Pages

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

'At's a spicy meat balla!

Last year, Bobby Henderson wrote a mock open letter to the Kansas school board over the inclusion of ID theory in the curriculum.

His parody wasn’t especially clever, but it’s caught on.

Its popularity reveals far more about the intellectual level of ID opponents than it does about the intellectual level of ID proponents.

Let’s take a few examples:

“I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.”

i) This is disanalogous to ID. ID theory is opposed to naturalistic evolution, not to evolution, per se. An ID theorist could be a theistic evolutionist.

ii) In addition, an ID theorist who opposes evolution does not oppose it even though “overwhelming scientific evidence” supports evolution.

To the contrary, an ID theorist who opposes evolution does so on scientific grounds. For him, the scientific evidence either undercuts naturalistic evidence, or undercuts evolution altogether.

iii) No ID theorist dismisses the “overwhelming” evidence for evolution as “coincidence,” attributable to divine deception.

Continuing with Henderson:

“Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.”

Once again, this isn’t parallel to ID theory, since an ID theorist isn’t appealing to the Bible to make his case.

His argument for a divine creator is an inference from the scientific data.

“We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence.”

How is this analogous to ID? The ID community is not a secret society, like the Free Masons.

And ID appeals to observable evidence.

“What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is.”

Several more disanalogies:

i) Henderson is conflating ID with YEC. But ID theory is neutral on the age of the universe.

An ID theorist can be an OEC or a theistic evolutionist.

ii) Even on its own grounds, YEC does not maintain that God designed the world to make us think it’s older than it really is.

iii) In addition, it’s not as if modern science is committed to naïve realism in matters of dating.

According to the theory of an expanding universe, stars are younger than they appear to be to an earth-bound observer.

Likewise, time dilation is a feature of special relativity. Identical clocks run at different rates when in relative motion (moving clocks appear to go slower).

Continuing with Henderson:

“But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.”

i) Once more, this is not analogous to either ID or YEC.

ii) I’d add that it’s rather gullible, even childish, to treat the universe as if it were a clock telling us the time.

While there’s nothing wrong with trying to date an object by reference to a periodic process, and extrapolating from the present back into the past, we need to remember that a periodic process is not, in fact, a natural chronometer. It was not designed to tell us the time.

That’s a secondary, human application. So there’s no reason to assume that if we ask a natural process to tell us something outside it’s natural function, it will yield a reliable result. Its purpose and our purpose are two different things.

No one’s more credulous than an unbeliever. Having denied that God made the world with him in mind, he continues to act as if the world were designed for his benefit.

Tree rings exist to tell him the time. That’s why Mother Nature planted the tree. Big Ben with leaves.

Continuing with Henderson:

“We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.”

i) As I’ve said before, ID doesn’t appeal to the authority of Scripture.

ii) Does Henderson only believe what he can see with his own two eyes?

iii) Does Henderson believe that nothing can pass through matter?

In his parody, what Henderson has given the reader is an argument from analogy minus the argument and absent the analogy.

A parody is most effective when it is, in fact, analogous to the thing it satirizes.

Likewise, there’s a difference between a spoof that’s used to illustrate an argument, and an illustration that becomes a substitute for reasoned argument.

Henderson’s letter was intended to belittle the intellectual standards of the antievolutionary community.

Ironically, the popularity of his letter serves, instead, to document the anti-intellectual standards of evolutionary community.

As is so often the case, the unbeliever is only concerned with projecting the image of intellectual superiority rather than demonstrating his intellectual superiority.

In practice, he operates at the same mental level as the hillbilly Bible-thumper he so disdains.

14 comments:

  1. Andrew,

    1) Just because one IDer uses this argument doesn't mean all IDers agree with it.

    2) Many IDers are not even Christians, let alone Creationists. The argument from the article can be summed up in this question: "Why would anyone knowingly compromise foundational aspects of their faith to accommodate an unproven model of the history of live and the speculative hypothesis portrayed as its mechanism - especially one with obvious anti-religious implications?" This does not describe the non-Christian IDers who do not have these "foundational aspects of their faith", so the argument against this form of theistic evolution doesn't address those IDers.

    3) The article isn't "bashing" theistic evolutionists in the least. It asks them to reconsider the logic of their position. Given the untenable and unproven state of evolution, it's absurd for someone who believes in the God of Genesis to think he must synthesize his theology with that scientific theory (read: illusion).

    But thanks for linking to that article, as it was fairly well written and well thought out.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's funny I thought it was funny the first time I read it. Is it a good argument? No, but it's always funny when the guy telling the joke is ignorant of not only the subject he is poking fun at, but also his own position.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great post title --- reminds me directly of that 1970's Alka Seltzer commercial (or was it Tums?) where the guy had to keep doing the takes saying " 'At's a spicy meat balla!"

    There may very well be a doctoral dissertation in this analysis for some starving humanities student.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Question:

    Why would ID-iots oppose materialism ("and its cultural legacies") if the "D"esigner is made of matter?

    Hmmm...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel, can we agree now that using belittling nicknames is not argument?

    And would you kindly expand upon your point. I don't get exactly what you mean. Of course, this may only be because I'm tired.

    What do you mean by materialism? Please define, as there are several different definitions, the ones that come to mind right now (and now is late at night) are:

    Philosophical (matter is all there is)

    Prejorative (he who has the most stuff when he dies wins).

    Obviously it depends what one means. And do ID-ers believe in a material creator (i.e. a creator made of 'stuff')?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Daniel asked:
    ---
    Why would ID-iots oppose materialism ("and its cultural legacies") if the "D"esigner is made of matter?
    ---

    Even if your above idea is right (that there are some IDers who believe the Designer is made of matter--something I'd like to see documentation of, personally), that would not logically necessitate materialism. A matter-composed Designer could still possibly have immaterial creations (just as when I, being a material being, imagine a blue ball I have imagined an immaterial object).

    By the way, that illustration is one example of a scientific reason to not hold to materialism. There are immaterial things. Our thoughts are some of the most obvious immaterial things. Even if they are caused by a material chemical reaction in the brain, the thoughts themselves are not material. You cannot cut open my brain while I sleep and see my dreams. My dreams do not exist materially.

    So, frankly, I wonder why there are any materialists at all, regardless of whether or not they think there's a Designer made of matter.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Andrew wrote:

    "With the exception of professional crackpot David Berlinski, all of the major players in ID are Christian creationists. Every person on their publications list, all the folks hired as Fellows, and of course all of the donors to the Discovery Institute's CSC, just for starters."

    Even setting aside your unsubstantiated comment about Berlinksi's "professional crackpot" status for the moment, your assessment is misleading and erroneous. Why should we only examine "major players"? Most scientists aren't "major players" in their field of research or in any larger movement. And how are you defining "creationists"? Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent. He's a Roman Catholic, but if you're including believers in evolution among "creationists", then you're using a definition that's unusual. And speaking of unusual definitions, Jonathan Wells is a Moonie. Why should we consider that group "Christian"? Michael Denton is prominent in intelligent design circles, and he isn't a Christian. Lee Spetner isn't a Christian either. Antony Flew isn't a Christian. Dave Scot, who moderates William Dembski's blog and writes some of the material for the site, is an agnostic. Etc.

    You write:

    "ID was manufactured as a 'big tent' philosophy to try and unite young- and old-earthers against 'Darwinists.'"

    I don't know how you think the movement was "manufactured", but non-Christians like Michael Denton and Christian believers in common descent, like Michael Behe, have received prominent attention in intelligent design circles for years. You would expect most people in such a movement to be Christians in a nation like this one, but there are agnostics and other non-Christians who hold such views in this country, and the concept of intelligent design is popular among Muslims and other non-Christians in other parts of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Calvindude,

    Nice red herring.

    Hiraeth,

    The point is rather clear here -- IDists (or IDiots) are claiming that their "theories" do not necessitate God as the "D"esigner.

    My question is thus quite obvious -- if that is true, then why is it necessary to "oppose materialism and its cultural legacies" in order to promote IDiocy? Do you know of any other "D"esigners that are immaterial?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "ID was manufactured as a 'big tent' philosophy to try and unite young- and old-earthers against 'Darwinists.'"

    I actually disagree with Andrew. ID is a "big tent" not by "design" (no pun intended) but by its scientific vacuity. It is such a formless and worthless scientific concept that persons of all scientific predispositions can support it, from those who think that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs in the Garden to those like Behe with half a grain of competence in their field(s). Thus, the utter emptiness of ID is what leads to its being "filled" with all sorts of persons.

    ID shies away from testable and falsifiable claims, elsewise it does indeed start to "squeeze the tent" a little.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you Daniel, as I said, it was late at night when I wrote what I did, and someone down the street was having a loud party.

    I think I can now work out what you meant, namely that the opposition to aterialism indicates an agenda somewhat narrower than the promoters of Intelligent Design say their agenda is. However, I note that the explicit denial of any possibility of a divine creator by many scientists in their work may also be termed materialism (matter is all there is).

    Thus given that most Intelligent designers are theists, one might say that this was simply a statement of ideology which leaves the tent as big as it could actually be.

    Of course, I may be wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Daniel,

    Nice non sequitur.

    By the way, I note that you still haven't given the source for where you get IDers must oppose materialism.

    Furthermore, you wrote of ID that "It is such a formless and worthless scientific concept that persons of all scientific predispositions can support it." I wonder if you have ever studied forensic science or seen an episode of CSI even.

    You know...there's a dead body. The first thing you have to determine is if the death was by design.

    I wonder how someone can determine design in a murder scene if it's such a formless and worthless science to look for design.

    Or perhaps you might realize that maybe there is something to the idea of "design" and that one can apply it not only to a dead body, but to the universe as a whole....

    I dunno though. That just seems so formless and worthless....

    ReplyDelete
  12. By the way, I would also add that the entire scientific endeavor is nothing but a search for design. It's the whole "Cause and effect" thing.

    An action happens. Science seeks to discover why it happened.

    Of course, materialistic scientists never bother to think beyond matter. Why does a chemical reaction take place? Because there are these laws in place. Matter must behave in a certain way, no matter what. Therefore, every single combination of NaCl will always get you table salt, no matter what.

    But why does matter behave that way? Why does it obey "laws"? Where did these laws come from?

    To the materialist, these laws just magically exist. At most they can say, "Matter just behaves that way because that's the nature of matter."

    They don't want to look at the design of natural law. Rather, it's easier to just assert natural law as the starting point since then you can ignore the fact that these natural laws are too complex to be anything but designed....

    ReplyDelete
  13. By the way, I note that you still haven't given the source for where you get IDers must oppose materialism.

    Don't let abundant evidence stand in the way of poor aquaintance with your claim.

    PS: Also see the wedge,
    Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daniel,

    That some IDers argue against materialism is not at issue. Instead, what is at issue is the idea that all IDers must be against materialism. ID can function perfectly well within a materialistic worldview too (e.g. An alien race designed the world; this alien race is completely materialistic, etc.).

    Now obviously I don't believe that materialism is correct, nor do I subscribe to those theories that try to conform everything to materialism. However, it is inaccurate to portray ID as if it must be anti-materialistic.

    As for the wedge argument, surely you're aware that there are many different ID arguments, and Johnson's wedge argument is only one of them.

    ReplyDelete