That really should be the theme of many pro-ID articles. Doug Moran over at Dembski's home for wayward sycophants links to this article in a University of Michigan publication about three UofM professors who are for ID. It begins by credulously citing the DI's famous "dissent from darwinism" statement. You know, the one that doesn't actually have anything to do with evolutionary theory:
A single innocuous statement sums up "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," a petition that was released in 2001 and has since garnered over 500 signatures of experts, reading, "I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
As I and others have explained many times, this statement has nothing to do with dissent from Darwinism (whatever that means to them at the moment). There isn't an evolutionary biologist in the world who couldn't honestly sign that statement because no one believes that "random mutation and natural selection" account for all of the complexity of life on the planet. Not even Richard Dawkins believes that. But it gets worse:
Three engineering professors from the University of Michigan have added their signatures to the list which includes nine professors from MIT, as well as others from UC Berkeley, the Center for Disease Control, and the US National Academy of the Sciences.
Of what possible relevance is engineering to evolutionary biology? The average engineer likely doesn't know the difference between a species and a speculum. Why would anyone think that they speak with any more authority on evolutionary biology than they do on art history or the art of the zone defense?
On Wednesday, March 29, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, one of the signers of this document, gave a presentation on the questions that quantum mechanics has raised regarding the beginning of the universe, as well as personal belief that the Bible holds many clues as to the nature of God's interaction with the world.
Schroeder's credentials are very impressive, ranging from a former position on the US Atomic Energy Commission, where he personally witnessed six atomic bomb explosions, to his current position as a physicist at MIT and prolific author on the reconciliation of God and Science, or, as he talked about in his lecture, the laws of the physical and the metaphysical.
Those are indeed impressive credentials if the issue under discussion is nuclear physics, but it has nothing to do with evolutionary biology. And what this could possibly have to do with "Darwinism" is beyond me. Darwin wrote nothing at all about physics (still less about atomic bombs) and nothing about the origin of the universe. In fact, Darwin assumed, like virtually everyone else of his day, that the universe was created. That had precisely nothing to do with evolution, and that remains true today. But here's my favorite part:
Instead of the usual debates on evolution, which tend to revolve around the biological and genetic aspects of early life, Schroeder's focus was instead on the universe following the Big Bang, as well as the philosophical questions accompanying the mystery of "light beams learning to love."
Uh, okay.
As far as this whole issue of scientific authority, I'm just baffled by the idea that anyone who can be called a "scientist" is presented by the IDers as an authority on evolution. An engineer has no more legitimate authority to speak on evolutionary biology than a certified mechanic or a culinary school graduate. It's like they think that all scientists are just like The Professor on Gilligan's Island, who seemingly knew everything about everything. But that's a sitcom, for crying out loud, it's not reality. Then again, since a sizable portion of the folks who take such things seriously also think that the Flintstones was a documentary about humans living with their pet dinosaurs, this should hardly come as a shock. By the way, it always amused me that the professor could do absolutely anything. He could make a radio out of coconuts and twine, but he couldn't fix a hole in a boat. Maybe if they'd had a few engineers on the show...
- Log in to post comments
I personally believe that the Professor on Gilligan's Island was way smarter than you give him credit for.
In my opinion he was in fact a genius, and DID know everything about everything, BUT he was what scientists call "diddeling" BOTH MaryAnn and Ginger, sometimes Mrs. Howell too, and naturally, was smart enough NOT to want to be rescued. He had it all! Minions to do his research, AND hot assistants. Granted it was hard to publish, but hey, you can't have everything.
Another coconut anyone?
Ed says:
He did try. In Episode 8 he made a few nails from a ferric rock outcropping, but the nails weren't strong enough. Then Gilligan discovered a tree sap while looking for pancake syurp that acted like glue. Problem was the glue decomposed quickly after it dried. Gilligan painted the entire boat with the glue (rather than just gluing the repair boards) and when the glue failed, for some inexplicable reason, the entire boat fell apart and that was that.
Maybe an engineer can explain this property.
Environmental genomics and microbial diversity are right at home in an engineering lab. FYI.
"DI's famous "dissent from darwinism"
The Disco's try to appeal to the "rebel" in everyone is quite childish. There is no logic that dissent automatically gives legitimacy, especially given that a large number of the dissenter's fields of expertise are repeatably shown to be unrelated to evolution and biology. But the DI continues to use this as their battle cry as if it is some claim that bolsters their weak and continually unsubstantiated position.
weak sauce
"light beams learning to love." - this reminds of the magical water crystals features so prominantly in the awful "What the #$*! do we know?". Check out this bit of new-age mystical BS:
http://www.hado.net/whatthebleep.html
Every time this topic comes up, I ritually post this:
http://www.greythumb.org/blog/index.php?/archives/7-T.M.T.O.W.T.D.I..ht…
Clearly, if engineers are qualified to pontificate on the subtleties of evolutionary biology, the converse must hold.
A modest proposal, then: the next time a cash-strapped state government needs to build a bridge or an overpass, it can save mega-bucks by consulting not with a swank engineering firm, but with a biology instructor at the local community college. Guaranteed to work cheaper...not that I'd care to drive over that bridge.
And if that bridge ever collapses and kills everyone on it, the biology teacher could explain it away with phrases like "intelligent settling," "purposeful rearrangement of parts," and other fuzzwords that try to say "Goddidit" without admitting that's what you're saying.
Over at Schroeder's web page he has a "News Flash" that says "World's Most Famous Atheist Accepts Existence of God, Cites Modern Science!" and then goes on to take credit for Mr. Flew's conversion. What Mr. Schroeder doesn't tell people is that...
Flew also makes another admission: "I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder." He says "it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics."
This is all old "News", of course.
By the way, it always amused me that the professor could do absolutely anything. He could make a radio out of coconuts and twine, but he couldn't fix a hole in a boat.
A bit like IDists: they can do anything, and pontificate with (made up) authority on any subject, but they can't be bothered to do any real science that gets any real results.
I wish less engineers without relevant bio backgrounds would shoot their mouths off about evolution - some environmental, chemical, and biomedical engineers (myself included) do have a significantly better biology background than that the average layperson (and the average physicist). We keep our mouths shut because there are dedicated evolutionary biologists that have far more detailed knowledge of the subject matter than smattering of biology we did take gives us, but there seems to be a growing preception around here that engineering never involves detailed knowledge of biology.
Dave S.
Ask and you shall recieve:
The ferric rock formations also caused a high concentration of iron in the ground water. These concentrations were so high that the trees on the island had chelants in their sap to prevent the iron ions from reaching levels at which they would harm the plant. The plant's sap also contained an relatively reactive ketone that in the presence of UV light and atmospheric concentrations of oxygen degraded into carboxylic acids. This acid-chelant mixture oxidized the iron parts in the rest of the boat, slowly at first due to the high viscosity of the sap limiting convection, but with increasing speed as the breakdown of the stickiness and viscosity of the sap continued, with both processes speeded by the heat generated by the oxidation of the iron parts, eventually causing a corrosion-induced narrowing of critical areas of the parts, leading to necking and eventual fracture, which is still more plausible that most arguments creationists use to ret-con the Bible :P
I attempted a trackback but the ping didn't take, so here's more on the subject, at Clever Beyond Measure
It is something - engineers, especially those that work in computers, seem to think they have all the answers to everything. I've written about a few of them.
http://all-too-common-dissent.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_all-too-common-di…
OK, I've put the Intro to Biology test pointed to by "FishyFred" into a version you can point people to here.
I'm a little uncomfortable with it. Here's what I've put as a sort of disclaimer at the top:
Welcome
These test questions were collected from students in an introductory biology course. There are some problems with these questions, as there are repetitions and some of the questions were provided with incorrect answers. Also, the position of answers in the lists is not well randomized. Simply by choosing the usual 'right answer' position known to the most adept multiple-choice test-takers every time, you can score about ten points above chance expectation. The source was provided by FishyFred at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
If you don't do well on these questions, I suggest taking up gardening or basket-weaving.