If the Discovery Institute Listened to Me

[J_B_]

If you have off topic questions or comments, please post them here. Or, if I think your question/comment is off topic, I'll answer it there.

This is just a rough idea with obvious room for improvement, so I hope the concept gets across even if the specifics fail. If the Discovery Institute (or the Koch brothers, Lilly Endowment, Pew Trust, etc.) listened to me, I would suggest they spend their funds as follows:

1. Clearly articulate your theological issues with evolutionary science. For example, I accept the traditional Lutheran interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which puts me at odds with LUCA. Scientists can then decide whether or not they think that position will be a problem for them.

2. Identify if there is accepted research that would support an alternative view - not ideas of your own making, but ideas currently accepted by biology. For example, I think current biological data could be interpreted in a manner different than LUCA.

3. Provide no-strings-attached funding support for specific research. For example, researchers would not be required to pass a litmus test. They wouldn't need to accept my ideas about LUCA. They can fully support LUCA and all of evolution. The only stipulation is that the funds be applied to research in the specified area.

What might some of those areas be?

* non-coding DNA, e.g.
Non-coding RNAs: New Players in the Field of Eukaryotic DNA Replication
Torsten Krude
Genome Stability and Human Diseases, Dec 2009

* Transformation/Transfection, e.g.
Lateral gene transfer and the nature of bacterial innovation
Howard Ochman, Jeffrey G. Lawrence & Eduardo A. Groisman
Nature, May 2000

* Spontaneous multicellular organization, e.g.
Experimental evolution of an alternating uni- and multicellular life cycle in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
William C. Ratcliff, et. al.
Nature Communications, 2013

* Xenobiology environments, e.g.
Prebiotic materials from on and off the early Earth
Max Bernstein
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2006

* Noah's Ark Problem, e.g.
The Noah's Ark Problem
Martin L Weitzman
Econometrica, Nov 1998

* Parallel & Convergent Evolution, e.g.
billions of examples

* Interspecies friendship, e.g.
Animal Friendships
Anne Innis Dagg
Cambridge University Press, 2011

* Teaching/learning in animals, e.g.
Identifying teaching in wild animals
Alex Thornton & Nichola J. Raihani
Learning & Behavior, 2010

 

[SkyWriting]

The concept of Creationism is outside any ability to reproduce events.
So nothing about Creationism can be scientifically verified or denied.
But this is true of any historical events.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I'm about as steeped in the ID literature as I could be, and I'd say:

In regard to your first point, I think it is legitimate of the Discovery Institute to steer away from theology. Although none of their opponents believe them, I think it is essential to whatever respectability they hope to achieve for them to insist that "a designer" doesn't inevitably carry any theological implications and certainly not any Christian theological implications. The designer could be a cosmic kid with a cosmic Lego set or an alien intelligence that exists outside our reality but isn't a deity. The objection to ID by those wedded to philosophical naturalism is simply that it opens the door to a deity.

In regard to your second point, it seems to me the Discovery Institute does highlight accepted research that supports alternative views. Following the footnotes in the ID literature has led me to a great deal of secular research that calls into question the naturalistic paradigm in general and the various permutations of mainstream evolutionary theory in particular.

In regard to your third point, it isn't clear to me the Discovery Institute is in a financial position to be funding much of anything.

FWIW, I started a thread on The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry, The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry - Kindle edition by Swamidass, S. Joshua. Religion & Spirituality Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com, which I at least found fascinating.

 

[J_B_]

The concept of Creationism is outside any ability to reproduce events.
So nothing about Creationism can be scientifically verified or denied.

True of most creationist first principles, but not true of the pseudoscience they promote.

But this is true of any historical events.

Not really. We can know some things about history, though not as much as people suppose and not in the way many suppose.

 

[J_B_]

In regard to your first point, I think it is legitimate of the Discovery Institute to steer away from theology. Although none of their opponents believe them, I think it is essential to whatever respectability they hope to achieve for them to insist that "a designer" doesn't inevitably carry any theological implications and certainly not any Christian theological implications. The designer could be a cosmic kid with a cosmic Lego set or an alien intelligence that exists outside our reality but isn't a deity. The objection to ID by those wedded to philosophical naturalism is simply that it opens the door to a deity.

I disagree. I believe the road to scientific respectability for Christians in science fields is to be honest about their theological views and to commit that when they're doing science, they'll conform to peer-reviewed science.

That is what the book Monad to Man is all about (that apparently passe 25-yr-old book I referenced in another thread). It's about the philosophical positions of biologists and the fact that, despite those positions, they are committed to proper science. Now, apparently getting biologists to admit their philosophies was, for the author, like pulling teeth. They were only given reluctantly and with extreme skepticism, but they were given nonetheless.

Christians need to do the same thing. All scientists should do the same thing.

In regard to your second point, it seems to me the Discovery Institute does highlight accepted research that supports alternative views. Following the footnotes in the ID literature has led me to a great deal of secular research that calls into question the naturalistic paradigm in general and the various permutations of mainstream evolutionary theory in particular.

I disagree. I've been very disappointed with how they handle information.

In regard to your third point, it isn't clear to me the Discovery Institute is in a financial position to be funding much of anything.

Maybe not, but they've got at least some funding - more than I have. My point is that rather than using whatever funding they have to tear down science they don't like, they should support science that supports their theological positions. "Science" being the word we're going to struggle over.

 

[Irkle Berserkle]

I disagree. I believe the road to scientific respectability for Christians in science fields is to be honest about their theological views and to commit that when they're doing science, they'll conform to peer-reviewed science.

You're implying that those affiliated with the Discovery Institute hold some monolithic theological position. They say this isn't the case, and I have no reason to think it is.

As John Lennox has pointed out, a wild-eyed naturalistic atheist and a wild-eyed Christian creationist should reach exactly the same results if scientific inquiry is performed properly. I think it is essential for ID proponents to stick with science and the inference to the best explanation separate and apart from any theological considerations. When a Christian is a Nobel laureate in physics or chemistry, is his Christianity somehow relevant?

As you surely know, and has been amply demonstrated, peer-review is a bit of a stacked deck when academic tenure, grant funding and continued employment hinge on adhering to philosophical naturalism. I believe most of the ID proponents would welcome the opportunity to be publish in truly secular peer-reviewed journals, but they are excluded. This has been demonstrated beyond any question. See The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy - creation.com.

Why should Christians be required to "confess" their theology when doing science, any more than atheists or Buddhists are?

 

[J_B_]

You're implying that those affiliated with the Discovery Institute hold some monolithic theological position. They say this isn't the case, and I have no reason to think it is.

Good point, but they could still express their separate positions as is done at Peaceful Science ... a place I just learned about yesterday.

Why should Christians be required to "confess" their theology when doing science, any more than atheists or Buddhists are?

If no one is required, then no one is required. But I expect more of Christians. I expect them to set the example. Therefore, I would hope they do it voluntarily.

This gets into a much bigger question of the way institutions of science are structured. My particular interest is the structure of universities, and so I have opinions regarding how philosophical/theological views should be handled in that context.

As John Lennox has pointed out, a wild-eyed naturalistic atheist and a wild-eyed Christian creationist should reach exactly the same results if scientific inquiry is performed properly. I think it is essential for ID proponents to stick with science and the inference to the best explanation separate and apart from any theological considerations. When a Christian is a Nobel laureate in physics or chemistry, is his Christianity somehow relevant?

Yes, it's relevant, and specifically in the way you tried to use the Nobel Prize as a rhetorical device. Because of the way science is structured, being Christian isn't relevant to the science itself, but it is relevant to the public life of the scientist - specifically patronage. That is the theme of Rhetorical Darwinism by Thomas Lessl.

I'm glad you're committed to the outcome regardless. I used to argue with nonbelievers here that at one time ID had a valid scientific hypothesis. However, it stumbled on the issue of intelligence. There is no currently accepted scientific definition of intelligence. I don't believe there ever will be, and therefore ID has nowhere to go.

I say I used to argue about it. I gave up. Then, very recently, as I read Sober's Philosophy of Biology I found he includes a chapter where he argues a very similar thing. I just had to laugh.

That ID has nowhere to go doesn't bother me. IMO the politics behind ID are an attempt to validate God in the eyes of scientists. That just ain't gonna work. Making God the object of scientific study is a very bad idea. Science will never get God right. It would also be a very bad idea to make Abraham Lincoln the subject of a scientific study ... or, for that matter, any individual who does not consent.

As you surely know, and has been amply demonstrated, peer-review is a bit of a stacked deck when academic tenure, grant funding and continued employment hinge on adhering to philosophical naturalism. I believe most of the ID proponents would welcome the opportunity to be publish in truly secular peer-reviewed journals, but they are excluded. This has been demonstrated beyond any question. See The Smithsonian/Sternberg controversy - creation.com.

What you say is true and it's a very real problem, but probably not in the systemic way some imply in their polemics. It's not an excuse to avoid peer-review completely. At most it can be a call for reform. I studied the history of science as part of my history degree. If you want a good overview, which includes some material on the biases of scientific institutions, check: Natural Science in Western History by Frederick Gregory.

 

[SkyWriting]

Not really. We can know some things about history, though not as much as people suppose and not in the way many suppose.

That's pretty vague for a rebuttal.

 

[J_B_]

That's pretty vague for a rebuttal.

That's the razor's edge, isn't it? Recently I've been criticized for too much exposition, so I was trying to be brief. I understand it's not an argument. Rather, I suppose I could have been even more brief and simply said, "I disagree."

A full discussion on historical method deserves a separate thread.

 

[Occams Barber]

You're implying that those affiliated with the Discovery Institute hold some monolithic theological position. They say this isn't the case, and I have no reason to think it is.

The theological position of the Discovery Institute is well known and was clearly articulated in its 'Wedge Document'. I've pasted a couple of excerpts below:

(1) The Wedge Document outlines a public relations campaign meant to sway the opinion of the public, popular media, charitable funding agencies, and public policy makers.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

• "To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies"
• "To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

and

(2) Recognizing the need for support, the institute affirms the strategy's Christian, evangelistic orientation:

Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of
support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific
evidences that support the faith, as well as to popularize our ideas in the broader culture.[12]
​

The Document then goes on to show that the Institute's aims go well beyond a rebuttal of Evolution to the promotion of a 'social conservative (read Christian) agenda

to promote a social conservative agenda on a wide range of issues including abortion, euthanasia, sexuality, and other social reform movements.
​

It's been a while since I looked at the status of the Discovery Institute but I recall it was in some financial difficulty. Public interest in ID appears to have evaporated.

OB

​

 

[Occams Barber]

That's the razor's edge, isn't it? Recently I've been criticized for too much exposition, so I was trying to be brief. I understand it's not an argument. Rather, I suppose I could have been even more brief and simply said, "I disagree."

A full discussion on historical method deserves a separate thread.

There's a difference between 'vague' and 'brief'. My critiques of your past posts relate to verbose vagueness, i.e. 'waffle' and 'babble-padding'.

Some instruction in the art of the precis would not go amiss.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

1. Clearly articulate your theological issues with evolutionary science. For example, I accept the traditional Lutheran interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which puts me at odds with LUCA. Scientists can then decide whether or not they think that position will be a problem for them.

The theological basis for Creationism /ID was articulated in the Wedge Document (see also Post#10). Since it was legally established (Kitzmiller vs Dover) that ID was merely Creationism-in-a-labcoat, Biblical literalism is also a central (but unspoken) tenet.
It's about time you explained your LUCA thoughts since you've mentioned it in every point

2. Identify if there is accepted research that would support an alternative view - not ideas of your own making, but ideas currently accepted by biology. For example, I think current biological data could be interpreted in a manner different than LUCA.

The Discovery Institute has been around for over thirty years without finding any alternative (to evolution) worth considering. ID is dead, Irreducible Complexity is dead and buried. The current concept of Limited Microevolution (as opposed to Macroevolution) makes no sense.
LUCA again?

3. Provide no-strings-attached funding support for specific research. For example, researchers would not be required to pass a litmus test. They wouldn't need to accept my ideas about LUCA. They can fully support LUCA and all of evolution. The only stipulation is that the funds be applied to research in the specified area.

There is a reason Discovery Institute funds have dried up - DI has failed to produce any alternative explanations. After thirty years, throwing more $$ at it is unlikely to be productive.
(LUCA again?)

Is there some logic or point to the list at the end of your post?

OB

 

[J_B_]

Is there some logic or point to the list at the end of your post?

It's about time you explained your LUCA thoughts since you've mentioned it in every point.

OK. Per my OP, do you want to specify a word count? precis?

Even then, what do you think the odds are you'll find it coherent?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Clearly articulate your theological issues with evolutionary science. For example, I accept the traditional Lutheran interpretation of Genesis 1-2, which puts me at odds with LUCA. Scientists can then decide whether or not they think that position will be a problem for them.

That is not the "traditional Lutheran interpretation". It is the Missouri Synod interpretation. The biggest Lutheran church in the US the ELCA has no official position. And though there are a fair number of creationists it appears that there maybe more pastors that accept evolution.

 

[J_B_]

That is not the "traditional Lutheran interpretation". It is the Missouri Synod interpretation. The biggest Lutheran church in the US the ELCA has no official position. And though there are a fair number of creationists it appears that there maybe more pastors that accept evolution.

I've studied a lot of Lutheran history from the Reformation to the history of Lutherans in the U.S. I'm well aware the ELCA is currently the largest Lutheran synod, but it was only formed in 1988 after a long period of strife among many competing factions. The ELCA, though it contains a number of conservative congregations, is by far the most liberal and least traditional of all Lutheran Synods.

Had you tried to argue that the Wisconsin Synod (though it is smaller yet) is more traditional than the Missouri Synod, maybe you could have made a case. It might have been an interesting debate. But to equate size with tradition only shows how little you know about Lutheran history.

Why even pick this fight? It's a trivial digression. Are you a former Lutheran? If you want to continue this conversation, per my OP, it needs to happen in a different thread.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've studied a lot of Lutheran history from the Reformation to the history of Lutherans in the U.S. I'm well aware the ELCA is currently the largest Lutheran synod, but it was only formed in 1988 after a long period of strife among many competing factions. The ELCA, though it contains a number of conservative congregations, is by far the most liberal and least traditional of all Lutheran Synods.

Had you tried to argue that the Wisconsin Synod (though it is smaller yet) is more traditional than the Missouri Synod, maybe you could have made a case. It might have been an interesting debate. But to equate size with tradition only shows how little you know about Lutheran history.

Why even pick this fight? It's a trivial digression. Are you a former Lutheran? If you want to continue this conversation, per my OP, it needs to happen in a different thread.

Sorry, but you are using prejudicial terminology. Now if you go back far enough you will find a time when all Lutherans believed the creation story. But some were wise enough to be at least open to learning how we know that that never happened as told.

What bothered me when I was a Christian, and in a Lutheran church, I cannot remember if it was ALC or LCA, we had both where I grew up, was that the Genesis story paints God as the "bad guy" if one fully understands it. If God is omniscient and omnipotent he was the one that controlled all of the events of the Genesis story and then punished his creation for his acts. I thought that was rather bad theology. It still works as a morality tale since one can ignore such things as the problems of omniscience and omnipotence.

I would not use "hopelessly mired in the past" as a definition of "traditional".

 

[Occams Barber]

OK. Per my OP, do you want to specify a word count? precis?

Even then, what do you think the odds are you'll find it coherent?

LOL - now I gotcha running scared

What you may be doing, in the OP for instance, is trying to do too much in one post and then adding in wordy explanations. The result can be a bit like scrambled eggs.

The list at the end of the OP is either a list of topics you think DI should investigate or a list of topics which may help with your LUCA hypothesis or both. Either way - I don't care right now.

Let's focus on your LUCA hypothesis. In as few words as possible what are you proposing? I often find using bullet points as short sharp point by point explanations forces me to be brief and to the point.

OB

 

[Subduction Zone]

If he DI listened to me they would move. Maybe to Alabama. Seattle is just a little too close for comfort.

 

[J_B_]

LOL - now I gotcha running scared

That's your take away? Wow. We need to have a class on sarcasm and it's rhetorical uses. Or was that a joke?

Let's focus on your LUCA hypothesis. In as few words as possible what are you proposing? I often find using bullet points as short sharp point by point explanations forces me to be brief and to the point.

* It's not even a hypothesis yet. I started thinking about an alternative to LUCA maybe a few months ago. Even then I only meant it as an example, so let's call it that: an example.
* As few words as possible: multiple origin events, parallel evolution.

 

[Occams Barber]

That's your take away? Wow. We need to have a class on sarcasm and it's rhetorical uses. Or was that a joke?

Its a joke. I'm an Australian - our humour is an acquired taste. Americans a far too serious and have trouble laughing at themselves. Australians have raised the insult to a high art form. (@Bradskii - can you reassure JB that I'm not a monster)

* It's not even a hypothesis yet. I started thinking about an alternative to LUCA maybe a few months ago. Even then I only meant it as an example, so let's call it that: an example.
* As few words as possible: multiple origin events, parallel evolution.

I'm no expert but I think multiple parallel evolution(s) has been looked at and discounted based on genetic evidence.

If we're talking pre-LUCA, multiple events are likely. The pathway to LUCA is unlikely to be linear. One problem is that we have no agreed definition on what constitutes 'life' so we end up with a situation where we have somethings we accept as NON LIFE followed by a state where the LIFE/NON LIFE boundary is fuzzy, finally emerging as something definitively LUCA (Life) The fuzzy boundary is ABIOGENESIS where we probably have a host of chemistry which cannot be clearly defined as being LIFE or NON LIFE.

We may have had more than one potential LUCA but only one LUCA appears to have survived.
Last universal common ancestor - Wikipedia

So, be happy with yourself. You came up with a problem and a potential solution out of your own head. OK - maybe it turns out the others have been there before you but your idea was original to you.

The lesson - don't assume that the problems you see haven't been envisaged by others.

OB

This is my weak attempt to picture the process :

NON LIFE >>>>ABIOGENESIS>>>>>>>>LUCA(Life)

Lots of chemistry


​