Nobel Laureate: “Intelligent Design” is An Attack on All of Science

| 235 Comments | 2 TrackBacks

Herbert Kroemer, the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2000, was quite moved when he read physicist Marshall Berman’s essay “Intelligent Design: The New Creationism Threatens All of Science and Society” on the Back Page of the American Physical Society’s October 2005 issue of APS News.

He was so moved, he decided to “get engaged” with the issue, and sent a Letter to the Editor of the local Santa Barbara newspaper. This letter was printed, not as a simple Letter to the Editor, but rather as a Sunday guest commentary, in January 2006.

Dr. Kroemer has given his permission to have his complete article, not just the edited version printed in the Santa Barbara News-Press, reproduced here on the Thumb for posterity.

“Intelligent Design”: An Attack on All of Science by Professor Herbert Kroemer (UCSB)

The Theory of Intelligent Design, and other attacks on the science of biological evolution, are not merely attacks on the concept of evolution, but attacks on science itself — all of science. They are not the healthy clarifying debates within the scientific community by which science arrives at its understanding, where different scientists may initially interpret the evolving evidence differently, until new evidence settles the issue. They are religiously motivated attacks by outside groups who are simply in denial of the evidence, because it conflicts with their literal acceptance of biblical traditions that reflect the attempts of a great ancient civilization trying to understand the world in pre-scientific terms in the language of several thousand years ago.

Biological evolution is not the only concept in conflict with such a literal interpretation of the bible; other areas of science, like geophysics and astrophysics, come right behind. Indeed, many of the attackers of biological evolution attack those scientific disciplines as well. But these disciplines do not exist in isolation; they are areas where the recognized laws of physics are rigorously applied to the specific problems of the field. To attack them is an attack on physics itself, and with it an attack on the Galilean idea that the laws of science must be based on actual observation of the facts rather than on scriptural traditions: We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.

Attacks on science are of concern not just to scientists; they threaten the continued prosperity and security of our entire nation in a world where we increasingly have to compete with other nations that have developed strong science-based technologies in areas that were once unchallenged domains of the United States. If we wish to continue to prosper in this environment we need, first and foremost, a work force that is highly educated in science, and capable of mastering advancing technologies based on continuing advances in science. The United States public education system below the university level has never put a sufficiently high value on science to permit filling this need with US-born individuals alone, but we were always able to fill the shortfall with immigrants. Attacks on science, if not rejected by the American public, will further reduce the already-too-low percentage of US citizens who opt for a science-oriented education, and at the same time they will reduce the attractiveness to foreign citizens of coming to the United States for an education or a career in science and in technologies based on continuing advances in science.

—————————————————- Comments are invited, provided they are relevant. My advice to ID proponents: don’t mess with Kroemer. He’s got his very own asteroid.

2 TrackBacks

If there’s a Nobel Prize for alarmist nincompoopery physicist Herbert Kroemer deserves it. Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re trumpeting this article with its extraordinarily hyperbolic opening claim by Kroemer The Theory of Intelligent ... Read More

What a surprise. Not. ... Read More

235 Comments

That’s it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view. It could had been drawn from any of a hundred posts or a thousand comments on PT. I would expect more from a Nobel Laureate than just parroting tiresome arguments. It’s almost an embarrassment. When I read something from a Nobel Laureate, I’m looking for substance, regardless of whether or not I agree. This mush reads as if it were generated from an anti-ID Perl script crawling through dusty PT archives.

Dr. Kroemer, it would appear, is just another Dr. Chicken Little.

He’s also wrong, but that’s beside the point.

C’mon–even though most of you agree with him, did you actually learn anything from his article? PZ is much more interesting.

That’s it? How awful. This article offers no original insight, thought, or point of view.

Just like ID, huh.

What does ID offer that wasn’t heard forty years ago from YEC nutballs?

It should be pointed out, though, that Kroemer is wrong; ID isn’t simply an attack on “science” – that is just a means to a much larger end. ID is a theocratic political movement, with theocratic political goals. It has almost nothing to do with “science”.

While agree entirely with Kroemer, this was a pretty lame essay.

I wish i still got APS news, but it’s just not worth it for me. But they do have a good article like this every other issue.

FastEddie (and others in their own way) wrote:

While agree entirely with Kroemer, this was a pretty lame essay.

Give the guy a break. Now you know why professional writers write and scientists – ah, er – science. Two very different skills.

If the essay helps rally scientists to participate in policy discussions, it’s a good thing.

scientists have to be invited to participate in policy discussion.

under the current administration, we have not only seen scientists not invited, but actively discouraged from participating.

remember the NASA brouhaha?

same thing in Australia:

http://www.physorg.com/news10801.html

only one way to solve that; make sure the folks you vote for actually care about science to begin with.

Dr. Kromer’s article was written as an editorial for a NEWSPAPER! Not a scientific journal. Yes, it was mundane and repetitive to those who are involved on both sides. However, his name and reputation speaking to average citizens as well as scientists and id proponents was important. I think it was a good and positive attempt to explain the real situation.

It was a letter to the editor - not an essay, David. You know - 200 words max.

Dr. Kroemer Wrote:

We are literally back to the spirit of the early-17th century attacks on Galileo.

I agree. Except the roles have been reversed. Now the high priests of science refuse to have their dogma questioned, and if any professional scientist dares to do so, he/she will be burned at the stake.

“attacks on science itself — all of science”

http://tinyurl.com/8d3vw http://tinyurl.com/ccjzq http://tinyurl.com/8tn7k

Blast Wrote:

I agree. Except the roles have been reversed. Now the high priests of science refuse to have their dogma questioned, and if any professional scientist dares to do so, he/she will be burned at the stake.

Beautify rethoric but somewhat at odds with reality. Btw ID does not question ‘dogma’, it embraces ignorance. Any particular examples you want to ‘discuss’? Sternberg perhaps… or other ‘martyrs of the cause’. Anyone familiar with science should be well aware that questioning science is what science is all about.

PvM Wrote:

Anyone familiar with science should be well aware that questioning science is what science is all about.

I think this is an important point: with a vanishingly small number of exceptions the folks pushing ID are not working scientists. They are, at best, theistic apologists who have acquired the vocabulary of science in order to make theological points. They are completely unfamiliar with how scientists actually treat each other (I just had prelims, and frankly, I’d rather argue with the entirety of the Discovery Institute).

If ID contained any actual substance, scientists in pursuit of fame, glory, and the next Nobel Prize would be all over it. The fact that anyone doing actual research ignores it completely is quite telling.

Blastfromthepast wrote: “I agree. Except the roles have been reversed. Now the high priests of science refuse to have their dogma questioned, and if any professional scientist dares to do so, he/she will be burned at the stake.”

Actually, dogma is a very useful thing in science. Ultimately Popper and Kuhn arrived pretty much at the same place about scientific dogma. The idea is that a highly corroborated (by evidence) theory should always be defended somewhat dogmatically until a sufficient quantity of observations conflict with the theory’s predictions.

And even at that point, the old theory continues to be the one of choice until a better one comes along that has enough predictive power to assume the role of the old theory and explain the outlying contradictory results.

As such, the scientific community is being perfectly consistent with their support of ToE as they are with all other foundational theories. They are acting no differently to challenges to evolution as they did with challenges to classical physics, for example. Only when the theory of relativity demonstrated superior predictive power over Newtonian Mechanics did it become the theory of choice for the laws of motion.

The problem with ID is that it has no predictive powers, so it disqualifies itself as a scientific theory. As such, it is not any more powerful than the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. (If you disagree with me, kindly supply an example of ID’s predictive power.) So scientists dogmatically defend evolution from ID in the same way they would defend it from Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.

It has been said by ID proponents that ID is a very new theory that has not yet been fully developed so my characterization would be considered by them to be unfair. I say that is baloney, because the Argument for Design is just as old as the notion of Natural Selection. It has had 150 years to develop predictive power and so far it has developed exactly none.

Scientific theories are judged by their predictive powers. The one with the most predictive power wins. Scientists are correct to defend the winners as dogma, until a stronger contender arrives.

In the case of TOE vs ID, it is not the scientists that are behaving differently, its the challengers who are. They have replaced 300 years of scientific method with institutionalized whining.

So in that light, the Nobel Laureate is absolutely correct. And the reviewers here are also correct when they say that he didn’t go far enough. This is not a scientific battle, its a cultural one. And the battle plans can be found in the Wedge document.

It could had been drawn from any of a hundred posts or a thousand comments on PT.

A veritable commendation for the PT community.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 9, column 279, byte 659 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

This editor sucks. Who’s the clown responsible for choosing something that dumps a comment into the bit bucket for a markup error?

As I was saying…

“supply an example of ID’s predictive power”

Sure.

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you’ll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

Now be kind enough to tell me what neoDarwinian theory predicts will happen. How many generations should it take before bacteria evolves into a eukaryote?

I’ll understand if you can’t give me an answer because, as anyone with a pulse knows, neoDarwinian theory is as useless as teats on a tomcat when it comes to prediction of the things it claims to explain.

David Heddle, there is little doubt, when you win the Nobel prize, you’ll write a better essay (or rather a letter to a newspaper). Until then you are entitled to post here your usual piffle, utilizing PT team’s tolerance.

I’ll understand if you can’t give me an answer because, as anyone with a pulse knows, neoDarwinian theory is as useless as teats on a tomcat when it comes to prediction of the things it claims to explain.

This is, of course, dead wrong.

Anybody who’s aware of the research knows precisely what the predictions neoDarwinism makes.

Anyone who’s been READING the website knows the predictions.

This lets out creationists, however, because no matter what predictions are cited, they’ll keep ignoring it and go on with their same broken record.

How many generations should it take before bacteria evolves into a eukaryote?

how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?

it’s about as useful a question as the one you posed.

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you’ll never get one with a nucleus.

Why? Based on what foundation does ID make such a prediction? There is no scientific foundation for this statement relevant to ID.

You may as well have stated that ID predicts that no pink fairies will be found.

…

I’m not even sure that’s worth a coherent response. You know what? No, it’s really not.

Try taking a basic biology class, whoever. Your staggeringly inane and immature view of “evolution” (I think that’s what you are hoping to represent?) did make me laugh though, so kudos for that.

Posted by whoever Wrote:

ID predicts that no matter how many generations of bacteria you culture you’ll never get one with a nucleus. They will remain bacteria forever. Testing has been underway for quite some time now with no bacteria observed acquiring a nucleus.

Oops! Haven’t kept up with the evolution of ID, have you? Some IDers like common descent now. That means they agree that prokaryotes gave rise to eukaryotes. They just think Go–*cough*–the Designer helped out a bit. How do you know It won’t do the same in your culture?

So much for the predictive power of neoDarwinian theory.

ID predicted you’d have no predictions when it comes to the major stepping stones in the evolution of life.

ROFLMAO! This is like shooting fish in barrel.

By the way, how many generations does neoDarwinian theory predict it will take fish in a barrel to grow lungs and legs and leave the barrel?

Or how many generations should it take a reptile to evolve warm blood and feathers?

Surely there’s SOME predictive power in neoDarwinian theory here somewhere, right? It can’t possibly be as wanting for predictive power as I’m saying is it?

C’mon girls, speak right up!

Having followed this assault upon science and the freedom of religion as approved by the founders of this nation, I am pleased that those who, until now, have quietly upheld the ideals of the Enlightenment have finally begun to speak in its defense. The overly simplistic and ultimatly blastphemeous version of so-called Christianity preached by the enemies of science is equivalent to the overly simplistic and ultimately blastphemous version of so-called Islam that kills children. Science has saved billions of people from death (see Norman Blalock for one example). Having the gall of speak-for-God fanaticism has failed to exterminate the human race as rapidly as science has saved their lives.

“Thou shalt not lie” is a commandment. Why do the ID/Creationist people consistently lie about their credentials, about obviously forged evidence (Paluxy River Tracts, etc.), about their true intentions? I guess if they consider the commandment against lying negotiable then their self-proclaimed version of Christianity must be the work of false prophets.

Referring to ‘whoever’:

The clear prediction for your so called problems is that none of the events you list will happen. Your so called test is not how speciation happens. Branches on a tree, not tributaries on a river.

Go Away You Stupid Troll!

Sure Mate, I have no problem with descent with modification from one or more common ancestors.

A fertilized human egg cell diversifies through descent with modification into hundreds of specialized cell types, tissue types, and organs in with trillions of individual members in a highly organized interdependent array.

If one cell can be pre-programmed do all that in 9-months I’m sure a cell can be pre-programmed to evolve from a single cell into all the different forms of life we see today over a course of billions of years.

But it didn’t happen by serendipitous accidental mutations. That’s patently absurd. Nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of phylogenesis, like ontogenesis, being a front-loaded, self-limiting, self-terminating planned process where the environment plays little if any role outside of providing triggers to proceed to the next stage of diversification. Once you girls get that through your thick skulls everything in evolution will fall neatly into place and I will no longer be able to make fools of you by asking for predictions of how long it takes for random mutation and natural selection to do things it’s never been observed doing and never will be observed doing because of the simple fact that it never was and never will have the capacity to accomplish these things.

Write that down.

whoever Wrote:

Sure Mate, I have no problem with descent with modification from one or more common ancestors.

A fertilized human egg cell diversifies through descent with modification into hundreds of specialized cell types, tissue types, and organs in with trillions of individual members in a highly organized interdependent array.

If one cell can be pre-programmed do all that in 9-months I’m sure a cell can be pre-programmed to evolve from a single cell into all the different forms of life we see today over a course of billions of years.

Great! So you didn’t actually mean any of that stuff you said about ID predicting bacteria won’t develop nuclei. What with that being completely contradictory to what you just said and all.

Stephen Elliott –

Unfortunately I don’t have a url regarding JPL’s use of the General Theory of Relativity. You could try web trawling on the recently returned cargo of space dust – the mission’s name escapes me. This mission poked around an unstable Lagrange point for many years. It is one of the missions in which general relativity was used.

The article I read in a book, a proceedings of a conference on chaos theory and the like, made it quite clear that general relativity was required for so sensitive a flight path.

Another article described a proposed mission to the sun (not the ulysses mission) in order to check general relativity. The reason given by the author was that NASA (meaning JPL) uses general relativity for mission flight planning.

GPS definitely uses relativity in order to remain accurate in timing and in space. There is no way that accurate space-time coordinates could be maintained without taking into account the relativistic effects of velocity and of gravity on the GPS satellites and their clocks, which are used to fix the coordinates of the receivers on the ground.

And no, I don’t have references for this. Anybody can look it up on a search engine, plus it should be obvious that any really accurate space-time measurements, which are unavoidably necessary in GPS technology, require the use of relativity theory.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

David Heddle Wrote:

A parent, you see, cannot affect a child’s salvation.

But that’s Calvinism. I assure you that other sects of Christianity strongly disagree, leading to people opposing evolution education with such brilliance as “I don’t want my child being taught anything that might keep him/her from getting into heaven”.

David B. Benson Wrote:

Unfortunately I don’t have a url regarding JPL’s use of the General Theory of Relativity. You could try web trawling on the recently returned cargo of space dust — the mission’s name escapes me. This mission poked around an unstable Lagrange point for many years. It is one of the missions in which general relativity was used.

You are referring to the Genesis mission. GR was not used for the orbit, rather advanced celestial mechanics of a kind never used before. Previous missions have always been simple two-body problem orbit calculations: conic to conic with fuel corrections here and there. Genesis was the first to use three-body mechanics to find and exploit a no delta-V trajectory. No fuel corrections whatsoever!

Another article described a proposed mission to the sun (not the ulysses mission) in order to check general relativity. The reason given by the author was that NASA (meaning JPL) uses general relativity for mission flight planning.

I believe you are describing SOHO. GR is not part of its mission or its flight planning, although again, three-body mechanics is to be exploited.

Posted by Glen Davidson on February 15, 2006 05:10 PM (e)

GPS definitely uses relativity in order to remain accurate in timing and in space. There is no way that accurate space-time coordinates could be maintained without taking into account the relativistic effects of velocity and of gravity on the GPS satellites and their clocks, which are used to fix the coordinates of the receivers on the ground.

And no, I don’t have references for this. Anybody can look it up on a search engine, plus it should be obvious that any really accurate space-time measurements, which are unavoidably necessary in GPS technology, require the use of relativity theory.

Glen D

Now that one I do know.

If GPS did not take into account the effects of relativity, then it would have your position wrong by a significant amount.

I was not doubting relativity to be more accurate. I just thought it was too difficult to use in rocket flight, for a very small difference in trajectory.

The reason I asked for a link was so I could be certain I was reading the same article.

AC Wrote:
David Heddle Wrote:

A parent, you see, cannot affect a child’s salvation.

But that’s Calvinism.

Yeah dude. Did you miss that discussion over at AtBC? Heddle is “totally depraved” and “predestined”.

“Isn’t lying considered to be non-Christian?”

According to some Christian sects, lying is a sin, but because they are saved by faith and not by works, Christians who have Faith are forgiven their sins. Even if they knowingly and continually repeat them. This is one of the reasons you will often find very Faithful Christians whose behavior is unashamedly unethical.

Now that one I do know.

If GPS did not take into account the effects of relativity, then it would have your position wrong by a significant amount.

I was not doubting relativity to be more accurate. I just thought it was too difficult to use in rocket flight, for a very small difference in trajectory.

The reason I asked for a link was so I could be certain I was reading the same article.

Ah, sorry for pointing out the already known.

The only thing I can think to add is that, for instance, when a probe like Cassini is sling-shotted (is that a word?) past Jupiter it seems to me that every little effect of gravitational and translational relativity would need to be accounted for as much as possible in order not to have to make any large corrections in the flight path after the encounter with Jupiter.

It has been my understanding in the past that relativity is generally used in space missions, if only to keep the timing of the mission right in simple trajectories (let’s say that the mission takes off from earth and goes directly to an asteroid). Newtonian physics would probably work okay in the more simple missions, it’s just that the timing would drift noticeably, though not disastrously (IMO). I would guess that moon shots could work fairly well without using relativity’s calculations, though again the timing and efficiency would suffer somewhat.

Well, this isn’t all that helpful, I know. But I wouldn’t know how to access the particular article in question, I don’t know the physics well enough to fill in the technical details of what I have said, and I thought I’d just write what I think I know about it and leave it at that.

I hope that you get the reference(s) that you desire.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

Posted by shenda on February 15, 2006 05:41 PM (e)

“Isn’t lying considered to be non-Christian?”

According to some Christian sects, lying is a sin, but because they are saved by faith and not by works, Christians who have Faith are forgiven their sins. Even if they knowingly and continually repeat them. This is one of the reasons you will often find very Faithful Christians whose behavior is unashamedly unethical.

This is where I get a tad pigged off.

Jesus (and I know this means nothing to you) said honesty was what believers should do.

I am under the impression that knowingly lying is wrong. Following the evidence and not believing in God is more likely to be approved than deliberate lying.

“Jesus (and I know this means nothing to you) said honesty was what believers should do.”

How do you know that this means nothing to me? Do you know what my faith is or is not? Or are you jumping to conclusions without evidence?

Are you disputing my claim that *some* Christians sects believe as I stated? Or are you offended by *their* beliefs? Please clarify.

“Following the evidence and not believing in God is more likely to be approved than deliberate lying.”

Most Christians that I know would disagree with this statement. How many do you know that would?

But that’s Calvinism. I assure you that other sects of Christianity strongly disagree

Every once in a while, poor Davey seems to forget that he’s just a man, and seems to fall into the delusion that he speaks on behalf of God or something.

And when he does, I am always happy to remind him and everyone else) that Davey’s religious opinions are just that, his opinions. They are no more holy or divine or infallible or authoritative than anyone else’s religious opinions. No one is obligated in any way, shape, or form to follow his religious opinions, to accept them, or even to pay any attention at all to them.

Right, Davey?

Mr. Heddle, you have managed to steer yourself into a *most* unpleasant position–that of having to defend your sectarian beliefs.

But more to the point–shall we contact the people you’ve quote-mined and ask them what they think of the Ohio Lesson Plan, or the revised Kansas science standards? I’d be very interested in their responses.

Glen Davidson Wrote:

It has been my understanding in the past that relativity is generally used in space missions, if only to keep the timing of the mission right in simple trajectories (let’s say that the mission takes off from earth and goes directly to an asteroid). Newtonian physics would probably work okay in the more simple missions, it’s just that the timing would drift noticeably, though not disastrously (IMO). I would guess that moon shots could work fairly well without using relativity’s calculations, though again the timing and efficiency would suffer somewhat.

AFAIK the JPL’s ephemeris generator: JPL’s HORIZONS System does use GR. This is especially important in predicting the orbits \ trajectories of objects under the gravitational influence of large masses (The Sun and the gas giants) ie. Mercury or the New Horizons probe.

Grover Gardner,

Mr. Heddle, you have managed to steer yourself into a *most* unpleasant position—that of having to defend your sectarian beliefs.

That’s not unpleasant at all! I’d love doing it! Out of respect for the author of this thread I’ve refrained. However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense.

shall we contact the people you’ve quote-mined and ask them what they think of the Ohio Lesson Plan, or the revised Kansas science standards? I’d be very interested in their responses.

If you are interested, then why are you asking me? Go for it! Of course, it’s irrelevant—since they may be just like me: ID-friendly yet opposed to teaching ID and putting ID in the science curriculum.

Heddle wrote: it’s irrelevant—since they may be just like me: ID-friendly yet opposed to teaching ID and putting ID in the science curriculum.

Good to hear you are on our side to keep ID out of the schools and keep it out of science. I also recall you said in a previous thread that “ID is not science”. That’s all very good, and we all agree with you.

Now, I cannot understand why you are always arguing with all the people here that “should” agree with you. I find it strange. Should you not be arguing with Blast, Gop or Larry? Help them see the light, that ID is not science. Let the truth set them free!

Funny, I never saw you telling the UD crowd that ID is not science. Why say it here, we all know it already! As for your religious views, nobody here really gives a rats ass.

“However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense.”

Let’s hope he’ll take a pass on that.

“Of course, it’s irrelevant—since they may be just like me: ID-friendly yet opposed to teaching ID and putting ID in the science curriculum.”

Somehow I think they’d find more to object to than that.

From Uncommon Descent Pray tell, Herb. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of evolution over the course of some 3 billion years showed it was unplanned and unguided? I’m all ears, man. Speak right up.

Well Pray tell,Bill. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of creation over the last 6 thousand years showed it was planned and guided ?I’m all ears, man. Speak right up.

However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense.

Red Light please. This thread is about an assault upon science, not the merits of Calvinism or other sectarian worldviews.

Dave

After reading this thread, I’ve come upon something that I think is very valuable. Ironically, it came from a lecture I heard by Phillip Johnson at Cal-State Chico.

The issue is defining the argument. Johnson wanted to define it on his terms, which was an excellent point. The problem is that later on, he kept changing what his terms meant.

In court, you can pin down a witness on definitions, and then apply those definitions to their testimony. Equivocation is rarely an effective tool when a judge is presiding over a case. I think this is part of why the ID strategy fails so blatantly, and they are caught in a true catch-22 with it. Eliminate the equivocation, and suddenly the immense misrepresentation and vacuity of their claims is clear. Keep the equivocation, and while they can engender uneducated popular support, they get annihilated in court.

So maybe the first step of the counter-attack on the attack on science, as evidenced by the “unguided” discussion, would be to begin every discussion with the ID folks by making them agree to definitions of key terms beforehand, and when they equivocate, pinning them down on definitions again.

Thus, with many of their claims, the answer becomes simple: “That’s not what we are saying at all. You are objecting to something that does not exist.”

From Uncommon Descent trackback:

If there’s a Nobel Prize for alarmist nincompoopery

Well, if they do establish such a prize, they have to spend decades awarding it to all the rightwing doomsayers predicting the decline of Western civilization as an inevitable consequence of teaching kids about the obvious and irrefutable relationship between human beings and other primates.

On-topic for once: this article was lame because it did not touch on the real underlying motivation of the science-deniers: by undermining science and science-education, they are hoping to undermine everyone’s ability to think, reason, and process information for themselves, and to judge for themselves the accuracy and honesty of their leaders’ statements.

Science exposes error and BS and keeps people honest, from medicine to criminal justice; and that is why dishonest people of all stripes want to destroy it.

However, if he gives me the green light I would be most vigorous in my defense.

Gee, Davey, there’s no need for you to demonstrate that you are a self-righteous prideful arrogant prick who thinks (quite literally) that he is holier than everyone else.

We already knew that.

But I do thank you for making it so clear to everyone that (1) ID is religious apologetics, (2) IDers are just lying to us when they claim it’s not, and (3) Judge Jones was perfectly correct when he ruled it was.

Interesting. Check out the March issue of Discover, the article on Mimivirus. It speculates that an ancestor of the Mimivirus may have undergone endosymbiosis with an ancient prokaryote and formed what became the eukaryotic nucleus. For those that don’t know, Mimivirus is a virus so large it is bigger than some bacteria - and contains more genetic material than some bacteria. Even if it wasn’t endosymbiosis, the possibility sparks some other ideas, such as an insertion event. Wonder where science, real science, will take us…

I just saw Kroemer’s piece entitled “Intelligent Design”: An Attack on All of Science.

You know – I’m starting to think that Prof. John Lynch (ASU) may be right. Prof. Lynch frequently attacks the credentials of a writer before, or instead of, dealing with the writer’s argument’s merits. Well, I examined the background info on Prof. Kroemer and found no mention of his advanced study in the same disciplines as Prof. William Dembski. Thus, using Prof. Lynch’s words, “I don’t care” what Prof. Kroemer thinks about ID, because in Lynch’s logic, Prof. Kroemer has no standing to critique ID.

In addition, I found no mention of Prof. Kroemer’s advanced study of the methods of verbal logic or argumentation. (I do have an advanced degree in this area). So, Prof. Kroemer’s background in electrical engineering, and his lack of training in argumentation, are two Lynch-strikes against him.

Mr. Doering, on this blog, wrote in “defense” of Prof. Kroemer:

“Give the guy a break. Now you know why professional writers write and scientists — ah, er — science. Two very different skills.”

Using Prof. Lynch’s logic, then Prof. Kroemer should have kept to his EE areas of excellence, and avoided tarnishing his Nobel Prizewinner status with this public display of arrogant incompetence.

Finally, if you do understand reasoning, you see that Prof. Kroemer’s piece is terribly non-substantive (as Mr. Heddle observed here). No arguments are presented, only a call, in so many words, to “stop these ID people before again think for themselves! Don’t let the kids anywhere near them, their ideas are poisonous.”

Click on: http://nobelprize.org/physics/laure[…]autobio.html

and

http://almaz.com/nobel/physics/2000b.html

to learn more about Prof. Kroemer. He’s a great scientist in his field. His argument against ID, is worthless on its merits.

His argument against ID, is worthless on its merits.

Says you. (shrug)

By the way, what, again, is the scientific theory of ID . …? I am, ya know, just asking . … .

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Dave Thomas published on February 13, 2006 8:20 PM.

Interview with an Evolutionary Biologist was the previous entry in this blog.

Flock of Dodos is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter