ID award recipient not named for own protection …
| July 25, 2008 | Posted by O'Leary under Intelligent Design |
I notice that at Overwhelming Evidence, Sam Chen announces that a student sympathetic to intelligent design has received the Cassey Luskin Graduate Award, but
The recipient of the 2008 Casey Luskin Graduate Award will remain anonymous for the protection of the recipient….
It’s interesting to reflect on that in view of the many legacy media know-nothings panning the Expelled documentary, insisting that there is no evidence that anyone has suffered discrimination on account of sympathy for design as a feature of nature.
And they wonder why the blogosphere is whacking the heck out of them …
On most of the issues I monitor, the fact is that, agree or disagree, I can no longer get reliable and timely information from these sources. They seem to have hunkered into their bunker, repeating their well-worn beliefs to people who don’t really care.
Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:
Creating belief systems more essential to our humanity than making tools?
Neuroscience: How complex is your brain? More than you can easily imagine!
Hunting, herding, hiding, and hustling – that explains our social relationships?
Psychiatrist Jeff Schwartz speaks on what drugs can do for you – and what you and your mind must do for yourself
47 Responses to ID award recipient not named for own protection …
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please see figure B in the appendix.
—–”I do refrain from using the term IDiot. I’d expect any ID proponent encouraging civilized discourse to drop the term ‘Darwinist’ in turn.”
So, am I to understand that you consider the term “Darwinist,” which many of your colleagues use to describe their own world view, is the insult equivalent to the term “IDiot?” Your sense of proportionality lags far behind your sense of humor.
Joel V:
I fail to see the prejorative in the term “Darwinist”. Is the “ist” suffix fundimentally prejorative? What about violinist? The term IDiot has a clear parallel in the word idiot (an utterly foolish or senseless person).
The term Darwinist is used by the ID community because we restle not against evolution as defined by common descent (at least some of us don’t) so we see ourselves as Intelligent Design evolutionists. But we wrestle against the simple mechanism (Random Variation + Natural Selection) which was originally popularized by Charles Darwin.
(And please, don’t go suggesting that there is much more to the MET than RV + NS. We’ve hashed through HGT, genetic drift, variations on mutations, retroviruses, the list of 40 some odd twists on the theme that MacNeill published. They come down to RV+NS and mechanisms that ostensibly developed from these two.)
I think this is where the blogosphere crumbles under the weight of its own accessibility.
StephanB: If you’re referring to the ‘darwinists’ as “my” colleagues, then I am guessing that they are not also your colleagues. Which leads me to believe that you are not familiar with these individuals who might be my colleagues or the titles by which they define their views on one aspect of biology, themselves, or their “world views”. And in the use of the blanket term ‘Darwinist’ it’s just obvious you’re blindly utilizing a vast generalization fueled by your own motivational bias (it’s alright, we all do it). It’s a tired debate. Look into it a bit.
And no, I am not calling IDiot the “insult equivalent” of Darwinist. That is why I didn’t say it is the equivalent but rather implied it was a pejorative.
Perhaps, referring to you as a creationist would be a better comparison.
So, catch up on current trends, discover the definition of pejorative and refer to appendix B.
bFAST: You got it. It is the ist that I find to be pejorative
You’re saying that your version of evolution uses different mechanisms than mine. You are called an Intelligent Design evolutionist. I am called a Darwinist. They’re both just words that define our choice of evolutionary mechanisms.
What you’re side stepping here is the idea of arbitrary symbols in language. The basis of a word, phonemes or combination of characters doesn’t create any absolute meaning. It’s the concept of the word that carries meaning.
As above, it’s just a vast generalization. This is a word ID proponents, creationists and certain religious groups use. Essentially, those who are critical of material evolution use this as a blanket term. And this debate is old.
I’m glad you’ve hashed through modern evolutionary theory. When is the publication date?
Was any of this necessary? Is this not what makes comment areas become so trivial?
I always thought that “Galapagos Finch” was not only a pun on “Darwin’s finches,” but the “Atticus Finch” of To Kill a Mockingbird. In any case, no one around here would have missed the similarity of the two names when “Atticus Finch” posted.
What do you suppose was his relationship to Galapagos? Might his answer to Ms. O’Leary’s “Who are YOU?” have turned out to be embarrassing? I mean, it seems strange to cut him off before he could identify himself, and then trounce on him in absentia.
If I were one of the Expelled, I would bend over backwards to exhibit the sort of tolerance I want from others. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Atticus was soft on ID. He indicated that Mike Gene was “legitimately pursuing change in what constitutes science.” He agreed with Steve Fuller that “religiously inspired ID views have driven the work of many eminent biologists.” Was there really no value in debating the impact of politicization on ID?
—–joel v: “And in the use of the blanket term ‘Darwinist’ it’s just obvious you’re blindly utilizing a vast generalization fueled by your own motivational bias (it’s alright, we all do it). It’s a tired debate. Look into it a bit.”
A mainstream Darwinist is simply someone who believes that evolution is a purposeless, mindless, and non-teleological process. An IDer is someone who believes that evolution is a purposeful, mindful, and teleological process. A mainstream TE is someone is who tries to reconcile Darwinism with Christianity. These are perfectly good shorthand terms and they work very well to distinguish one camp from the other. I use the term to clarify, not to insult. Obviously, there are nuances in each camp, but the overall texture of belief holds.
—–“And no, I am not calling IDiot the “insult equivalent” of Darwinist. That is why I didn’t say it is the equivalent but rather implied it was a pejorative.”
You suggested that it would be a fair exchange if each side dropped the terms in question. That implies that they are equivalent insults.
—–“Perhaps, referring to you as a creationist would be a better comparison.”
No. The purpose of establishing categories is to summarize accurately. A creationist is someone who begins with a religious presupposition. An IDer is someone who begins with an empirical observation. They are not even close to being the same thing. On the other hand, it would seem that your beliefs are consistent with neo-Darwinism or the modern evolutionary synthesis. Still, my mind is open. What term should I apply to you? Which camp are you in? Either evolution was planned with an end in mind or else it just happened. Do you know of a third alternative? The TEs try to have it both ways, but I have higher hopes for you.
Perhaps there is no plan or end, but nature is periodically or continually nudged by seemingly random inputs to produce short-term effects. Then again, maybe there are not even desired short-term effects. Perhaps it’s simply fun to perturb the system randomly and watch what happens. Could the cosmos be a wonderful toy?
There are many positions one can take. The whole thing of “camps” is very primitive, to me.
Oops. 37 is a response to a deleted comment. It’s fine to delete it and this, too. In any case, I’ll emphasize that I’m not actually claiming that the cosmos is a toy. If you think hard enough, you can come up with various feasible positions that no one ever takes.
Joel –Perhaps, referring to you as a creationist would be a better comparison.
Joel, you may be getting on to something here. Let’s think this through. If you referred to someone who believe the Earth was created in 6 literal days and that Biblical genealogies should be accepted as the final authority as to the age of the Earth as a creationist would he/should he be offended?
If you referred to someone who believe that it was firmly established beyond any debate that random changes to the genome + NS is the only reasonable explanation for biodiversity as a Darwinist why do you think that person should be offended?
What would you call such a person?
I’ll grant you that if you don’t hold to RM+NS as the only reasonable explanation for biodiversity and are called a Darwinist you should seek to correct the perception just as one who uses objective metrics rather than faith to declare biodesign should object to being called a creationist.
Is the “ist” suffix fundimentally prejorative? What about violinist?
From this point on Itzhak Perlman must be referred to as a fiddler!
—–”Perhaps there is no plan or end, but nature is periodically or continually nudged by seemingly random inputs to produce short-term effects.”
Inputs from where? Once we use the passive voice to describe active events, suddenly that which is logically impossible can begin to seem possible. Putting self refuting words in the same sentence is not the same thing as describing a plausible reality. Either life was created or else it created itself.
—–”Then again, maybe there are not even desired short-term effects. Perhaps it’s simply fun to perturb the system randomly and watch what happens.”
Where do we get the system and who is doing the perturbing?
—–“There are many positions one can take. The whole thing of “camps” is very primitive, to me.”
Explain that to the Darwinists, who insist that only those in their “camp” are doing science. Which is more primitive–for me to call them Darwinists or for them to persecute ID scientists for daring to be non-Darwinists.
Joel V, you’re boring me. Words are wonderful little boxes that portray a package of thought. With a single word we can present a complex piece of information. With the word IDist or IDer we imply one who adheres to an Intelligent Design interpretation of how life came about. Evolutionist is a term with a bit of a floating meaning. I take it to mean one who holds to the understanding that universal common descent is valid (within the complexity added by phenomena such as HGT.)
I consider the term “creationist” to be one who overtly interprets the scientific evidence throught the filter of the “divinely inspired” creation story. It is clear, however, that the scientific community uses the term creationist to describe anyone who does not hold to strict naturalism.
The term Darwinist has a long history within the scientific establishment. However, as you feel that the term Darwinist has somehow been tainted, prejoratized, by the creationist community, would you please find me another single word that describes those who hold to modern evolutionary theory — the theory that random (non-forsighted) variation and natural selection are the two mechanisms that built up all of the variety of life on earth.
That said, please understand that if your new term catches on, it’ll take about 5 years for that term to also become prejoratized by the creationist community. Therefore I recommend that you start working on your next term as soon as your first term is presented.
I’ve looked back at what MacNeill said at UD. He objected to the notion of randomness on the grounds that it was ultimately an ontological stance. He alluded to more like 200 sources of variation in reproduction. And he referred to himself as Darwinian, Larmarckian, and some other things.
I mention “Darwinian” and “Lamarckian” because they are particularly interesting. Darwin actually ascribed to Larmarckian inheritance. Darwinism is crisply distinct from Lamarckianism in the minds of people today only because Lamarckian evolution was debunked. The scientific community did not swallow Darwin’s theories hook, line, and sinker. Now Lamarckian inheritance is somewhat “un-bunked,” according to MacNeill.
If I recall correctly, Darwin never invoked randomness in his theorizing. Randomness comes by way of Mendel, whose work was not widely known until the 1890′s. It seems to me that what most ID proponents object to in their conceptualizations of Darwinism is the denial of teleology. Show me an ID proponent who does not conceive of the designing intelligence as goal-oriented.
“ID vs. Darwinism” is framed as it is because most ID proponents do not deny that there is some sort of evolution. There is great disagreement among IDers as to how, precisely, intelligence directs evolution. But all IDers are teleologists, as best I can tell. And what they are really taking Darwinists to task for when they reduce Darwinism to “RV + NS” is denial of purpose in evolution.
The debate is over teleology, I believe. Any non-teleologist or anti-teleogist will be objectionable to an IDer (teleologist).
CEC09:
In a conversation with me on this site, MacNeill withdrew his objection if random was replaced with non-forsighted. As for Lamarckian evolution, to the extent that it exists, it is seen as a mechanism that was developed via RM+NS. In fact, human-induced genetic engineering is also seen as a mechanism that was developed via RM+NS.
There are only three mechanisms in all of the MET — non-forsighted variation (including events such as asteroids), natural selection, and mechanisms that are ostensibly developed from those two. There are lots of twists and turns within thest parameters, but they all are within these simple parameters.
As to teleological v. non-teleological, in general I would agree with you. However, the only non-teleological explanation that has been proposed for life’s variety are the above three mechanisms. I am sure that the non-teleologists would be happy to conjur up another mechanism, but so far they have not done so. The ID theorists have simply suggested that if RV+NS is unable to explain something, then foresight is required. If foresight is required, then intelligence must be required. If intelligence is required then either that intelligence is itself a product of RV+NS (think aliens), or that intelligence is “other”.
—-CECO9: “The debate is over teleology, I believe. Any non-teleologist or anti-teleogist will be objectionable to an IDer (teleologist).”
Yes, but you forget the flip side. It is also the case that any teleologist will be objectionable to a Darwinist. What is “methodological naturalism” except a convenient way of imposing that objection on science and institutionalizing it? TEs, by the way, are also on board with that imposition. That is why we need the three terms, “Intelligent design, “Darwinism,” and “Theistic evolution.”
If Darwinists don’t want to be called “Darwinists,” then they should cut the “I love Darwin” stuff (T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc., and now even a doggie shirt), the “Friend of Darwin” certificates (handed out at a reunion of the Dover plaintiffs team), the Darwin-Lincoln stuff (the only thing they have in common is the same official birthdate), etc.. IMO celebrating Darwin Day is OK in moderation.
bFast makes a very good point in (42):
The linguistic world is replete with examples. To welsh on a debt, an Irish temper, and German engineering are just a few of the examples of baggage that otherwise neutral names can pick up (in the last example, a good one, in contrast to some other baggage the word German has acquired). This process cannot be halted by fiat. It is picked up first by fair generalizations, and secondly by unjustified prejudice. The precise amounts of these two processes can be debated. Once people figure out what the new terms are, the old stereotypes are immediately reapplied.
Attempts to circumvent this process do not last. Consider the sequence Negro, black, and (in the U.S.) African-American, or the sequence (American Indian, Native American, indegenous, and multiple other names that have been applied. When I was in college, I worked for a summer as a sanitation engineer, which used to be a garbageman. Now they are environmental services specialists.
It doesn’t really matter what you call them. Until the underlying reality changes, changing the name only obfuscates, and that temporarily. Creationists, and to a lesser extent (other) ID advocates (there are some who are both), will always think that Darwinists, or whatever you want to call them, are wrong on the big picture. So whatever new name someone comes up with will in short order carry much the same baggage.
The only thing that will change some of this is if the new breed stops trying to oust people from academia based on their disbelief in philosophical naturalism. Then there will be a change in content, and then the new name will actually mean something different.
I regard the complaints about “Darwinist” as mostly whining, especially in view of Larry Farfarman’s comments at (46). But then, I would have been happy at one time with the term “garbageman”. In my book it is a bureaucratic mindset that wants to call a spade a manual digging implement.