Wednesday, January 25, 2006

MikeGene on Me on Krauze

MikeGene offers up these thoughts on my recent exchanges with Krauze.

I will only reply briefly to two of MikeGene's points. He writes:

Rosenhouse talks about lots of evolutionary theories prior to Darwin, undercutting his previous claim that it was Darwin who got people to embrace common descent. But these other evolutionary theories were speculations. And yes, some of us have used ID to speculate about biotic reality.

I talked about no such thing. Actually I talked about lots of proposed evolutionary mechanisms in the time between Darwin and the modern synthesis. This was in response to Krauze's assertion that there were no such theories. My point was that while you had to wait 60+ years between Darwin's publication of The Origin and a well-substantiated explanation for how evolution occurs, that long period of time was marked by continual research and prgress. ID can claim nothing similar.

MikeGene writes:

He first misrepresents Krauze, telling us that Krauze believes ID is an infant science “that simply requires time to blossom fully.” I didn’t see this claim in Krauze’s blog. Then, Rosenhouse wants Krauze, an obscure internet persona, to tell other people how to title their books, what to say, and what to do. But this is ridiculous. Krauze, like me, has already told ID proponents to stop trying to teach ID in schools. And while I have not seem him instruct people about the other things, I have never seen him equate ID with revolution nor equate an ID proponent with Galileo, Newton and Einstein. Neither does he argue that evolution is a dying theory. On the contrary, both Krauze and I like to explore the reality of evoluion from an ID perspective.

Let me see if I understand the situation. Krauze writes an essay for a pro-ID blog in which he argues that big ideas take time. This is offered specifically as a cautionary note to those who challenge ID on the grounds that it has produced no useful research. He then draws an analogy with the early days of evolution, and attempts to liken the current state of ID with those early days.

But I wasn't meant to conclude from this that Krauze believes that ID is a big idea that just needs time to develop?

As for the rest of it, I have explained twice already that the leading ID proponents are not arguing that they need time to develop their ideas. They are claiming to already have the goods. If Krauze is concerned that people on my side are not giving ID folks enough time to make their case, then he should also criticize Behe, Dembski and the rest for cliaming that they have already made their case.

And I am not asking Krauze to tell anyone what to do. I am asking him to criticize leading ID proponents for the things they have already done. He chides people on my side for demanding results from the ID folks. He conveniently ignores the fact that my side makes such demands solely in response to the bloated, falacious claims of ID's leading advocates.

I note that neither Krauze nor MikeGene has disputed my contention that irreducible complexity and complex specified information are worthless ideas. And both seemed bothered that I would attribute to one of them the view that the triumph of ID is a matter of time. I'm glad to hear it.


At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Tom Morris said...

Good thing that it's not either you, MikeGene or Krauze who's making Newton comparisons. I mean, nobody tries to compare themselves or their colleagues with Isaac Newton, do they?

Oh, wait...

Of course, the DI is not rumbling for a Kuhnian paradigm shift. I mean, "The toppling of the Berlin Wall will seem small in comparison with the impending demolition of scientific naturalism" (J. Budziszewski).

At 10:09 AM, Blogger SteveF said...

Mikegene wrote something over at ARN about the value of irreducible complexity as a research hypothesis. I doubt he thinks it useless (unless he has changed his mind recently)

At 2:34 PM, Anonymous Kevin from NYC said...

oh wait...

some have pointed out that the E-word was used by Behe: Hanna Rosin

"Behe utterly lacks that deference. In his book, he writes that ID should be ranked as "one of the greatest achievements in the history of science," rivaling "Newton and Einstein, Lavoisier and Schrodinger, Pasteur and Darwin." The evidence of design is all around us, and any honest scientist would embrace that as the obvious Ur-Explanation.

My 4-year-old daughter feels this way, too"

or this gem

"Dr. Behe has not discovered some new phenomenon whose discovery elevates Dr. Behe, as he believes, to the level of Einstein. Irreducible complexity is the rule in biological systems, and is observed at every level, from the atom, to the single enzyme, to the cilium, to the human form, made in God's image. ICSs are the rule. They are everywhere at every level of complexity. They most definitely are not restricted to Dr. Behe's world of biochemistry. His self-promoting book describes an exciting discovery that in truth is nothing short of mundane. "



Post a Comment

<< Home