Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA06111 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:10:04 +0100 Message-id: <fc.005b8ff1006fca0a3b9aca00060b3c07.6fca21@amazon.shu.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2000 13:03:29 +0100 Subject: Fwd: [COMPLEX-M] "Intelligent Design" lobby Congress against Darwinism To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk X-FC-Forwarded-From: altenber@SANTAFE.EDU, complex-science@necsi.org From: I.Price@shu.ac.uk (Ilfryn PRICE\(SED\)) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Complexity is being invoked at a Congressional hearing to discredit Darwinism.
I think that complex systems scientists have a civic duty to enter into this
debate. Some excerpts from the report, below:
"Behe and Meyer emphasized two keystones of ID [Intelligent Design] theory:
(1) that an intelligent designer is the only way to explain irreducibly
complex natural systems, which defy explanation by Darwinian processes; and
(2) that information is a third fundamental entity separate from matter and
energy, and information can only come from a mind. ...
Both Behe and Meyer repeatedly noted that scientists have been
enormously surprised by the complexity they find in nature -- whereas
Darwinism may have worked within the limited scope of 19th-century
scientific understanding, it cannot handle the much greater complexity
that scientist now recognize...
Asked if there was a critical mass yet of Intelligent Design supporters among
scientists at universities, Johnson stated that you do not convince the
priesthood but generationally replace them. "
--------------------------
Forwarded message:
Date: Wed, 17 May 00 12:24:59 EDT
To: evoldir@evol.biology.McMaster.CA (Evoldir)
Subject: intelligent design goes to Congress
Reply-To: pigliucci@utk.edu
Hi all,
I thought this one was sickening enough to be widely publicized. Is the
Society for the Study of Evolution going to do something about it?
Cheers,
Massimo Pigliucci
####
---------------------------------
INTELLIGENT DESIGN MEETS CONGRESSIONAL DESIGNERS
This courtesy of David Wald at Caltech
****************************************************
ASLA 00-12 Evolution Opponents Hold Congressional Briefing
****************************************************
On May 10th, a House Judiciary Committee hearing room was the site of a
three-hour briefing on paleontology, biology, and cosmology. Although
presentations were at times quite technical, the speakers were not there to
discuss the latest research in these fields. They were on Capitol Hill to
promote intelligent design (ID) theory, to debunk Darwinian evolutionary
theory, and to expose the negative social impact of Darwinism. Entitled
"Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design and its Implications for Public
Policy and Education," the briefing was sponsored by the Discovery
Institute,
a Seattle-based think tank (http://www.discovery.org), and its Center for
the
Renewal of Science and Culture. The afternoon briefing was preceded by a
private luncheon in the U.S. Capitol for Members of Congress and was
followed
by an evening reception.
Until now, the creation-evolution debate has primarily been active at the
state and local level, but this event may represent the start of a new
effort
to involve Congress in efforts to oppose the teaching of evolution. Whether
by chance or by design, the briefing took place as the Senate entered its
second week of debate on overhauling federal K-12 education programs. Both
houses are expected to work throughout the summer on reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. More information on that subject is
on the AGI website at http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/ike106.html.
*** Creationist and Congressional Heavy Hitters ***
The briefing featured a number of the leading lights in the ID movement,
including Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe, author of
"Darwin's Black Box;" Whitworth College philosophy professor Stephen Meyer,
who directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and is a
former
ARCO geophysicist; Discovery Institute Fellow Nancy Pearcey, co-author with
Chuck Colson of "How Now Shall We Live?;" and Berkeley law professor Phillip
Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial." Behe and Meyer spoke first, focusing
on
a scientific explanation of ID theory and discussion of the weaknesses of
Darwinian theory. The second two speakers, Pearcey and Johnson, focused on
social and political implications of the competing worldviews represented by
these two theories.
Approximately 50 people attended the briefing, including a handful of
congressional staff and several Members of Congress. The chairman of the
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Rep. Charles Canady
(R-FL),
provided the room. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) made remarks comparing the
current Kansas social controversy over evolution to the one spawned by
abolitionist John Brown. More significant was the appearance of Rep. Tom
Petri (R-WI), who warmly introduced several of the speakers. Petri is slated
to become chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee in
January, replacing retiring chairman Bill Goodling (R-PA). Other
congressional co-hosts listed on the press release included House Science
Committee members Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), and
Education Committee member Mark Souder (R-IN).
*** Empirical Evidence for Design ***
Despite the presence of congressional heavy hitters, Johnson disavowed any
intention of playing the Washington power game (something he accused
scientists of doing) and emphasized that he and his colleagues were there
only to open minds which had been kept closed by an elite scientific
priesthood. All of the speakers emphasized that this was a debate among
scientists, not between science and religion. They stressed that the idea of
design is entirely empirical, that we recognize it all the time in everyday
life and can make the conclusion of design based wholly on the physical
evidence. However, they also recognized that intelligent design theory has
theistic implications.
Unlike some other creationists, ID supporters accept deep time and indeed
argue that the cosmological big bang is evidence for the existence of
something beyond nature. Like other creationists, however, they argue that
the diversity and complexity of life could not have come about through
undirected processes of natural selection.
Behe and Meyer emphasized two keystones of ID theory: (1) that an
intelligent designer is the only way to explain irreducibly complex natural
systems, which defy explanation by Darwinian processes; and (2) that
information is a third fundamental entity separate from matter and energy,
and information can only come from a mind. Meyer used this second concept to
link ID theory to the new knowledge-based economy where value comes from
information not material resources. Nearly all the speakers cited a quote by
Bill Gates equating DNA with extremely complex computer code.
The speakers portrayed ID theory as the logical outcome of the advancement
of science. Both Behe and Meyer repeatedly noted that scientists have been
enormously surprised by the complexity they find in nature -- whereas
Darwinism may have worked within the limited scope of 19th-century
scientific
understanding, it cannot handle the much greater complexity that scientist
now recognize.
*** Confronting the Darwinian Worldview ***
Nancy Pearcey spoke on the worldview implications of Darwinism, noting that
many people apply Darwinism to every walk of life. She cited the book A
Natural History of Rape, which portrayed rape as an evolutionary adaptation
strategy rather than a pathology. She found this example helpful in spelling
out the logical consequences of Darwinism. The key battleground is
education,
which in the hands of Darwinists is no longer a search for truth. Instead,
ideas are now merely problem-solving tools.
Pearcey asked what this means for religion, answering that for the
Darwinists, god becomes merely an idea that appears in the human mind. For
Darwinists, religion must give way to a new science-based cosmic myth with
the power to bind humans together in a new world order. She then asked what
this means for morality and argued that people were right to be concerned
that all the above would undercut morality. She cited a recent popular song
urging that "you and me, baby, ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like
they do on the Discovery Channel."
Pearcey went on to explain that the US legal system is based on moral
principles and that the only way to have ultimate moral grounding for law is
to have an unjudged judge, an uncreated creator. Nothing else can take his
place. All else can be challenged in a grand "says who?" She pointed to
arguments made by Michael Sandel of Harvard in his book Democracy's
Discontent in which modern society is portrayed as a struggle between those
who think morality is up for grabs and those who view it as given.
*** Creation Myths and Priesthoods ***
Phillip Johnson explained that Darwinism is not so much a scientific theory
as a creation story. Every culture has a creation story jealously guarded by
a priesthood. The triumph of Darwinism is the replacement of one priesthood
-- the clergy -- with another of scientists and intellectuals, a process now
complete in Europe but still being contested in the US. According to
Johnson,
the Darwinian creation story finds its essential support in certain
philosophical rules, the main one being that natural selection has enormous
creative power from bacteria to redwood trees to people. He called it a
marvelous story but asked what it has been seen to do? Change the size of
some finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands? He argued that it has never been
seen to create anything.
Johnson argued that the scientific priesthood has banished god from
allowable discussion, leaving Darwinism as the only game in town.
Intelligent
design cannot be considered because it includes an unevolved intelligence.
For the scientists, it is an offensive thought crime to suggest something
other than Darwinism. Johnson quotes from an ABA Journal article that "to
consider ID in biology would be as blasphemous as Satan worship in church."
A
curious repeated theme among the speakers was their surprise at the
receptivity in official Chinese media to ID theory. The point was then made
that in China one can question Darwinism but not the government, whereas in
the US one can question the government but not Darwinism.
Johnson argued that in order to have an open discussion about the logic of
Darwinism, the question needed to be redefined in order to get beyond the
stereotype of biblical literalists; a genuine intellectual issue needed to
be
articulated. As Johnson sees it, the problem is that there are two
definitions of science in our culture: (1) science is unbiased empirical
testing and observations that follow the evidence wherever it leads without
prejudice; and (2) science is applied materialist philosophy which, like
Marxism or Freudianism, is willing to impose its authority.
In Johnson's view, scientists get public support because they wrap
themselves in the first definition. Supporters of ID theory need to flush
out
the scientists true colors by identifying situations where their philosophy
of materialism says one thing but the evidence tells a different story. Once
that is on the table, then the scientists' game is over.
*** What About Religion? ***
All four speakers were exceedingly cautious in responding to questions
about how ID theory relates to religion. Meyer emphasized that the issue is
about two different scientific theories with large implications for theistic
and naturalistic worldviews. When asked if he was being too tentative about
ID theory not being a proof of god, Meyer replied that using the principle
of
uniformitarianism -- that the present is the key to past -- naturalism is
insufficient, and a designer is thus needed. Johnson added that we cannot
conclude from scientific inquiry whether the intelligent designer is indeed
the God of the Bible. The speakers repeatedly emphasized that ID theory is a
big tent that includes Jews and agnostics but all united by the belief that
there is objective truth.
Asked if there was a critical mass yet of ID supporters among scientists at
universities, Johnson stated that you do not convince the priesthood but
generationally replace them. He argued that demographics are on ID's side --
polls show skepticism about Darwinism so the public at large is sympathetic
but has been disabled by the stereotypes and mind games of the scientific
elite. The people need to be empowered and that is what is happening with
the
Internet and talk radio, which takes away control from the scientific
gatekeepers. Johnson's stated objective was to get thousands of young people
in the classroom asking questions of dogmatic professors, and he said that
it
is already happening.
AGU's position statement on the teaching of evolution can be found on AGU's
Science & Policy web page at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/sci_pol.html.
Contributed by David Applegate, Director, AGI Government Affairs Program
Questions or comments about ASLA? Need to change your e-mail address?
Contact pfolger@agu.org
--------------------------------------------------
For information about this discussion group visit
http://necsi.org/discuss/discuss.html
[Reminder: To alter your list options: go to
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=complex-m]
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 13:10:39 BST