I was reading the book reviews section of yesterday's The Weekend Australian, Australia's only national newspaper, when I came to a review by a Chris Turney, "a British Geologist currently based at the University of Wollongong, Australia," of a book by science journalist Nicholas Wade on how the human genome data can help in understanding our origins.
[Graphic: The Australian]
I read the review with interest, especially when I reached this point, where Turney `informs' the reader that the book's "publication is particularly timely considering the noise being made by supporters of intelligent design," but "No doubt intelligent design proponents will ignore the information in this book" and "the sheer scope of evidence collected by Wade demonstrates yet again how fundamentally flawed their arguments are":
The story in us all: The human genome is helping us understand our origins, Chris Turney, The Australian ... Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors, By Nicholas Wade, Penguin ... Its publication is particularly timely considering the noise being made by supporters of intelligent design. Wade shows how we simply can't explain the rich cultural and biological world we see without invoking natural selection to drive evolution. No doubt intelligent design proponents will ignore the information in this book, but the sheer scope of evidence collected by Wade demonstrates yet again how fundamentally flawed their arguments are. Wade convincingly shows that understanding the human genome is critical if we are to fully understand where we have come from and where we are going. Overall, his book is an excellent introduction to a rapidly advancing field of science, presenting an easily accessible and enthusiastic account of what we know from the dawn of humankind. ...
As a long- standing member of the ID movement, who (like leading ID theorist Michael Behe) accepts universal common ancestry, I therefore regard this as yet another example of a straw man attack on ID, setting up a "misrepresentation of an opponent's position ... that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.":
"A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To `set up a straw man' or `set up a straw-man argument' is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted." ("Straw man," Wikipedia, 2006)
As the above quote says, "A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted." However, I expect that such straw man attacks on ID will in the long run backfire on the critics as the public increasingly discover that they have been misled.
The straw man in question is when a critic claims that ID is opposed to something (e.g. universal common ancestry) and then criticises it for that alleged opposition. Apart from anything else, it is sloppy scholarship to make scientific claims about something without backing it up with references from the relevant primary source literature (in this case scholarly ID books and articles, not secondhand, hearsay criticisms of ID by its opponents).
The fact is that ID itself has no position, for or against, common ancestry, as these quotes from leading ID theorists Bill Dembski, who notes that "intelligent design is compatible with ... the most far-ranging evolution ... seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life":
"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation." (Dembski, W.A., "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110)
and Mike Behe, who stated that, "I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it":
"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe, M.J., "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6)
and who moreover recently testified under oath in the Dover trial that "intelligent design does not take a position on common descent," i.e. "The theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth":
"BY MR. ROTHSCHILD: Q Professor Behe ... If we could go to page 11 of your report and highlight the underscored text. You say, `Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.' Correct? A That is correct, yes. Q That's consistent with your testimony today. A Yes, it is. Q Now, the claim that -- if we could go back to Ernst Mayr's list and highlight - - just focus on the common descent. You claim that intelligent design does not take a position on common descent, which is defined here as, `The theory that every group of organisms descended from a common ancestor and that all groups of organisms, including animals, plants, and microorganisms, ultimately go back to a single origin of life on earth.' Correct? ... A Yes, this is Ernst Mayr's definition of common descent, may I add. Q And you're saying intelligent design doesn't make a claim about that proposition. A That's correct." (Behe, M.J., "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District," Trial transcript: Day 11, October 18, PM Session, Part 2)
I am cc'ing this post to Turney to give him the opportunity to respond, supporting his claims (preferably from the ID primary source literature) that: (1) "Its [Wade's book] publication is particularly timely considering the noise being made by supporters of intelligent design" (i.e. "noise" that is relevant to the book); 2) "No doubt intelligent design proponents will ignore the information in this book" (they indeed might because it is not relevant to ID); and 3) "the sheer scope of evidence collected by Wade demonstrates yet again how fundamentally flawed their arguments are" (which arguments? what evidence? how exactly?).
Quite frankly, in view of another anti-ID article by Turney, which falsely claims another common anti-ID straw man, that "intelligent design" is an "offshoot" of "creationism, the literal reading of Genesis that God created the Earth just 6,000 years ago," I would be surprised if Turney responds (the usual anti-IDist tactic being to snipe away with straw men from a `scientific' coward's castle). But if he does, as is my usual practice, I reserve the right to post his response, with my comments, here to my blog CreationEvolutionDesign.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
`Evolution Quotes Book
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment