I posted the following on ephilosopher.com:
All,Apologies for the untidiness of the post and namedropping. The former is due to lack of proper editing, while the latter was preemptive.So, once again intelligent design (ID) rears its ugly head. OK, one last time...
There are many misconceptions bandied about in these sorts of debates. First, to abolish them:
1) What Evolution is:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html2) Evolution is a fact:
That organisms have changed over time is incontrovertible to all but the most entrenched dogmatists. Even ID theorists concede that there is microevolution. The real debate occurs with macroevolution. Evidence of macroevolution is plentiful too. (See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)3) Natural Selection:
The most agreed upon mechanism for evolution. This occurs wherever there are replicators with variation and differential survival. The theory of natural selection has flourished in the past fifty years due to its synthesis with game theory (that’s cutting an interesting story too short, but in the interest of time...). Sexual selection, kin selection, and inclusive fitness have all made natural selection more robust. (See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)Intelligent Design theory is both bad science and bad philosophy, for several reasons. But before the debate continues, let’s consider how not to argue:
Unqualified probability arguments: “Based on my many assumptions (usu. ignoring constraints set by physics, chemistry, the presence of prior structures) the probability of that happening is astronomical” Probability assignments are only as good as our understanding of the constraints involved.
Raise the bar until it cannot be cleared: “Well, you may have shown x, but what about y. Well, you may have shown y, but what about z. Well,…” This is quite common. If you are at the outset against a theory you can just engage in an endless series of skeptical questions.
Change the subject: “OK, so there are chemicals that replicate, so what. What about the universes laws that allow them to replicate, where did they come from…” If one front is not working your way, you can always open-up another one.
Shift the burden of proof: “Never mind the plausibility or evidence of my theory, what about yours?” Always keep the other guy on the defensive.
Appeal to pity: “I am oppressed by the scientific community because I have different ideas. I am fighting the orthodoxy, man.” “Why can’t you let people believe what they want to, you bully.” Appeal to a conspiracy against your ideas. Accuse the other guy of being mean for wanting to settle the issue one way or another.
Appeal to relativity/harmlessness: “Well, you can’t really prove any one of these theories, so lets be friends” Accepting a draw—particularly, if the other team is scoring points.
If we can agree on the points about argumentation above, then perhaps we can debate this on an even field.
And, for the record, I have read the following relevant books and papers:
Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, Climbing Mount Improbable, River Out of Eden
Stephen J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb
Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box
William Dembski, The Design Inference
Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial
Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
Kitcher, Philip, Abusing Science
And many technical papers, reviews and articles on evolution, the origin of life, intelligent design theory, etc.Next, I'll address the arguments aired here.
I have argued about ID so many times on different forums to little effect, yet I cannot resist destroying the same old sloppy non-arguments when I see them. Perhaps when I am older/more tired/wiser, I will stop. For now, once more into the breach!
Posted by John at February 6, 2004 03:26 PM