One of the most consistently stupid “journalists” writing on the subject of science and intelligent design has to be Melanie Phillips. I commented two years ago on another horrendous anti-science piece of hers: Idiot Journalist is the new enemy of reason. Now she’s back again writing in the Spectator, with a piece entitled Creating An Insult To Intelligence – actually a highly accurate headline considering what she wrote under it.
Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was irritated once again by yet another misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism. In an item on the growing popularity of Intelligent Design, John Humphrys interviewed Professor Ken Miller of Brown University in the US who spoke on the subject last evening at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. Humphrys suggested that Intelligent Design might be considered a kind of middle ground between Darwinism and Creationism. Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was
nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.
But this is totally untrue. Miller referred to a landmark US court case in 2005, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, which did indeed uphold the argument that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller.
The court was”simply wrong”? What, because you say so? And why was Miller’s testimony “muddled”? Because you didn’t like it? Or because you didn’t understand it? In any case, the court was not “wrong”, simply or otherwise. The court was shown evidence (actually, virtual proof) of the link between creationism and ID. The transitional version - cdesign proponentsists – was discovered.
Put simply, the ID book Of Pandas and People that was discussed at the Dover trial was originally a unashamed creation book called Creation Biology. (You know it’s a creation book because it has the word “Creation” in the title. You’re welcome.) Just after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Disco Tute decided to remake the book as an ID book, rewriting large parts of it to make it all “sciencey” and not creationism at all. No, really. But unfortunately for them, they were in such a hurry to do so that in changing the wording in one place from “creationists” to (presumably) “intelligent design proponents”, they morphed the two phrases and the book actually included the words “cdesign proponentsists”. Apparently they believe in a designer but not in a spell checker. Hilarious. Click the NCSE’s Missing Link discovered! for a detailed explanation of what they did. Also, The Panda's Thumb's Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”.
Whatever the ramifications of the specific school textbooks under scrutiny in the Kitzmiller/Dover case, the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it. This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science.
Which is funny, because cdesign proponentsists (excuse me) intelligent design proponents don’t do any science. Instead they write long whiney articles about why ID is too science.
Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days. Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing.
So how did the existence of this “governing intelligence” result in there being matter? According to IDists, the designer designed stuff. Stuff that could not have evolved. So after he had designed it, surely he must have implemented his design? But how did he do this, if the “matter […] could not have developed spontaneously from nothing” as Phillips writes? Didn’t the designer have to “create” the matter? If not, where did it come from? And if the designer did create matter, how is this not “creationism”? Obviously it’s not literal six day creationism, but who said creationism had to be literal six day creationism as in Genesis? Regardless of whether ID has its roots in religious creation or not (it does, but even if it didn’t), it’s still creationism. Clearly it’s more than just “design” (intelligent or otherwise). Somewhere along the line, the designer had to create stuff too.
The confusion arises partly out of ignorance, with people lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism.
A bit like how people lazily confuse the appearance of design with belief in a designer.
But belief in a Creator is common to all people of monotheistic faith – with many scientists amongst them -- the vast majority of whom would regard Creationism as totally ludicrous. In coming to the conclusion that a governing intelligence must have been responsible for the ultimate origin of matter, Intelligent Design proponents are essentially saying there must have been a creator.
There you are - “there must have been a creator”. Told you.
The difference between them and people of religious faith is that ID proponents do not necessarily believe in a personalised Creator, or God.
Well, yes they do, but even if they didn’t, it’s still creationism. It’s still “magic man did it”.
As a result, both Creationists and many others of religious faith disdain Intelligent Design, just as ID proponents think Creationism is totally off the wall. Yet the two continue to be conflated. And ignorance is only partly responsible for the confusion, since militant evangelical atheists deliberately conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism in order to smear and discredit ID and its adherents.
No, we conflate them because they are the same. If they want it to be science they need to do some science. Then they need to write it up and present it for publication in a science journal. Then have it peer reviewed, and stuff like that. But that’s too hard. Instead they just want to whine about how mean scientists are for calling them creationists. Boo hoo.
Seems to me that ID proponents spend more time defending God and creationism than they do in developing their so-called science. You'd think they would want to keep religion at a distance to minimize the controversy, yet I see them embracing it every day. My guess is they can't afford to alienate their base with the droll, tedium of science.
Posted by: The skepTick | April 29, 2009 at 10:17 PM
In his ruling on the Dover (PA) case, , Judge Jones (a George W. Bush appointee, no less) stated: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.” (Judge Rules Against “Intelligent Design,” MSNBC, 12/20/05)
I have a short post (2/12/2009 - Darwin's 200th birthday) about this case on my blog at: http://tirelesswing.blogspot.com/2009/02/christians-behaving-badly-3.html
Posted by: C Woods | April 30, 2009 at 03:06 AM
Is she really using the fact that creationists and ID proponents disagree on many points as evidence that they are not related, and don't have shared origins? So the Protestant churches and the Catholic church aren't related either?
Posted by: Deen | April 30, 2009 at 04:40 AM
So the Protestant churches and the Catholic church aren't related either?
Of course they're not! Tha Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon! Haven't you read any Chick at all?
Posted by: Valhar2000 | April 30, 2009 at 06:16 AM
Has Melanie Philips ever been right about anything? Seriously, if she claimed that the sky is blue and grass is green, I'd have to double-check to be sure.
Posted by: Dunc | May 01, 2009 at 03:56 AM
Quoting the last little bit of the dribble at the top:
"...If they want it to be science they need to do some science. Then they need to write it up and present it for publication in a science journal. Then have it peer reviewed, and stuff like that. But that’s too hard. Instead they just want to whine about how mean scientists are for calling them creationists..."
So this religion of "Science" as you call it, with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?), they sure know the truth, don't they?! It's in their Holey Scriptures, the Journals of Science! Where's the empirical evidence? There is none. But who dares blaspheme against the Holey Church of Science!?.
So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do? Interesting thought, eh?
Your intense hatred for this lady is pretty disturbing. I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years.
Have a nice day!
Posted by: Jimmy_Blu | May 05, 2009 at 10:52 PM
To “Jimmy_Blu”
Two quick points Jimmy:
1) Don’t post here pretending to be someone else. Perhaps you think you’re being clever by calling yourself “Jimmy_Blu” when the previous poster is “Jimmy Blue”. I don’t.
2) We’ve all heard drivel like “religion of "Science"”, "Science Priests" etc before. Calling science a religion doesn’t make it one. Grow up. Get some new arguments.
Yes I’m biased against stupidity and against things which are obviously factually incorrect. I’m afraid you haven’t demonstrated hypocrisy though. Except in yourself.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 05, 2009 at 11:41 PM
So this religion of "Science" as you call it
No, you call it a "religion". And you're a dumbass for doing so. Next.
with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?)
...have you ever met a scientist? Is all your knowledge of science based on TV?
they sure know the truth, don't they?!
Science doesn't work on 100% truths, no; and no, scientists don't know everything. But scientists actually provide evidence for their hypotheses (if such evidence exists). But the ID crowd doesn't do that and, strangely, neither do you.
It's in their Holey Scriptures
You know, you'd think someone decrying science in favor of creationism could at least spell "holy" correctly.
the Journals of Science!
Scientific journals aren't "holy scriptures", you imbecile. Holy scriptures are made-up nonsense that's declared to be "revealed truth", which people then agree to believe to be true no matter how much reality contradicts it.
Articles in science journals, on the other hand, provide evidence for their assertions (remember evidence?), explain how they come to their conclusions, etc. And these results are not declared inviolable truth--other scientists will try to replicate these results and confirm or invalidate them. Exceptionally different from religion.
Where's the empirical evidence? There is none.
Say what? Evidence is presented in hundreds of thousands of journal articles over the ages, and you pretend that it doesn't exist?
Now let's ask you the same thing (well, I'll actually specify what I want evidence for): where's the evidence for intelligent design creationism? We'll wait.
So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do?
Yawn. Again with the "science is a religion". Like Skeptico said, grow up.
I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years.
Probably because you don't even read the writings of the creationists you're defending.
Posted by: Skemono | May 06, 2009 at 12:14 AM
You're really not very good at this are you?
"So this religion of "Science" as you call it"
You know, this is repeated by woos and religious nutters so often I think I might just have to state it for a third time in as many posts:
WE (meaning skeptics) don't call science a religion, YOU (meaning idiots) do.
"with your pious little "Science Priests" in their little white lab coats (men of the white cloth?)"
Not science priests, scientists. Dear oh dear. Did you get all your information from creationist/woo soundbites and B movies made in the 1950s?
"they sure know the truth, don't they?!"
No. And they don't claim to either. The ones who do claim that are people like you (idiots).
"It's in their Holey Scriptures, the Journals of Science!"
Oh what a devastating play on words. Oscar Wilde look out. Of course a simple Google search shows it wasn't your idea. Wilde can rest easy.
"Where's the empirical evidence?"
Of what?
"There is none."
There is none of what?
But who dares blaspheme against the Holey Church of Science!?.
Me. All churches suck whale nuts and sleep with donkeys. Good enough?
"So how about YOU hang with your little religious sect and stop bashing people that have a different faith than you do?"
Sorry, don't have one. And I'll stop bashing them as soon as they stop interfering or trying to interfere with my life.
"Interesting thought, eh?"
Er.No. No it isn't.
"Your intense hatred for this lady is pretty disturbing."
Oh now your pulling my plonker. A mild blog entry criticising blatantly silly arguments is intense hatred?
No numb nuts, intense hatred is protestants and catholics burning each other at the stake or killing each other with car bombs. Intense hatred is pogroms against Jewish people. Intense hatred is Islamic terrorists blowing themselves up in Israeli Pizza Huts.
Can you spot a connection?
"I don't think I've seen a stronger example of bias, intolerance and hypocrisy in years. "
Oh well, since you are such an expert in these areas you will have no problem highlighting one instance of each of these in the original blog post.
Just one of each will be fine.
Take your time.
There's no rush.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 06, 2009 at 06:39 PM
Woah, looks like html tags are back. Wierd. I posted on the torture thread and my italics disappeared in the post but were visible in the preview so I thought I'd try them here just in case and it worked.
You should get the hamster that runs the server checked out.
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 06, 2009 at 06:42 PM
test html in comments
unquoted
itailcs
normal
Posted by: Skeptico | May 06, 2009 at 10:02 PM
Jimmy:
html tags do seem to be working but the formatting doesn’t show while you’re in the 5 minutes “edit time”. When the 5 mins is up the blockquotes etc are working.
Pretty stupid, I agree.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 06, 2009 at 10:11 PM
I think it may also have something to do with how MSN explorer is loading the pages for me, the first time I loaded this page this morning your first test comment had no tags in and the second one did, and my bold comments from last night were not bolded.
I refreshed the page and they were all working, and when the page refreshed after I clicked reply all the tags had stopped working again!
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 07, 2009 at 09:29 AM
I've had similar issues with the html tags using WinXP+Firefox, if that helps.
Posted by: Martin | May 07, 2009 at 10:49 AM
OK I'm sick of this now. I have just disabled Typepad Connect and gone back to the simple comment system that worked before. There will be no avatars (big deal) and no "Edit" facility (use post preview), no "reply to" (you'll have to say who you're replying to) but otherwise it should be better.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 07, 2009 at 01:03 PM
That works for me. I didn't see much value in the new system anyway. the edit feature was nice, but preview will be fine.
I would rather my markup look right than be able to edit posts the new way.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 07, 2009 at 01:50 PM
The main difference between religion and science, in a pragmatic sense, is that science works. There's no ambiguity or reasonable doubt about the fact that it really does work.
We wouldn't be able to do what is essentially "magic" otherwise - e.g. instantly communicating through electronics from one part of the world to another. A lot of it is engineering, but engineering is nothing but applied science. It requires a scientific foundation.
Posted by: Joseph | May 08, 2009 at 05:31 PM
Just because creationists put forward a rational alternative doesn't mean it is automatically wrong. The scientific consensus denies paranormal events and any rational explanations for them. This is not scientific.
Computer programs have now been devised on the concepts of evolution. Over many ‘generations’, the programs evolve to be better programs, adapting through natural selection. However, this is not the whole picture.
In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper. It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.
http://beyondtheblog.wordpress.com/2007/03/14/evolution/
Posted by: Anthony North | May 31, 2009 at 08:05 AM
Anthony:
Exactly what about creationism is rational?
Where there are rational explanations for paranormal events it is not the scientific consensus that denies them - it's the people who believe it's ghosts, fairies, aliens or something else supernatural that deny the rational explanations.
Theology has absolutely no place in the scientific study of evolution.
PS. To everyone else, finally started my own blog, feel free to pop by for tea and biscuits.
Terrible truth, beautiful lie
Posted by: Jimmy_Blue | May 31, 2009 at 08:59 AM
Anthony, you wrote:
Just because creationists put forward a rational alternative
Bzzzzt!!!!
doesn't mean it is automatically wrong.
Correct. It isn't "automatically" wrong. There are probably several billion clear, demonstrable reasons why creationism doesn't even qualify as an idle musing let alone an "alternative". I suggest you try reading a book about science sometime before attempting to lecture others about it.
The scientific consensus denies paranormal events
No it doesn't. It just doesn't bother with things for which no evidence has ever been found. It remains silent on the matter. I think you are confusing "denial" for the rejection of specific arguments and pieces of evidence on the grounds that they are flawed.
and any rational explanations for them.
Rational expalnations of non-existent evidence aren't worth bothering with.
This is not scientific.
You can't deal scientifically with speculations about things for which there is no evidence. Attempts to do this are not scientific.
Computer programs have now been devised....In order to know in which direction evolution must go, the programs are given a ‘basic design function’, without which they could not work. This is a form of intelligence within evolution. It is not inconceivable that a similar process could lie in evolution proper.
No it is indeed not inconceivable, which is why the idea was so popular among scientists up until about 150 years ago. However, they have learned, step by step, detail after detail, that there is no evidence for such theories.
It is the challenge of theology and science to study the possibility rather than bicker.
Well actually scientists have examined that possibility for a couple of hundred years at least. Neither at the the grossest nor the finest level have they ever found the faintest indication that a supernatural force is at work anywhere. There isn't anything for them to study.
If you have evidence please do share it.
If all you have is speculations which aren't even informed by 5 minutes of reading wikipedia, then why bother?
Jimmy, well done!
Posted by: yakaru | May 31, 2009 at 09:44 AM
Anthony, you are missing the basic idea behind programs such as Avida. One of the claims of the so-called intelligent design movement is that some aspects of life are “irreducibly complex”, and so could not have evolved. Avida showed that irreducible complexity can and does evolve. In other words, Avida proved that Behe’s claims about irreducible complexity were wrong. It is irrelevant that the programs started with some created function – they evolved new ones.
You need to do some more reading about evolution to try to avoid some of the basic mistakes you are making. For example, on your blog you write:
No, the evidence does suggest slow change. What you are probably referring to is the Cambrian so-called “explosion”. But even in the Cambrian, changes in species still took millions of years. If you spend some time reading Talk.Origins you might avoid making these basic mistakes of repeating ideas that have been refuted numerous times already.
Posted by: Skeptico | May 31, 2009 at 10:15 AM
"finally started my own blog"
its about fucking time. I bet you get a mabus visit before I do.
Posted by: TechSkeptic | May 31, 2009 at 01:50 PM