Misplaced Pages

Uncommon Dissent: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:27, 17 February 2007 editCoppertwig (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,252 edits reverting. You must provide an explanation when reverting. You must discuss on the talk page before making these changes.← Previous edit Revision as of 17:15, 17 February 2007 edit undoFeloniousMonk (talk | contribs)18,409 edits →Controversy: copyedit for accuracy, remove ID proponent's "Darwinism" straw man rhetoric, remove poisoning of the well over blog, tighten up Dover testimony, attribute views to scientific communiNext edit →
Line 32: Line 32:


Contributor Edward Sisson sees the key question in the debate over biological evolution as whether ''all'' life is "the result of chance events occurring in ] (or perhaps elsewhere) that are then 'selected' in some fashion without the need of any guiding intelligence", thereby undergoing "unintelligent evolution", or whether at least ''some'' of the diversity of life on earth can be explained ''only'' through "intelligent evolution", in which "an intelligent designer (or designers)" causes preexisting species to undergo designed changes in DNA. His view is that "no data has been found that amounts to real evidence for unintelligent evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life", that "science is ignorant of how the diversity of life came to be", and that "an intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life as we see it".<ref>Sisson, ''Uncommon Dissent'', pp. 75–76, 84.</ref> Contributor Edward Sisson sees the key question in the debate over biological evolution as whether ''all'' life is "the result of chance events occurring in ] (or perhaps elsewhere) that are then 'selected' in some fashion without the need of any guiding intelligence", thereby undergoing "unintelligent evolution", or whether at least ''some'' of the diversity of life on earth can be explained ''only'' through "intelligent evolution", in which "an intelligent designer (or designers)" causes preexisting species to undergo designed changes in DNA. His view is that "no data has been found that amounts to real evidence for unintelligent evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life", that "science is ignorant of how the diversity of life came to be", and that "an intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life as we see it".<ref>Sisson, ''Uncommon Dissent'', pp. 75–76, 84.</ref>

==Controversy==

⚫ "Darwinism" is a term for the underlying theory in those ideas of ] concerning ] and ], and can refer to evolution by natural selection, to evolution more broadly, or to other ideas not directly associated with the work of Darwin. Evolution has broad acceptance within the ],<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers </ref><ref> Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the ], the world's largest general scientific society: (PDF file), </ref> and that community rejects intelligent design,<ref>"Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution." ]</ref> with critics saying that design proponents seek to destroy evolution and that they employ intentional ambiguity in using "Darwinism" synonymously with evolution without knowing much about ].<ref name="Forrest">"As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in William A. Dembski. May 14 2005</ref><ref name="Gross">"In latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." Paul Gross. Commentary Magazine, Vol. 115, March 2003, No. 3</ref>


The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity".<ref>Dembski, ''Uncommon Dissent'', p. xx.''</ref> The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity".<ref>Dembski, ''Uncommon Dissent'', p. xx.''</ref>
Line 43: Line 39:
Robert C. Koons acknowledges in ''Uncommon Dissent'' that "if evolution is defined broadly enough, there's little doubt that it has occurred." He sees the "defining differential element" of the ] as the view that "the probability of the occurrence of any ] is unrelated to its prospective contribution to the functionality of any structure, present or future", and argues that "the natural presumption about the cause of life" lies against this view, and instead with a teleological "intelligent agency position".<ref>Koons, ''Uncommon Dissent'', pp. 4, 17.</ref> Robert C. Koons acknowledges in ''Uncommon Dissent'' that "if evolution is defined broadly enough, there's little doubt that it has occurred." He sees the "defining differential element" of the ] as the view that "the probability of the occurrence of any ] is unrelated to its prospective contribution to the functionality of any structure, present or future", and argues that "the natural presumption about the cause of life" lies against this view, and instead with a teleological "intelligent agency position".<ref>Koons, ''Uncommon Dissent'', pp. 4, 17.</ref>


==Reception by the scientific community==
⚫ Evolutionary researcher and historical researcher John M. Lynch, an Honors Faculty Fellow and Senior Lecturer at ]'s Barrett Honors College, says of ''Uncommon Dissent'' in a 2004 review on his blog that "It's indicative of something that the initial best case for the failure of Darwinism is given by a philosopher (Koons) with no apparent background in biology and the last word is given to an eight year old piece by a popularizer of mathematics, novellist, and 'accomplished poet'. In between we get a poor sandwich - all filling and no substance."<ref> John M. Lynch. Stranger Fruit, August 4 2004.</ref>
⚫ Evolution has broad acceptance within the ],<ref>National Association of Biology Teachers </ref><ref> Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the ] ] (PDF file)</ref><ref>From the ], the world's largest general scientific society: (PDF file), </ref> and that community rejects intelligent design,<ref>"Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution." ]</ref> with critics saying that design proponents seek to destroy evolution and that they employ intentional ambiguity in using "Darwinism" synonymously with evolution without knowing much about ].<ref name="Forrest">"As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in William A. Dembski. May 14 2005</ref><ref name="Gross">"In latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." Paul Gross. Commentary Magazine, Vol. 115, March 2003, No. 3</ref>

Evolutionary and historical researcher John M. Lynch describes ''Uncommon Dissent'':
{{quotation|"a collection of (largely) non-scientists bemoaning evolution and it’s percieved moral effects while rehashing arguments lifted from older anti-evolutionary sources. The tone is the usual paranoid delusion that American creationism seems to specialize in; Darwinism is an 'ideology' which exhibits 'overweening ambition', it’s a theory that is held 'dogmatically and even ruthlessly' by the 'Darwinian thought police' who are 'as insidious as any secret police at ensuring conformity and rooting out dissent'." --''John M. Lynch''<ref name="jml"> John M. Lynch. Stranger Fruit, August 4 2004.</ref>}}
⚫ Of the fifteen intellectuals in the book he says: {{quotation|"It's indicative of something that the initial best case for the failure of Darwinism is given by a philosopher (Koons) with no apparent background in biology and the last word is given to an eight year old piece by a popularizer of mathematics, novelist, and 'accomplished poet'. In between we get a poor sandwich - all filling and no substance." --''John M. Lynch''<ref name="jml"/>}}


In her expert witness report for the 2005 ] trial, philosophy professor and intelligent-design critic ] cited ]'s writings in ''Uncommon Dissent'' as evidence of the religious nature of intelligent design.<ref> Barbara Forrest, April 1, 2005, page 28.</ref> The testimony of ] in the 2005 ] trial contributed to the ruling that intelligent design is not science and essentially religious in nature.<ref>], ], Case No. 04cv2688. ] ] </ref> In her expert witness report Forrest presented ]'s section in ''Uncommon Dissent'' as evidence of that religious nature.<ref> Barbara Forrest, April 1, 2005, page 28.</ref> Forrest and ] and other notable critics say design proponents employ intentional ambiguity and ] when they use the term "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of ].<ref name="Forrest"/><ref>"In his latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." ]. Commentary Magazine, Vol. 115, March 2003, No. 3</ref>


== References == == References ==

Revision as of 17:15, 17 February 2007

Template:Totallydisputed

Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing is a 2004 anthology edited by William Dembski in which fifteen intellectuals, among them leading intelligent design proponents and of whom eleven are fellows or advisors of either the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design or the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), considered the hub of the intelligent design movement, criticise "Darwinism". It is published by the publishing wing of the paleoconservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The foreword is by John Wilson, editor of the evangelical Christian magazine Christianity Today. The title is a pun on the principle of biology known as common descent.

Contributors

The fifteen "dissenting intellectuals" are:

In a 2004 review on its Web site, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture describes Uncommon Dissent as "a summary of the widespread attack upon Darwinism by some of today’s leading intellectuals." Mathematics professor and intelligent-design critic Jason Rosenhouse points out in a 2004 post to his blog that the subtitle says "intellectuals", not "scientists", and writes that "ery few of the contributors hold PhD's in any field related to biology. ... The ID folks are constantly telling us that evolution is failing as a scientific paradigm, and that scientists are jumping ship in droves. But when they have a chance to put together an anthology of testimonials authored by people who dissent from modern evolutionary theory, they have to resort to philosophers, lawyers or scientists who do not work in any field related to biology."

Topics addressed

The book contains four sections: Part I: A Crisis of Confidence; Part II: Darwinism's Cultural Inroads; Part III: Leaving the Darwinian Fold; and Part IV: Auditing the Books. Part I, consisting of three essays, offers opinions on why Darwinism is questioned by the public at large. Part II, consisting of four essays, discusses the authors' opinions on the effects Darwinism has had on society and culture. Part III, consisting of three essays, deals with the personal intellectual journeys of contributors Behe, Denton, and Barham, whose attitudes toward Darwinism have changed through their lives. Part IV, consisting of four essays, presents the authors' opinions on the consistency and scope of Darwinism.

Phillip E. Johnson's contribution is a reprint of his 1990 First Things essay "Evolution as Dogma". Marcel-Paul Schützenberger's "The Miracles of Darwinism" is a reprint of a 1996 interview with La Recherche. David Berlinski's "The Deniable Darwin" is a reprint of a 1996 Commentary essay, along with his responses to critics. The other contributions were specifically commissioned for Uncommon Dissent.

Contributor Edward Sisson sees the key question in the debate over biological evolution as whether all life is "the result of chance events occurring in DNA (or perhaps elsewhere) that are then 'selected' in some fashion without the need of any guiding intelligence", thereby undergoing "unintelligent evolution", or whether at least some of the diversity of life on earth can be explained only through "intelligent evolution", in which "an intelligent designer (or designers)" causes preexisting species to undergo designed changes in DNA. His view is that "no data has been found that amounts to real evidence for unintelligent evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life", that "science is ignorant of how the diversity of life came to be", and that "an intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life as we see it".

The book's introduction characterizes Darwinism by the central claim that "an unguided physical process can account for the emergence of all biological complexity and diversity".

Contributor James Barham argues that "it is incorrect to simply equate Darwinism with belief in evolution." He distinguishes empirical Darwinism ("the idea that the formation of new species is due to random changes in individual organisms that happen to be 'selected' by the environment") from metaphysical Darwinism (the claim that "the theory of natural selection has successfully reduced all teleological and normative phenomena to the interplay of chance and necessity, thus eliminating purpose and value from our picture of the world"). For Barham, the "real problem with the evolution debate" is not empirical Darwinism, but a sort of "theory creep" in which a "bold but circumscribed scientific claim" (empirical Darwinism) becomes conflated with "a much more sweeping philosophical claim" (metaphysical Darwinism).

Robert C. Koons acknowledges in Uncommon Dissent that "if evolution is defined broadly enough, there's little doubt that it has occurred." He sees the "defining differential element" of the modern synthesis as the view that "the probability of the occurrence of any mutation is unrelated to its prospective contribution to the functionality of any structure, present or future", and argues that "the natural presumption about the cause of life" lies against this view, and instead with a teleological "intelligent agency position".

Reception by the scientific community

Evolution has broad acceptance within the scientific community, and that community rejects intelligent design, with critics saying that design proponents seek to destroy evolution and that they employ intentional ambiguity in using "Darwinism" synonymously with evolution without knowing much about evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary and historical researcher John M. Lynch describes Uncommon Dissent:

"a collection of (largely) non-scientists bemoaning evolution and it’s percieved moral effects while rehashing arguments lifted from older anti-evolutionary sources. The tone is the usual paranoid delusion that American creationism seems to specialize in; Darwinism is an 'ideology' which exhibits 'overweening ambition', it’s a theory that is held 'dogmatically and even ruthlessly' by the 'Darwinian thought police' who are 'as insidious as any secret police at ensuring conformity and rooting out dissent'." --John M. Lynch

Of the fifteen intellectuals in the book he says:

"It's indicative of something that the initial best case for the failure of Darwinism is given by a philosopher (Koons) with no apparent background in biology and the last word is given to an eight year old piece by a popularizer of mathematics, novelist, and 'accomplished poet'. In between we get a poor sandwich - all filling and no substance." --John M. Lynch

The testimony of Barbara Forrest in the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial contributed to the ruling that intelligent design is not science and essentially religious in nature. In her expert witness report Forrest presented Nancy R. Pearcey's section in Uncommon Dissent as evidence of that religious nature. Forrest and Paul R. Gross and other notable critics say design proponents employ intentional ambiguity and conflation when they use the term "Darwinism" to refer to the theory of evolution.

References

  1. Fellows, Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute.
  2. Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Journal of Clinical Investigation 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449. A publication of the American Society for Clinical Investigation.
  3. Uncommon Dissent, Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing Center for Science and Culture, June 1 2004.
  4. Review of Uncommon Dissent Jason Rosenhouse. Evolutionblog, June 23, 2004.
  5. Sisson, Uncommon Dissent, pp. 75–76, 84.
  6. Dembski, Uncommon Dissent, p. xx.
  7. Barham, Uncommon Dissent, pp. 177–8.
  8. Koons, Uncommon Dissent, pp. 4, 17.
  9. National Association of Biology Teachers Statement on Teaching Evolution
  10. IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution Joint statement issued by the national science academies of 67 countries, including the United Kingdom's Royal Society (PDF file)
  11. From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society: 2006 Statement on the Teaching of Evolution (PDF file), AAAS Denounces Anti-Evolution Laws
  12. "Before discussing Defendants’ claims about evolution, we initially note that an overwhelming number of scientists, as reflected by every scientific association that has spoken on the matter, have rejected the ID proponents’ challenge to evolution." Kitzmiller v. Dover page 83
  13. ^ "As I stated earlier, Johnson, Dembski, and their associates have assumed the task of destroying 'Darwinism,' 'evolutionary naturalism,' 'scientific materialism,' 'methodological naturalism,' 'philosophical naturalism,' and other 'isms' they use as synonyms for evolution." Barbara Forrest’s Letter to Simon Blackburn Barbara Forrest. March 2000. Quoted in Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses William A. Dembski. May 14 2005
  14. "In latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design Paul Gross. Commentary Magazine, Vol. 115, March 2003, No. 3
  15. ^ Uncommon Dissent John M. Lynch. Stranger Fruit, August 4 2004.
  16. Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Case No. 04cv2688. December 20 2005
  17. Expert Witness Report Barbara Forrest, April 1, 2005, page 28.
  18. "In his latest Commentary essay on 'Darwinism' - as it is often called by those who do not know much evolutionary biology..." Darwinism Versus Intelligent Design Paul R. Gross. Commentary Magazine, Vol. 115, March 2003, No. 3

External links

Categories: