New ideas? O RLY? Creationism in the Abrahamic tradition, is a 6000 year old idea. Evolution about 200. which new ideas are being "cut short" exactly?

A carbon atom, for instance, has a specific number of protons, neutrons, and electrons, and if you change those, it is no longer a carbon atom

So basically what he's saying is that nuclear power and ditto weapons, work by magic or not at all?

"evolution leads to Hitler"

It's amazing how little these people know of evolution or Hitler. Here comes the clue train, so pay attention now. Evolution is NATURAL selection - Eugenics is ARTIFICIAL selection. The two are diametrical opposites! Understanding evolution leads to Anti-Hitler! Religious dogma, the belief in the bible and it's messages of racial superiority. That's the kind of thing that leads to people like Hitler. Science and Evolution are our safeguards!

Again, it seems to me that scientists, whether they are “believers” or “unbelievers” do act “as if” there is an underlying order in the cosmos.

It's not a matter of belief. It's not a matter of order and chaos. It's a matter of what works! Take flight for instance. Which works best? A scientific flying machine? Or believing you can fly? When mans greatest minds were shackled by religion, the most powerful weapon they could conceive for more than 2000 years was the catapult, and various variations there of. In the same amount of time it took the Trebuchet to become a mortar, a mortar has turned into a MIRV ICBM. The difference was taking religion out of the equation. Bit of a pacifist? Fine think of how many years we used an abacus and slide rules to do calculations. I bet a few people here actually still remember what a slide rule is, and how to use it. Today we have the Internet and computers with millions of semiconductors inside them. When you start wondering about the principles of lightning and electricity, rather than believing it's a manifestation of an angry god, things start moving a long. It's not exactly Rocket Science.

Posted by: freelunch | November 17, 2009 7:59 PM

eyespy -

Don't blame Lehigh University for the fact that Behe is slowly going insane. They are not Regent or Bob Jones. We don't blame Cal-Berkeley or Boalt Hall, its law school, for Phil Johnson.

Posted by: rawnaeris | November 17, 2009 9:13 PM

Nathan-
You have a degree in chemistry, and you still believe the world is ordered and neat?
Forgive me if I'm a little shocked, but did you miss the class periods in P-Chem when they covered Particle in a Box? Or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Posted by: DoubleD | November 18, 2009 12:57 AM

I just can't keep silent on how you guys, especially OXO, are treating Nathan. I'm all for calling BS on lying, arrogant cowards like Luskin &co, but scathing condescension towards someone who at least claims to be willing to reconsider their cherished beliefs accomplishes nothing. Sure, he could be a troll, but since he ended his first post with the self-depreciating statement "I'll just listen now – as you or others take apart my reasoning," I think he deserves a little bit of courtesy in our responses.

I can assure you, you don't have to be an idiot to believe in God. This is a tragic failure of our educational system, but it's still true. As a new (closet) atheist from an extremely fundamentalist family/church/subculture, I have been lucky in that my desire for truth was strong enough to motivate me to actually learn science, and be honest with myself when I discovered my beliefs to be inconsistent with what I had learned. But it would have been frighteningly easy for me to just stay in my little intellectual bubble just because it was convenient, and I don't think this necessarily reflects poorly on my intelligence. It is very, very difficult to go from theism to atheism; it has taken me almost 2 years of reading almost nothing but atheist arguments (by then had already realized that YEC was BS, but the claws were sunk pretty deep) for me to finally call myself an atheist. If you don't take the time for detailed study, only surround yourself with people who share your limited worldview, and especially if you have a strong enough emotional connection to your faith, all the intelligence in the world won't help you.

From the outside, I can understand how you think someone like Nathan or I must retarded to believe what we do/did. It's easy for a person who hasn't been brainwashed their whole life to scoff at those who fall prey to it. But as someone coming from the inside, I want to humbly suggest: "It's not that simple."

So please, rather than insulting someone's intelligence when they reveal their ignorance by asking sincere (however ultimately misguided) questions, perhaps spell out your argument, gently suggest to them that maybe they aren't being completely honest with themselves, and encourage them to continue seeking, since the evidence is indeed on our side.

Hopefully those who are still in the process of escaping Christianity's clutches will be able to hear the truth in your arguments despite the condescension.

-David

P.S. Most likely, after a few more years of "debating" creationists, I will be just as vitriolic as anyone else. I just saw too much of myself in Nathan's posts to not feel a twinge of sympathy when he was openly ridiculed.

Posted by: Jeff | November 18, 2009 3:07 AM

Something was happening here but Bergman sure didn't know what it was.

Bob Dylan's Mr Jones has finally been identified!

Posted by: Matt | November 18, 2009 6:56 AM

I agree wholeheartedly about culture leading to the formation of new values within that specific culture, but the theists always seem to misunderstand when we submit our concerns about tradition. Let me clarify: what works for the last generation may not necessarily work for the current generation as society progresses. We should not be afraid to adopt new cultural norms -- within reason, of course -- as our understanding of the world matures. For example, certain cultures used to treat women as second-class citizens, unable to engage in the political process, work like males, etc.

As society increased its understanding of gender roles, the culture shifted with these new times and wisdom. In these aforementioned cultures, women were traditionally told that they had to embrace conservative roles in society. Now, we know differently.

We must never be afraid to challenge how realistic old traditions are as time passes. When society progresses, cultural changes are almost always positive in nature, as well. Greater wisdom leads to greater things.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 18, 2009 8:36 AM

A theory of "intelligent design" might begin with a definition of "intelligence" rather than a particular example. Want an example of intelligent design in the development of a biological species? The selective breeding of dogs is one. Golden rice is another. These examples are more numerous by the day, but they don't involve "irreducible complexity" unless we simply assume, a priori, that human intelligence is "irreducibly complex". I don't suppose it is.

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 18, 2009 8:54 AM

I think you misunderstand how ID supporters define irreducible complexity.

I think I understand, but in the case of golden rice, a human being is part of the "system", so the question in this case becomes: Is human intelligence irreducibly complex? Right? Why does intelligence require irreducible complexity? Why can't "intelligence" be reduced to the formal operations of a Turing Machine or equivalent system for example?

Posted by: abb3w | November 18, 2009 10:33 AM

Richard Eis: however by connecting science to the scientific method, it makes it clear why science has to make that assumption in the first place and nicely ties the whole thing up

Except that the scientific method isn't strictly "an assumption", any more than that dinosaurs gave rise to birds is "believed on faith". Restricting the terms "assumption" and "faith" to refer only to the primary premise introduction, rather than introductions of inferences from earlier premises, is both philosophically and anthropologically useful.

If you want to make clear why the assumption of pattern is necessary, you can drag them off to Hume and the Problem of Induction, and see if they have an alternative for getting past it while taking something that doesn't reduce to "there is some pattern". (Unfortunately, Hume's question really annoys theists.)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 18, 2009 10:57 AM

We can hardly know how "wrong" this example is without a precise definition of "intelligence".

No, intelligence has nothing to do with just talking about if a system is IC or not. You are conflating things here. Either a system can be broken down into parts that have function outside the system being discussed or they can't. The "designer" or "force of design" is irrelevant to that. This is my point. You are adding to the definition of irreducible complexity. Yes, ID people then use IC to support their proclamations of intelligence behind it, but the actual system is what is either IC or not. Intelligence comes in when they try and explain how something got to be IC. Not whether is it IC or not.

You are conflating the cause of and whether something is or not IC.

Watch vs. watch + watchmaker

Posted by: Martin Brock | November 18, 2009 11:48 AM

Either a system can be broken down into parts that have function outside the system being discussed or they can't. The "designer" or "force of design" is irrelevant to that.

Behe seems to think it's relevant, because "intelligent design" is the raison d'etre for his "irreducible complexity" in the first place. He only asserts IC because he thinks it implies ID. My point is that IC does not imply ID, and ID doesn't imply IC either.

Yes, ID people then use IC to support their proclamations of intelligence behind it, but the actual system is what is either IC or not. Intelligence comes in when they try and explain how something got to be IC. Not whether is it IC or not.

Right. I agree that IC is practically meaningless, but my point is that even if one could demonstrate IC, the IC wouldn't imply anything about "intelligence", and more to the point, the development of living forms can involve "intelligence" without involving any "irreducible complexity".

Posted by: UXO | November 18, 2009 12:18 PM

my point is that even if one could demonstrate IC, the IC wouldn't imply anything about "intelligence"

I'm not sure I follow you here: the whole thrust of the ID desire to establish IC is that IC indicates a designer. This seems to be a valid argument, I think, as far as it goes - the problem as I see it arises in establishing that something truly is IC. If you could (somehow) establish that something is IC, then the relevant characteristic is that it could not have evolved to that point, since a less complex form would not have worked.

Let's be clear here: I don't truly believe there are any examples of IC. Even something that appeared IC, and resisted explanation, wouldn't necessarily prove design - it might just just be a problem we aren't smart enough to solve. IC might actually be unprovable, in a rigorous sense...

I think I'm missing your point. How do you explain IC without requiring ID?

Posted by: UXO | November 18, 2009 3:59 PM

I don't have a problem with intelligence as an emergent property - in fact, I'm sure that's what it is. That's not where I have trouble following you, but perhaps we're just arguing semantics here.

As I already stated, I agree that even something which appears IC might not be, and only be a problem which is beyond our ability to solve. I'm not therefore able to come up with a test for true IC, so it makes the whole point somewhat moot. However, it does seem to me that even a single example of true IC carries with it the necessity of a designer. That makes it (almost literally!) the holy grail for ID. I don't think you can come up with any realistic definition for IC that does not require ID, whether explicitly or implicitly - it all comes back to identifying a system which could not have come about without external intervention.

Posted by: llewelly | November 18, 2009 4:37 PM

Scott Ramoth | November 18, 2009 3:50 PM:

hmmm. My corporate firewall blocked rossolson.org as pornography

On his page are links labeled "Homo sexuality" and "porno graphy" (spaces are line breaks in original).

There is also a <meta name="keywords" content="... homosexuality ... pornography ..."> tag.

Posted by: John Scanlon FCD | November 18, 2009 10:23 PM

eyespy here, once again reminding the readership that Michael Behe teaches at Lehigh "University" and that anyone with children, relatives, friends or even enemies should try their best to talk them out of attending a place that would employ and tenure a creationist to teach science.

Sure he's not a feather in the institution's cap, and it's not a good idea to encourage that sort of thing, but there are also real researchers in evolutionary biology there... well, at least one who's highly respected in my field, and whose work I've found very useful for a couple of decades. That's about all I know about the place.

Posted by: DoubleD | November 19, 2009 12:05 AM

I take it all back. Nathan HAS to be a troll. I don't know how I didn't catch this before:

certainly we can respect the fact that he has been widely published and is evidently quite a competent doctor

I was at the debate, and I don't know how ANYONE, even among the creationists, could have had any respect for "Dr." Bergman after that fiasco. He had the most asinine definition of evolution ever coined: "from the goo to you by way of the zoo;" had the audacity to state this in front of the moderator, a professor in the department of Ecology, EVOLUTION, and Behavior; claimed that in his "practice" he doesn't "care about theory;" called everything "religion;" BUTCHERED the concept of IC; had slides riddled with typos; played with them while PZ was talking; and obviously failed to understand most of the arguments or questions raised against him. If I had seen this debate 2 years ago, I would have become an atheist on the spot, so ashamed I would have been of the intellectual bankruptcy on display. I know this is slightly redundant and that PZ, kittywhumpus, and Dr. Laden have all described it better than I could, but it's impossible to overstate the level of incompetence Bergman displayed.

You may be able to have a degree in Bio and Chem and claim to see a mind behind the laws of the universe, but you can't be functionally intelligent and think Bergman must be a "competent doctor."

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 19, 2009 6:23 AM

#156 I didn't say that the scientific method was an asumption. I pointed out that "being able to apply the scientific method to the universe" was the only necessary assumption. Also that it is necessary out of function, not faith.
We are arguing at cross purposes.

Posted by: Nathan | November 19, 2009 8:40 AM

Hello all,

First, thanks again to everyone who responded - especially to those who told me to stick with it in spite of some of the harsher comments. Second, had noticed that there were a lot of commenters on this blog and so I knew I would get a good response (how much better is this than asking a question at the debate, where you'd only get one response?), but I did not expect such a big response. I know a lot of you must be frustrated with having to answer questions that you have heard many times.

Now, where am I? What do I think? Well, I have only been able to read up through the 130s or so, and even then, much more quickly than I would like. There is a lot of richness in the answers there, and I do want to take my time reading it, reflecting on it, etc. before responding.

I will admit that I should have thought more carefully about what I posted - the reasoning and logic were careless, and I should have seen that -and I should not have mispelled Dr. Myers name.

That said - I will try to offer a more substantial response (perhaps with some more questions) here (in the comments to this post) within the next week. If any of you would like to continue to talk (or even just scold me : ) ) put a reminder on your calendar to come back to the comments section of this posting next week.

Thanks,
Nathan

Posted by: astrounit | November 19, 2009 11:51 PM

"As for me, I've learned that you can never prepare for a debate."

PZ, one should never "plan" for a "debate".

Not like these. Because they aren't "debates", right?

A "plan" becomes nothing more than a potential distraction.

One "plans" when one is going to discuss or argue an issue with reasonably reasonable people, say, like scientists or even atheists. Right?

But when one confronts out-of-the-blue flying purple people eaters, one has no alternative but to wing it.

It's kind of like a weird party you go to and find yourself surrounded by people who want you to dance: if you come with a choreographed script, you'll be as good as unprepared.

Leave that concept of "debate" with the academic community. The parties of the other kind understands nothing about "debate". Moreover, they COUNT on you to be excessively single-minded in your prepared remarks.

The only way to handle these episodes is by directly and specifically confronting everything the opponent says, no matter what you might have thought would be a more relevant tack, or what might have been a better argument or more educational to listeners.

Or whatever.

What you THINK beforehand hasn't anything to do with "debates" like those. You have to drop that entire approach.

Just come to the party with what you already know.

You have to concentrate specifically on what happens to be said that is contrary to what you know, and attack THAT, based on what you know.

That's all it takes.

One wings it.

On what one knows.

One doesn't need anything else.

Sure, you can come "prepared" with all sorts of extra information that's germane to what you'd LIKE to say. You can take off on whatever specific points a moderator may ask about; you might even hyave the opportunity to make opening remarks that could possibly direct the course of the following "debate", towards a positively substantive direction (and if that strategy is employed, a little strategic thought can do wonders indeed).

That's really all the preparation one requires at these things.

But as soon as the opponent asserts ANYTHING that is even remotely absurd, DROP EVERYTHING you came armed with and attack with your bare knuckles...that is, with what you already happen to know. You bury them with that, right then and there. (CS, BTW, was an absolute master at it).

It's kind of ugly to have to say so, but it generally comes across better to viewers or listeners (who, after all, mostly expect somebody to "win") to witness somebody SPECIFICALLY REFUTING AND DEMOLISHING a ridiculous argument from an opponent.

That's where at least HALF of the "audience" first gets the idea that something interesting is going on, when they start pricking their ears up and pay attention long enough to find that something truly interesting is going on, like when one guy poses a fusilade of refutations well larded with evidence together with the even louder report of inconsistency in the arguments of the opposition.

The audience doesn't even need to have a previous opinion - all they need to pay attention is some line of argument that makes sense that they can follow in the now - preferably one that's beating the crap out of the absurdity.

One hammers it. Don't worry about the audience. You'll get their attention directly...they'll pay attention as soon as the battle is properly engaged. They'll hear the one side and then BAM! A flood.

One must learn how to flood.

One strikes back specifically at THEIR punched-up plans. Trust me, they never bother to come equipped with any defense - every possible permutation of an objection they might raise is as easily dealt with as their opening salvo - actually, it becomes rapidly easier as long as you let them have it to begin with.

One lets 'em have it, directly, right between the eyes.

On the fly.

One wings it.

It's jazz, not written.

Or Bach on jazz.

It can get tremendous.

That's all.

Posted by: Steve_C | November 20, 2009 10:13 AM

Wow. Talk about not understanding how a "discussion" works.

If it's just going to be a cut and paste job from creationists sites, don't bother.

Posted by: Qwerty | November 20, 2009 1:41 PM

PZ, you say Bergman chose the subject, but he states on his radio interview that the organizers of the event chose it.

Maybe this is why he never really addressed the topic as well as you did?

I am listening to his KKMS appearance today, just more of the same drivel as he presented at the debate.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 24, 2009 11:39 AM

I.D. is not good science, but it certainly seems to me that it is reasonable philosophy,

You don't get it Nathan. Science is all about evidence. ID is not even bad science. It is nothing but a religious idea. Ergo, it isn't a science. If it was, the IDiots would be able to point at, say, 20 unrefuted peer reviewed papers in the last ten years. For example, Behe's irreducible complexity paper was refuted, ergo, that paper is dead, and cannot be counted. Philosophy per se is meaningless to science.

might enjoy helping me to find the best summaries of the science that solidly refutes I.D. and creationists concepts

We don't need to discuss anything with you, as they are already out there. Try Neil Shubin Our Inner Fish, Jerry Coyne Why Evolution is True, and Richard Dawkins The Greatest Show on Earth for some books written for laymen.

Posted by: Nathan | November 25, 2009 2:50 PM

Nerd and Francesco,

I think both of you are reading me incredibly simplistically (but maybe given my poor first post here I deserve that! : ) )

I agree that science is concerned with reality and nature and that it is all about evidence (and, as I said, I don't like many philosophers because it seems that they are slow to adjust their mental models - meaning their assumptions, and even well-thought-out presuppositions [which also should be based on evidence!] – when it does not mesh with the actual evidences on the ground) although people also need to understand the interpretive element at play. I realize that Michael Polanyi might be anathema to you, but have you taken a look at Personal Knowledge?

Here might be a good place to start. This fellow is a more agnostic/atheistic kind of philosopher, and he writes intelligently about Polanyi, comparing and contrasting him with Richard Rorty:

http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/jgr6/rorty.html

In the end, I think even this philosopher is not quite honest with the evidence though (or is fully logical), since I believe that one must actually conclude about that which he lays out that: his “Uber-map” of reality strongly implies that there is nothing intrinsic about beauty, justice, and meaning, for example – i.e. beauty, justice, and meaning are only something that I/we (and those we choose to associate with) create / make / determine.

If you are the "universal acid" Dennet types, perhaps you would agree.

In any case, if looking at Polanyi is too much (I honestly would like to look at Dawkins, but have so little time... I have heard him speak and read many of his shorter pieces), perhaps you might want to check this out:

http://www.templeton.org/belief/

Will check back again on Monday.

~Nathan

Posted by: Owlmirror | November 26, 2009 3:19 AM

"In short, maybe I.D. is not good science, but it certainly seems to me that it is reasonable philosophy, and that scientists should study philosophy and vice versa..."

How is it a reasonable philosophy?

What does "I.D." mean to you, if you grant that it is not science? Or do you grant that? If it's not good science, why would you think that bad science had any value?

I might agree that scientists should have some grounding in epistemology and the philosophy of science, but I'm not sure how much more than that is necessary. If "I.D." cannot make any empirically falsifiable hypotheses, nor lead to new ways of making empirically falsifiable hypotheses, then scientists need study it no more than they need study theology.

Assuming you do return on Monday, you might want to take a look at our Open Thread. It will probably be closed by Monday, but a new instantiation of it should be in the final post of the thread. You can also check the top left corner of the webpage, under PZ's picture, where it says "Quick link to the latest endless thread". The link there should change when the thread does.

You may be insulted there, but I think you will also find commenters who are interested in discussion (and some who may insult you while discussing).

You certainly cannot be accused of being off-topic, though.

I'll try and take a look at what you link to @#184 before Monday, but know that the Templeton Institute is not well respected around here.

Posted by: Kel, OM | November 26, 2009 3:38 AM

In short, maybe I.D. is not good science, but it certainly seems to me that it is reasonable philosophy

Then save it for philosophy class, or at the very least theology class. Should it be taught in science class though? Hell no!

Posted by: Nathan | November 30, 2009 7:12 AM

Owlmirror,

Thanks for telling me about the "endless thread" thing. I may check it out again in the future. If I do, it won't be too hard for me to pick up where I left of here, as I tried to systematize the best of the best comments I received here (some of which certainly challenged me).

As for philosophy being irrelevent (Francesco, Kel,_OM) I think this is incredibly naive and that Owlmirror is going where I am here. Why we have the assumptions we do, how discoveries are often made in actuality, why science was stillborn in many places but not in the West are not small questions, and demand consideration of our unconscious and conscious presuppositions (see R.G. Collingwood here, whom I actually disagree with in many ways, but nevertheless believe he has much to offer)

strange gods before me,

Of course I believe there is empirical evidence for God, otherwise I would not believe it. If you want to read more about why I say this, go here and read my comments:

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2008/01/the-jesus-tomb-controversy/

Also N.T. Wright's book on the resurrection.

That said, I will bow out here for now, but will check back in a few days (much to do - sorry I don't have so much time...)

Regards,
Nathan

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 1, 2009 2:05 AM

Nathan,

I asked you some questions, and I really hoped that you would answer them. I see nothing that explains what you mean by I.D. being philosophy.

I tried reading the first link (Rorty-Polanyi comparison), but found it long, dull, and far too abstruse and convoluted. I am not sure of its relevance to anything, either.

The Templeton essays on belief look like they might be interesting, but was there one there in particular that you think is relevant? I saw nothing there by a Michael Polanyi.

I read your comments at the britannica.com page, and I am deeply dismayed at your lack of comprehension of what empirical evidence is. It is not a book -- or several books -- that were translated (sometimes badly) and copied (sometimes very badly indeed) that claim that many people witnessed a man who was dead come back to life. That's only empirical evidence that there are books that claim that many people witnessed a man who was dead come back to life.

There is little empirical evidence that Jesus (the man described in the NT) even lived at all, no empirical evidence that Jesus died -- suffered a complete cessation of heart and brain function -- on a cross on Golgotha, and no empirical evidence that Jesus stopped being dead and became alive again.

None.

Zero.

What's really sad is that if it were true that a God exists and did what was described in the Bible, that God could provide empirical evidence of its existence right here and now. Actually believing the Bible would be superfluous.

I am an atheist because there is no God providing empirical evidence of its existence.

Posted by: Nathan | December 1, 2009 7:36 AM

Aratina,

You evidently did not read my comments in the Britannica piece.

Owlmirror,

I am sorry that you found the Polanyi-Rorty paper dull. I found it packed with interesting info and thought it might be relevant, because here you have an agnostic/atheist favorably comparing another agnostic/atheist (Rorty) with Polanyi, whom IDist William Dembski named his center at Baylor after.

As for Polanyi, his classic 1958 book Personal Knowledge was highly acclaimed and will challenge the thinking of anyone. Polanyi is a bit like Kuhn, although I think he is much more sensible and grounded in the actual practice of science on the ground (he was a chemist-turned philosopher of science).

As for the Templeton pieces, if I recall the one by Mary Midgley was quite good and had echoes of Polanyi’s thought. Also, note all the accomplished atheists/agnostics who have essays there. Again, I really appreciated this forum.

As for your comments on my comments at the britannica.com page, I find your disappointment disappointing and anemic. First of all, your view of what empirical evidence is is very narrow. Lawyers and judges have been dealing with empirical evidence that is appropriate for their field of inquiry for a long time (as the Polanyi-Rorty paper pointed out). Of course, none of us are ready to throw out all kinds of other standards of “proof” besides the hard scientific ones – in each case we must determine whether certain claims are or should be relevant to us, and whether or not they are worth examining – and finally what a reasonable interpretation of the evidence is if they are examined… I understand that some persons would say miracles should be excluded from consideration from the outset. While I certainly agree with that reasoning when it comes to actually doing experiments and making experimental observations in the fields of hard science (and even the softer, social sciences) using the scientific method, I certainly can’t say that when it comes to all historical claims, for example.

And make no doubt about it, this is a matter of historical claims. Go to a ProQuest newspapers database and see the editorial written by John Robson of the Ottawa Citizen from Sep. 13, 2000: "Why taking history seriously can make you very cross" This is not just about dead letters in old books, obviously. Again, Christianity is theoretically falsifiable by evidence: Paul claims in the biblical book of Acts that the resurrection “did not happen in a corner”, “it is true and reasonable”, and that by it God vindicated Jesus and gave proof of His Lordship over the cosmos. You can dismiss those books a priori, if you please, in which case you might also want to read this over as well:

http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar28.htm

So as for your claim that there is “none” or “zero” evidence, I simply must firmly disagree. I’ve read a bit of ancient history and evaluations of that history, and I do not think I’ve read any serious historian saying what you say about the lack of evidence for Jesus’ existence. I find this all rather fringe, quite honestly.

Kel M,

All I am saying is that scientists can’t help being philosophers, so any person who is going to be a scientist should also have a good amount of philosophy. And in those philosophy classes, how philosophy pertains to science should be touched on (history as well). If I recall, I think the Mary Midgley touches on this.

How might this play out a bit? Well, previously, a gentleman named Damian had said:

“An intelligent designer — and particularly one of maximum (only limited by logic) power and intelligence — would have no need to use simple and repetitive rules and laws, and I would be far more convinced that a designer was behind it all if there was at least some evidence of inconsistency.”

But on the other hand, many of the first modern scientists argued that the fact that there were laws likes this was because God was not a God of disorder, but order, and that He was consistent in how he made the universe for our sakes: i.e. it is more seemingly ordered/consistent than it is random/chaotic. And then of course we, as Bacon said, could obey nature so that we could control (i.e. effectively domesticate, steward, for the common good) her. Modern scientists who are theists (whether young earth, old earth, or theistic evolutionists) still believe this, and as far as I can tell, they use the scientific method in the same way as more atheistic ones to do their work (e.g. with all the engineering and computer analogies that are popular in the field today). They assume that the world runs by laws that are consistent, with some of the laws being more consistent and iron-clad across different contexts than others. *And of course, positing either an intelligent designer behind every mystery remains won’t help.* And yet, keeping all of this in mind, I could still see how a YEC (because they would say that there is evidence that disrupts this evolutionary framework to and has not been sufficiently explained – fresh dino bones, polystrata fossils, evidence for massive catastrophic burial in the Grand Canyon, etc., for example) might, conceivably, rely not only on these laws but also on evolutionary theory in order to produce fruitful results, while still saying that they think the theory may be able to be used in a “useful fiction” kind of way (just because a theory has strong coherence and can even make predictions here and there does not necessarily guarantee its truth – as Pteryxx said: “Scientists often appreciate the elegance and beauty in the workings of the world, and may even seek it out, but they like all humans must guard against seeing patterns where none exist. A hypothesis that seems beautiful and sensible may not be accurate: see Kepler's Platonic solids model of the solar system.”), than a “universal acid”-kind-of-way.

Will check again Thursday morning. Busy, busy.

Regards,
Nathan

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | December 1, 2009 7:50 AM

...why science was stillborn in many places but not in the West...

what a historically illiterate and narrow minded thing to say... :-/

Posted by: Josh | December 1, 2009 8:36 AM

Lawyers and judges have been dealing with empirical evidence that is appropriate for their field of inquiry for a long time...

I had some thoughts regarding this point, but Jadehawk nailed it.

And yet, keeping all of this in mind, I could still see how a YEC (because they would say that there is evidence that disrupts this evolutionary framework to and has not been sufficiently explained – fresh dino bones, polystrata fossils, evidence for massive catastrophic burial in the Grand Canyon, etc., for example)...

I've read this block of text over now five or six times, and I'm still not sure exactly what you're arguing, but let's be very clear on something: A YEC that complains that geology/evolution does not explain these things (well, the last two; I'm not sure what you mean by "fresh dino bones") is either lying or is woefully ignorant (and it's polystrate fossils).

...might, conceivably, rely not only on these laws but also on evolutionary theory in order to produce fruitful results, while still saying that they think the theory may be able to be used in a “useful fiction” kind of way (just because a theory has strong coherence and can even make predictions here and there does not necessarily guarantee its truth...

YECs can complain about this all they want. We don't care. Science isn't in the business of guaranteeing the Truth^TM of theories.

Posted by: Kel, OM | December 1, 2009 5:37 PM

All I am saying is that scientists can’t help being philosophers, so any person who is going to be a scientist should also have a good amount of philosophy.

So two questions: why can't scientists study philosophy in philosophy class instead of in science? And why should intelligent design be taught as opposed to the philosophy of science?

You're still not justifying why science class should have philosophy, you're making the case that scientists need philosophy. It doesn't follow that philosophy should be in the science classroom, and it certainly doesn't follow that the concept of ID is relevant to science.

It's like saying that scientists need to speak english, so we should teach Moby Dick in the science classroom.

Posted by: Nathan | December 3, 2009 8:39 AM

Hello all,

Back for more interesting debate!

I said:

...why science was stillborn in many places but not in the West...

Jadehawk said:

“what a historically illiterate and narrow minded thing to say... :-/”

Ancient science, all the way up to the 13th c. or so, was *not* predicated on the idea that “consistent laws of nature” could be observed, mapped, and harnessed by man in a useful manner. I think that is a decidedly modern phenomenon, finding its full flowering in the West in the beginning of the 16th c. with Francis Bacon.

Kel, OM:

“You're still not justifying why science class should have philosophy, you're making the case that scientists need philosophy. It doesn't follow that philosophy should be in the science classroom, and it certainly doesn't follow that the concept of ID is relevant to science.”

I’m sure you would admit that some great questions are “How – and why – does anything exist?” If scientists are content to not answer the why question, seeing it as more or less irrelevant to the work of science, I see no reason to inject Intelligent Design. Why introduce Intelligent Design where there are science teachers who believe science is not primarily about asserting philosophical naturalism but rather actively experimenting, using the scientific method, in order to carefully observe the world and aspects of it in order that the elements and laws of nature may continue to be discovered, imperfectly mapped, and harnessed to useful ends? To me, whatever “theory-laden framework” one brings to this highly empirical and practical work is quite irrelevant to the issue of what works to accomplish the useful ends desired. More important in my mind are ethical questions.

In short, scientists should be more humble about sciences quest for truth – and to place a fence around the “why” questions.

Now, this is not to say that modern (as opposed to ancient science, which I believe was more about armchair mathematics/deduction and trial-and-error) science is wholly not about truth, because if we are doing something useful that has been made possible through a particular theory (as opposed to the serendipitous discoveries that are also very common in this field), the chances are good that the we are operating with a theory that really has (by active experiment and observation) allowed us to discover – and correspondingly imperfectly map and harness – something that is real. Of course, theories can be further confirmed (i.e. the relation they bear to reality) by testing them via experiment and observation from various different angles, but even then, sometimes even well-supported theories are shown to be quite wanting – and in need of serious reframing, as in the case of Einstein, and other times shown to be incorrect in spite of their usefulness, as in the case of Kepler. I think all of this is also complicated by the fact that while all scientific theories make useful predictions (that go beyond proving themselves), some theories are broader and more all-encompassing than others, and some theories (like evolution) are not really wholly subject to scientific standards of proof, since they contain historical aspects which are not able to be directly tested and observed.

Now, Bible stuff:

Jadehawk,

Eyewitness accounts in themselves may not be terribly useful (of course, a persons character may come into play here to), but eyewitness accounts under cross-examination are. Interestingly, in Acts Paul says the resurrection “was not done in a corner”, and acts as if everyone knew *something big* had happened. Also, as Maier notes, the arrest notice for Yeshu Hannozri (Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene") found in the Rabbinical literature concedes that Jesus accomplished extraordinary acts (though with help “from below” not “from above”). This is testimony from hostile witnesses, which is stronger in courts of law.

Owleyes,

“Council of Laodicea, and the writings of John Chrysostom.”

That is pretty late stuff. The book of Acts, written in the 1st c., already talks about how the Christians had begun to gather and worship on Sunday.

Also, Maier does not believe in the “Testimonium Flavianum” – but does believe (and other respected scholars confirm him on this) that the Testimonium passage was the result of an original passage that was re-worked by a later scribe who baptized it. If you are interested, you can see Maier (himself a respected historian), who I believe has written on it. Its not relevant to what we are discussing here, I think.

Owleyes (and aratinal cage),

Special pleading? Presuppositionalism? I don’t think so. Yes, if Jesus’ body was found this would invalidate Christianity (see the work of fiction “A Skeleton in God’s Closet” to explore this a bit more). Re: the idea that biblical (esp. N.T.) miracles were supposed to help, as Maiers claims, this happens in at least two senses: first, to help by showing God’s love to concrete individuals, (esp. see the healing miracles here) but even more so, these miracles were “signs” that indicated that Jesus was the fully embodied and enfleshed fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. This all culminates, of course, in the very empirical physical resurrection from the dead. Do other religions make similar claims, i.e. to be based entirely – to stand or fall – on this kind of evidence? I have looked into this quite a bit, and my impression is that all religions and forms of religion that claim significant numbers either make a sharp distinction between the spiritual and the physical, or they emphasize “burnings in the bosom” and “believing in spite of evidence” as opposed to being faiths founded on fact, or said differently, “eventful faiths”. Do any other religions call persons to turn and believe based entirely on events that have occurred in history (see Acts 17) – and a) invite that these claims be tested, and b) say that if one miracle can be shown to be false their “faith is in vain”? If so, I certainly would like to know about them.

So, in my life this plays out in the following way: when I might feel like turning my back on what I know about the resurrection of Christ (and what the other religions that I have explored actually claim, and on what basis they call people to faith), the evidence comes, hunts me down, and kills me. It is strong and verifies the good God I have come to know through loving parents, pastors, etc. And the God some call a “Cosmic Dictator”, “Tyrant”, etc., I call father and brother. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and If I want to know how he really feels about persons who hate him, I need look no further than the cross.

Therefore, working from this assumption (which I would call knowledge) – which I understand if some people find amazing – of course it makes perfect sense to say that observing order in the universe implies a purposeful arrangement done by a mind. If others insist that the concept of “order” (esp. as relates to the laws of the universe that science has uncovered – for example, even if we think that we can explain the biochemically predestined existence of ordered molecular "machines" without the agency of a mind, what about the origins of the laws that made this possible?) here can or even should be removed from a mind/person being involved that isn’t that also overstating the case? Is this based on the assumption/presupposition that a teleological bias towards order is not reasonable, or on actual evidence? What would the first scientists of Greece said about this kind of insistence? (my impression is that the ancient Greek philosophers/scientists spoke of an intelligent “life force”/mind [see Anaxagoras], as did Aristotle…and Heraclides and Pythagorus were clearly quite religious and even “godless” Epicureus spoke of the gods as being real [much like the deists]! – in other words, for them belief in these beings was part and parcel of their belief that the world was orderly…). Is it not true that it was not until a loving God above the cosmos was posited - and one who was not arbitrary but ran the universe in a consistent fashion because of His love for man - that it became possible for men to separate "culture" from nature - and for scientists to seek to transcend nature by being aware of, and working in conjunction with "nature's laws" for humanity’s gain, thereby overcoming what the classical authors called destiny or fate?

By the way owlmirror, I know this won’t sound humble, but I believe that God works through humble means (the Gospel is “foolishness to the Greeks” – take that philosphers!), even lowering himself to be born as a baby. That means he can even use simple, stupid instruments like me – and that means that he can speak to you through me.

And with that, I am sorry to say I won’t be checking back here again until Dec. 16. But I will check on that day. It is on my calendar, and I hope it might be on yours as well.

Best to you all!

Regards,
Nathan

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 8:52 AM

I guess the real question here is what really is hubristic? To assume that beauty, harmony, precision, elegance, order, etc. can only arise from the action of mind, or that all of this amazing stuff – that on occasion produces wonder and thankfulness in all of us – could, or even must(!), come from nothing?

What the hell does hubris have to do with following the evidence?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 8:56 AM

At what point would persons here say that scientists discovered that the laws of nature were unguided and purposeless

At what point was it ever established that they weren't?

By the way, I’ve read a bit more on P.Z.’s blog, and I note he says that he does not say that “there can be no such thing as a supernatural agent, just that creationists have not provided any credible evidence for such a thing.” I’m encouraged by this (I take it this means that atheists today must say they are pretty sure there is no credible evidence for such a thing, not that they are sure – in other words, they are more akin to what I would call agnostics)

Are you agnostic to the existence of unicorns and leprechauns?

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | December 3, 2009 9:23 AM

based on the notion of a loving God

Until you provide conclusive physical evidence for said god, you are simply making a presupposition that is false. In science, parsimony requires that non-existence be the presupposition, and existence must be proven. Until you prove your deity, with conclusive physical evidence, you shouldn't even discuss it.

At what point would persons here say that scientists discovered that the laws of nature were unguided and purposeless.

We have a saying in science. The data is what it is. We don't give a shit about inane ideas like purpose. That is for mental wankers, commonly known as sophist philosophers and/or theologians. After all, philosophy without evidence is sophistry. You appear to be a master sophist. I just don't see any point to your post. But then, I am only a PhD scientist, and not a woo-filled flake.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 3, 2009 9:32 AM

So surely you can see the terrible hubris involved in the very concept of evidence.

Ahh yes. It's all very clear now.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | December 3, 2009 9:51 AM

Nathan #205,

I note he says that he does not say that “there can be no such thing as a supernatural agent, just that creationists have not provided any credible evidence for such a thing.” I’m encouraged by this (I take it this means that atheists today must say they are pretty sure there is no credible evidence for such a thing, not that they are sure – in other words, they are more akin to what I would call agnostics)

I would respond "Yes and No" to that. Yes, people who assert there is a supernatural dimension with supernatural agents have yet to provide credible evidence of it. No, this rationally seated atheism is not more akin to agnosticism for the same reason that you are not agnostic about Krites (critters), Santa Claus, vampires, etc.

I still think that if one were ever to provide credible evidence of a supernatural realm, it would utterly destroy science, or at least make science a paranoid endeavor where you would never know when a supernatural agent would be mixing things up in the natural world.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | December 3, 2009 11:53 AM

even courts consider eyewitness accounts to be the lowest form of evidence(especially biased eyewitness accounts), and the form of evidence most likely to lead to a wrongful conviction. why? because "everybody lies".

Or rather because it's very, very easy to interpret things one believes must have been there into one's memories. Memories are very plastic things. Furthermore, nobody notices everything at once that's in front of their eyes, there are optical illusions and pareidolia, and so on and so forth.

Ancient science, all the way up to the 13th c. or so

Frankly, all of that should be (and often is) called philosophy, not science. Science is when the scientific method (falsification and parsimony) is used.

In short, scientists should be more humble about sciences quest for truth – and to place a fence around the “why” questions.

The "why" questions have all already been answered.

"Everything is the way it is because it got that way" – J. B. S. Haldane.

This leaves only the "how" and the "what" questions: How did it get that way? What were the influences on this process? What prevented it from getting another way?

some theories (like evolution) are not really wholly subject to scientific standards of proof, since they contain historical aspects which are not able to be directly tested and observed.

This is wrong on several levels.

I'll start with the fact that there is no such thing as a scientific standard of proof because there's no such thing as a scientific proof in the first place. Science cannot prove, only disprove.

Suppose we discover the truth. How can we find out whether what we've found is indeed the truth? By comparing it to the truth, which we don't have?

Disproof is easy: if an idea leads to a prediction that contradicts observable reality, the idea is wrong. If, on the other hand, all its predictions conform to reality, that's somewhat suggestive, but it leaves several possibilities open!

Next, it is always possible to test ideas about historical processes by observing the results of those processes and comparing them to the predictions derived from those ideas. For the same reason, astrophysics is a science.

the arrest notice for Yeshu Hannozri (Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene") found in the Rabbinical literature concedes that Jesus accomplished extraordinary acts (though with help “from below” not “from above”). This is testimony from hostile witnesses, which is stronger in courts of law.

Except it's not testimony, it's a result of the ancient mindset which says the world is chock full of spirits. The idea that another religion's claims about what spirit beings or miracles there are might be entirely fictitious simply didn't occur to anyone (with the at least partial exception of the, notably, atheist Cārvāka school of philosophy in India). The Romans did not believe they knew the full number of deities, and therefore worshipped any they encountered*. You showed them a god, and they sacrificed to it. The Christians of Roman times shared this attitude, except they believed that all "deities" except one were in fact evil demons, and that to worship them would be actively dangerous. For crying out loud, this attitude persists to this day among tens of millions of American fundamentalists!

So, to claim that there simply was no Jesus just plainly didn't occur to the authors of that literature. Looking for another method of apologia of Judaism against Christianity, the obvious possibility was to claim that Jesus with all his miracles was real, but due to evil rather than good.

* Even though they liked to do it on the cheap, by claiming "that's just another name for Jupiter/Juno/Mars/Mercury/Venus/whatever". Not like the Hittites 1000 to 2000 years earlier, who went so far as to worship every deity they knew of in its native language.

of course it makes perfect sense to say that observing order in the universe implies a purposeful arrangement done by a mind.

But why? Why can't a law – a pattern, that is – exist just so?

If others insist that the concept of “order” (esp. as relates to the laws of the universe that science has uncovered – for example, even if we think that we can explain the biochemically predestined existence of ordered molecular "machines" without the agency of a mind, what about the origins of the laws that made this possible?) here can or even should be removed from a mind/person being involved that isn’t that also overstating the case?

I don't understand why.

Of course, that doesn't stop people from speculating on the origin of the laws of physics. Here is one I find particularly interesting, though I'm a bit behind on the state of physics today…

Is this based on the assumption/presupposition that a teleological bias towards order is not reasonable, or on actual evidence?

It's an argument from parsimony: Sire, je n'ai pas besoin de cette hypothèse. Why assume something you don't need to explain anything?

What would the first scientists of Greece said about this kind of insistence?

1. Why should we care? The argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
2. Every one of them should be considered a philosopher and not a scientist, as far as I can tell.

passing on life through our genes

No, passing on genes through our life.

I guess the real question here is what really is hubristic? To assume that beauty, harmony, precision, elegance, order, etc. can only arise from the action of mind, or that all of this amazing stuff – that on occasion produces wonder and thankfulness in all of us – could, or even must(!), come from nothing?

Do colorless green ideas sleep furiously?

Honestly, I don't understand your question. "Hubristic" is not a technical term in science theory, if that's what you mean.

Pet peeve alert: Wonder, yes. Amazement, yes. Surprise, yes. The entire second logion of the Gospel of Thomas, yes. Gladness, yes. Thankfulness – to whom?

I take it this means that atheists today must say they are pretty sure there is no credible evidence for such a thing, not that they are sure – in other words, they are more akin to what I would call agnostics

That's a matter of definition. The most widespread definition of atheism today seems to be "lack of belief in gods", not "belief in lack of gods". Obviously, this overlaps with agnosticism – but self-described atheists go on to make a parsimony argument (Russell's teapot, or just see comment 206).

=======================================

And please, Nathan, train your visual memory a bit. It's fine if you've never heard of Till Eulenspiegel, but that hardly makes it any less sloppy to mentally distort Owlmirror into Owleyes. Same for Myers, and aratina cage, and so on and so forth.

Posted by: Owlmirror | December 5, 2009 1:36 AM

Ancient science, all the way up to the 13th c. or so, was *not* predicated on the idea that “consistent laws of nature” could be observed, mapped, and harnessed by man in a useful manner.

Just out of curiosity, what kind of inconsistent laws of nature did Aristotle assert there was? How about Lucreteus? Did De Rerum Natura assert that nature was not consistent?

and some theories (like evolution) are not really wholly subject to scientific standards of proof, since they contain historical aspects which are not able to be directly tested and observed.

Have you heard of parsimony?

Eyewitness accounts in themselves may not be terribly useful (of course, a persons character may come into play here to), but eyewitness accounts under cross-examination are.

Who cross-examined anyone in the bible?

And does "useful" actually mean "factual"? If a liar convinced a crowd that he could do miracles, then performed a conjuring trick, to which all of the members of the crowd "testify" to seeing as a miracle, did a miracle occur, or just a trick?

Also, as Maier notes, the arrest notice for Yeshu Hannozri (Hebrew for "Jesus the Nazarene") found in the Rabbinical literature concedes that Jesus accomplished extraordinary acts (though with help “from below” not “from above”). This is testimony from hostile witnesses, which is stronger in courts of law.

Even assuming that it's a reference to the same person (Maier does not cite the full text, which is actually confusing and ambiguous -- especially since "Jesus" was a common name at the time), it is not evidence that the accused actually "accomplished" anything, only that he was believed to have done so.

I mean, women were convicted of witchcraft in Salem and executed by hanging. Do you think that means that witches are real?

“Council of Laodicea, and the writings of John Chrysostom.”

That is pretty late stuff. The book of Acts, written in the 1st c., already talks about how the Christians had begun to gather and worship on Sunday.

Yes, but Judeo-Christians kept the Sabbath on Saturday until that practice was ended by the abovementioned cursing.

Also, Maier does not believe in the “Testimonium Flavianum”

WTF?

Then why does he cite it in the same damned essay that you linked to @#194?

– but does believe (and other respected scholars confirm him on this) that the Testimonium passage was the result of an original passage that was re-worked by a later scribe who baptized it.

Yes, that's what I wrote: "deliberate tampering by a later Christian copyist", i.e., it was faked.

Using the the term "baptized" for "faked" is an unfamiliar usage to me. Did you mean to write something else, like "butchered" or "bogused"?

If you are interested, you can see Maier (himself a respected historian)

Undeservedly so, given his deliberate avoidance of conflicting material and reliance on fakes.

Its not relevant to what we are discussing here, I think.

Only inasmuch as Maier relied on it for his essay which you pointed to as "evidence".

Special pleading? Presuppositionalism? I don’t think so.

Feel free to deny it, but you were doing it, and still are.

Re: the idea that biblical (esp. N.T.) miracles were supposed to help, as Maiers claims, this happens in at least two senses: first, to help by showing God’s love to concrete individuals, (esp. see the healing miracles here) but even more so, these miracles were “signs” that indicated that Jesus was the fully embodied and enfleshed fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy.

Claimed signs and claimed to show. There's no evidence for their ever having actually happened.

This all culminates, of course, in the very empirical physical resurrection from the dead.

It's not "empirical" at all because there is no evidence that it actually happened. Stop distorting what "empirical" means, will you?

Do other religions make similar claims, i.e. to be based entirely – to stand or fall – on this kind of evidence?

Stop distorting what "evidence" means, will you?

And there were and are plenty of religions that were and are based on alleged miracles having occurred.

Consider the worship of Glycon, in which Alexander of Abonutichus (miraculously) discovered the god inside a goose egg, and the god (miraculously) gave oracles to many, including even the Emperor.

Consider the Cult of Cthulhu, based on the God Cthulhu himself passing (miraculously) among the stars when they were right, but (miraculously) sleeping undead in R'lyeh when the stars became wrong, who will (miraculously) re-awaken when the stars become right again.

Do any other religions call persons to turn and believe based entirely on events that have occurred in history (see Acts 17)

Most religions claim to be based on events that have occurred in history.

and a) invite that these claims be tested, and b) say that if one miracle can be shown to be false their “faith is in vain”?

LOL. Why is the burden of proof on non-Christians to show that the miracles didn't happen?

And test the claims how? What would convince you that Christianity was false?

Does physics, cosmology, and geology proving that Genesis 1-9 must be false convince you of that? If not, why not?

Does archaeology and anthropology proving that most of the rest of Genesis must be false convince you of that? If not, why not?

Does archaeology proving that Exodus through Joshua must be false convince you of that? If not, why not?

when I might feel like turning my back on what I know about the resurrection of Christ

How would you know anything at all about it if you hadn't read about it in a book or been told about it by others?

(and what the other religions that I have explored actually claim, and on what basis they call people to faith)

Such as?

the evidence comes, hunts me down, and kills me.

Stop distorting what "evidence" means, will you? And what "hunts" means, and what "kills" means.

There is no evidence. That dog doesn't hunt.

And the God some call a “Cosmic Dictator”, “Tyrant”, etc., I call father and brother.

Really? Why?

He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked

Says you. Yet the Bible says that God creates the wicked.

If I want to know how he really feels about persons who hate him, I need look no further than the cross.

Where, I note, Jesus cried out that God had abandoned him. Since God abandoned Jesus, it logically follows that Jesus and God cannot have been the same, so the entire basis of your belief is false.

Therefore, working from this assumption (which I would call knowledge)

Stop distorting what "knowledge" means, will you?

of course it makes perfect sense to say that observing order in the universe implies a purposeful arrangement done by a mind.

Which is a non-sequitur, and therefore makes no sense.

Is this based on the assumption/presupposition that a teleological bias towards order is not reasonable, or on actual evidence?

Of course it's not reasonable. Haven't you heard of parsimony?

What would the first scientists of Greece said about this kind of insistence? (my impression is that the ancient Greek philosophers/scientists spoke of an intelligent “life force”/mind [see Anaxagoras], as did Aristotle…and Heraclides and Pythagorus were clearly quite religious and even “godless” Epicureus spoke of the gods as being real [much like the deists]! – in other words, for them belief in these beings was part and parcel of their belief that the world was orderly…).

So now you're contradicting the very assertion that you started off with!

Does the fact that you contradict yourself not bother you even a little? Do you not care?

But to respond to the paragraph: Belief in the order and coherence of nature was not necessarily linked to any specific person, a personal god or gods, being responsible for said orderliness.

By the way owlmirror, I know this won’t sound humble, but I believe that God works through humble means (the Gospel is “foolishness to the Greeks” – take that philosphers!)

The same philosophers that you just cited above? Clearly there is no point in citing them if they are nothing but fools about God!

, even lowering himself to be born as a baby. That means he can even use simple, stupid instruments like me – and that means that he can speak to you through me.

Excellent! An empirically falsifiable claim, at long last! But... if it's falsified, will you agree that it has been falsified?

I have a file on my hard drive called randnum2. It contains 1024 digits [0-9] as ASCII characters. The md5sum of this file is 6aa60e2155a66e1117cee00c6cffc8a7 , and the sha1sum of this file is a888f87e4646c568e8f7d1bbd2794e7268161021 .

Clearly, an omniscient and omnipotent and loving God; one who is as a father and a brother to you, would have no problem whatsoever in telling you what the digits are, and you can then post them here, to be verified, at least by me, as a miracle of information. This would clearly demonstrate to me that this omniscient and omnipotent and loving God who is as a father and a brother to you actually exists and does speak to you.

But your failure to post the digits proves that your claim is false.

And with that, I am sorry to say I won’t be checking back here again until Dec. 16.

Oh, well.

---

I guess the real question here is what really is hubristic? To assume that beauty, harmony, precision, elegance, order, etc. can only arise from the action of mind, or that all of this amazing stuff – that on occasion produces wonder and thankfulness in all of us – could, or even must(!), come from nothing?

Obviously, the former is narcissistic and fallacious.

---

At what point would persons here say that scientists discovered that the laws of nature were unguided and purposeless (i.e. “leaving out the middle man”, as Kichae said)? Given that the evidence for order has never really changed substantially (yes, there has been greater attention given to the cosmos’ consistencies, more observation and experiment, and finding practically uses for this knowledge…), roughly when did scientists rename what previous generations believed deities had done “natural laws” – and what was some of the actual evidence that justified this shift?

That would be the first scientists who properly understood and accepted the principle of parsimony, and that without evidence that there were deities (or ghosts or demons or djinn or any other entities) responsible for anything in particular, there was and is no point in positing deities (or any other entities).

Posted by: Nathan | December 16, 2009 2:40 PM

Wow, you guys do not disappoint. Thanks for the many comments. Will read and digest again, and try to post again within a week (I'm sorry if you came back here today hoping I'd have read everything and try to substantially respond) if I can.

Also, thanks to P.Z. for making it possible to continue posting here...

Regards,
Nathan

Posted by: Kel, OM | December 16, 2009 9:34 PM

In short, scientists should be more humble about sciences quest for truth

You said that while arguing they need philosophy? lol, thou cracketh me up.

Science follows the data wherever it leads, because if one scientists starts going against the data you can be damn sure that there will be many others willing to pounce on such anti-scientific practice.

Sure there are arrogant scientists around, but look at how the scientific knowledge in the last few hundred years has radically changed. If seems if science itself was so arrogant that it should stay static, yet the scientific endeavour now paints a radically different picture to what was held only a few hundred years ago.

If you get a chance, get on Youtube and search for Knowledge or Certainty? Watch the full thing, and maybe then you might get an appreciation for how humble science is in the face of truth.

By the way, have you considered the possibility that the reason that scientists don't bother with a designer is that they have no evidence supporting a designer?