[Vision2020] Eugenie Scott's Talk at U of I

[John D]

Some comments on Michael's comments on Scott's talk:

http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2005-October/021042.html


> Laughing was not uncommon as she pointed out the
'stupid' work of Creation 
> Scientists, displaying a few random examples from a
few old books such as 
> Of Pandas & People and the work of Jonathon Wells.

'Of Pandas and People' is not just some 'old book'.
Scott presented this as a flagship book of the ID
movement, and one that is actively pushed:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/8442_1_introduction_iof_pandas__11_23_2004.asp

> I ran into one of these journal articles a few years
ago, and remember it 
> as a highly respectful criticism of Behe

A reference to this article would be nice. Also, a
respectful criticism can still respectfully disagree
with the work of Behe.

> the fully granted dominion of evolutionary biology
within the scientific
> establishment

There is no conspiracy!

> certainly, this is not a debate that can be won by
pointing out some bad 
> science found in a few Creation Science
publications,

Actually, that is exactly how this debate can be
settled. Creation science wants to play in the
scientific field, so it should be judged by scientific
standards.

> some of which were not even posing as 'scientific
publications.'

The ID strategy clearly involves trying to pose as
science.

> Running throughout her presentation were claims
regarding the "incoherence,"
> "logical fallacies," and "false alternatives" of the
Creation Science and
> Intelligent Design movements (from here 'ID'). 
These were various, but they
> all had a common theme.  Roughly, ID proposes
Darwinsim or Tradition,
> Evolution or Creation, Atheism or Scientific
Explanation of origins, etc.

The false alternative Scott presented was that ID
supporters claim that there are only two possible
explanations on the origins of modern life: evolution
or creation. So, according to ID supporters, if you
can show that our current understanding of evolution
fails, creationism has been proven. Scott then argued
that this is flawed reasoning. If our current
understanding of evolution is shown to be false, there
are many possible alternative explanations, such as
self organized systems, alien inoculation
(panspermia), and the many many different variations
of creationism.

> All this was just asserted.  In fact, the closest
Scott came to providing
> good evidence here was her explanation of Phil
Johnson's Wedge method, 
> which explicitly claims that we are conceptually
left with only two real 
> options: atheism or evolution.  

Yes, and that is good enough. She explains the
strategy of ID by explaining the wedge strategy.
What's your point?

> With the little bit of exposure I've had to
Johnson's work (he visited the
> U of I last year) it was clear to me that Johnson
labors by arguing for 
> just this point.  

Huh? Johnson is indeed arguing for the wedge strategy.
Scott says he is. You say he is. What's the problem?

> But in any case, Scott goes on and concludes with an
analysis explaining 
> why ID gets the categories confused: what ID and
associates fail to 
> recognize is the distinction between Methodological
Materialism and 
> Philosophical Materialism.  Science is all about
Methodological 
> Materialism and not about Philosophical Materialism
at all.  

This is not what Scott said. As I've said above, she
mentioned that according to ID there are only two
explanations for the origins of modern life: evolution
and creationism. She argues there are many many more
possible explanations. So, demonstrating evolution is
false does not demonstrate creationism is true.
ID supporters pretend evolution is the only
explanation for the origins of modern life in the
natural realm. They then try to attack and disprove
evolution to prove a supernatural origin of life. This
is a flawed strategy, because there can be many more
natural explanations other than evolution. Lamarckism,
for example, was one such alternative explanation.
This idea has been proven wrong, but it was not a
supernatural one.

> Methodological Materialism is simply the practice of
searching for nothing 
> but material explanations: matter, energy, etc.  

This seems like a definition of philosophical
materialism rather than of methodological materialism
to me.

> Methodological Materialism does not say anything at
all about what
> else there is in the world, and therefore theists
have no reason to
> associate atheism with evolutionary biology or pit
theism against
> evolutionary science.  Philosophical Materialism, on
the other hand, makes
> the larger claims that theists must deal with.  But
Philosophical
> Materialism is not what you find in the science room
and so the case is
> closed. Scott washes her hands clean. 

Indeed. Scott argued that science operates in the
natural world, so it can't answer questions on the
supernatural.

> After all, it is a bit strange to refer to basic
scientific method as any
> sort of "materialism" at all.

That doesn't seem strange to me. Why does it seem
strange to you?

> But then Scott went on and took all the mystery out
of my ponderings.  In 
> criticizing Demski's Design Inference proposal,
which asserts there are 
> algorithmic ways to observationally discern whether
a natural phenomenon has 
> originated by intelligent design or chance, Scott
made the argument that even 
> human intelligent design must be considered part of
the natural system in which 
> science studies.  In other words, people are
"material agents" and hence 
> entirely "natural."  Demski is therefore making a
category mistake which is 
> lethal to the success of his algorithm.  

And that seems correct. Human actions can be studied
using the scientific method, without a need to invoke
the supernatural. Human actions are routinely studied
scientifically in Sociology and Economics for example.

> And hello, we have a problem here.  This mere
assertion of Scott just is the
> thesis of Philosophical Materialism.  

That is incorrect. As I remember, Scott did not say
the only things science can study are matter and
energy. Human actions, behaviors and desires can also
be studied scientifically, without a need for the
paranormal.

> And if there are any doubts in your mind about this,
let me tell you what 
> happened after.  In the brief question and answer
period that followed, one 
> gentleman posed a question regarding the mystery of
how human psychology and 
> the physical body inter-relate-no doubt a question
generated by the 
> Philosophical Materialist thesis asserted by Scott. 
Scott's response was 
> quick, resolved, and emphatic: There is nothing
mystical or mysterious about 
> the mind.  Period.  Scott admitted that some people
like to say that the mind 
> is mysterious, but this is not true. The Mind can be
studied entirely within 
> the methodology of science.

Indeed. And there is nothing wrong with this
statement. The human mind is routinely studied
scientifically, without a need for the paranormal.

> And so now dear reader, you now have a wonderful
introduction to what 
> Philosophical Materialism is.  Scott has defined it,
exhibited, and illustrated 
> it for us perfectly. In fact, she has thrown in a
couple more 'isms' for free: 
> scientism and reductionism of the most imperial
sort.   Not only do we see the 
> primary distinction that makes the rest of her
arguments throughout the talk 
> fall to the ground

The distinction between scientific and philosophical
materialism was NOT the 'primary distinction' on which
her entire presentation was based. Even so, why would
you think what you say makes her arguments 'fall to
the ground'? She explained the wedge strategy and
demonstrated how it was flawed. She demonstrated
scientific mistakes in creationist claims. She
explained science operates in the natural world and
can't make claims about the supernatural.

>  Nothing to do with the battle against ID in the
science classroom?

There is no conspiracy!


	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com