BillHicks
25th March 2006, 07:52
A short paper I wrote recently for a course on Science and Rhetoric
Intelligent Design (ID) has been postulated in recent years as a response to Darwinist Evolution theory. The analysis of ID is highly suspect as it has effectively avoided publication in peer reviewed journals, with the exception of one religious based one, The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. One of the means in which the advocates of ID set out to advance the theory is through the use of polling data which suggest merely than an uninformed and supposedly random group of individuals are keen to the idea of an intelligent hand guiding evolution, seemingly to be interpreted as a consensus among the majority, even if that majority is ignorant of the science and theory itself. The main tools used are those of logos and ethos, and a demand for what has been referred to as intellectual diversity, in this case within the natural sciences. However, pathos is also used, specifically through the explicit notion that ID is not so much a challenge but a threat to the scientific establishment through such things like The Rule, a play written to expose the denial of voice to ID within academia. Pathos is also used through the overarching notion that given that ID is a threat, it must also guard itself against establishment forces that would seek to silence its authors any further through initiatives such as Project Watchdog which presents itself as an external auditor along the lines of FAIR, but tend to realistically act as not only a response mechanism to ID criticism, but as an attack dog. ID makes the argument that it does not postulate a theory of creation science and on that point, there is some merit, however, it can be counter-argued that if ID is not creation science, it is at the very least junk science based upon the reified notion of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, thereby theorizing an evolutionary theory that if not based on a specific religious myth, then definitely on a mythologizing of the invisible hand guiding nature and evolution as it does free markets, thereby equating nature and free markets in its theory and arguably mythopoeia.
The logos of ID theory rest in its explicit desire of objective scientific analysis, and is based upon what the purveyors of the theory link to antiquity, Platonic and Aristotelian notions of the natural sciences. While not explicitly referring to it, one can assume that one of the more prominent reference points they are trying to give light to is that of the concept of Platonic forms. Forms could not be anthropomorphized; however they were referred to as a given object in its perfect and ideal form from which real objects exist. This notes to what Calvert and Harris refer to in Appendix A as “apparent design [how…] For the first four thousand years of recorded human history, the design hypothesis was universally accepted” (Calvert and Harris 549). The notion attempts to signify as they state previously “In science, the most obvious and simplest explanation is usually accepted first” (ibid 549). Even if one were to concede the legitimacy of these two statements, while true, they do not state much substantially. What Calvert and Harris refer to as irreducible complexity once again lends itself to the ideal of Platonic Forms as evidence of an implicit design mechanism within some living organisms as ID posits that a single scientist deduced that when removing a part of an organism, “the system can cease functioning. The adjective ‘irreducible’ means the system cannot be ‘reduced’ to a simpler, functioning system that could develop into a more complex system” (ibid 550). Again however, this does not say much because its conclusion is based on observations of interdependency of moving protein components as though to completely dismiss biological interdependency as a conclusion in and of itself. Instead, because it must be whole in order to function at all, that alone is taken as evidence of an intelligent hand, a forethought design pattern that because “the individual parts have no Darwinian selective value” some sort of non-random and deliberate design must be in place for it to occur. There is no evidence or data presented that suggests this, merely the statement itself it would seem, is to be sufficient enough to make the design imperative hold water.
Culvert and Harris also proceed to discuss DNA, in cultural terms as unquestionably valid and absolutist a scientific concept as there exists to further their topoi. They argue that DNA is information which ascribes meaning to organic structures, however continue stating “The only force in our experience known to produce meaning is a mind. For example, the letter sequence “SGIDNE” conveys no meaning. However, the same letters re-arranged into “DESIGN” have something new” (ibid 551). First of all, “NGISED” would seemingly also convey no meaning under the same premise; however, it is quite evident that this is simply the word “DESIGN” spelled with letters in reversed sequence. The concept of meaning within their argument is presented in absolute terms, however it is as flawed as the rest of their arguments, and serves as a prelude to how the designers of ID use the written word and assign to it and through it a single meaning which suits the aims of their argument while ignoring how language and meaning are constructed and instead taking consensus as evidence of something transcendental to further their claims. What also needs to be noted are their use of the word design itself and its role in the ethos of their argument. Taking a word, which appears within the name of your research interests, and using it as an example to denote and define meaning attempts to apply that same sense of meaning bearing to the research interest itself. Indeed, Harris and Culvert do this quite often in their essay. They also use it in their Scrabble example to illustrate the probability of extracting in correct sequence the letters D-E-S-I-G-N. Overlooking issues of there existing more than one tile of the same letter in the bag and certainly more than twenty-six in total, and also the existence of blank tiles which can be used in the place of any letter at the player’s discretion, the claim is that given random sequence that this particular sequence could only occur given their conditions, 1 in over 300 million outcomes, assigning to it a probability so small that they state, however ambiguously “Most scientists would acknowledge that any event having a probability of occurring that is less than 10150 is virtually impossible” (ibid 544). Looking beyond the fact that their definition of ‘most scientists’ is revealed to be just one in a non-peer reviewed text as per the footnote, the suggestion here is that these letters act as independent variables, share no dependency upon one other and are only given meaning and functionality when they are presented in this sequence. Once again, there is a presumed meaning in the Latin alphabet that suggests it has always existed, that the written word too has therefore always existed. To conceptualize the words “flour” (as a baking ingredient) and “flower” (as flora) without the written word is impossible because they sound the same, so one must rely on context to assign meaning to them. The letter sequences cannot understand context, but those speaking and hearing the words can. Arguably it is the confusion, deliberate or otherwise, of language with communication that is the pressing issue in this instance. The conceptualization of language let alone a written one is not a superset of communication, nor of existence, hence this entire example to illustrate improbability of natural selection is absolutely ludicrous.
Calvert, along with Daniel Schwabauer prior to the release of the above mentioned essay, released a play entitled The Rule (Appendix B) once again highlighting not only the rather strange relationship ID places between the oral and the written but rather an over-reliance on pathos to make what should otherwise be an even handed scientific argument. It is set in a school board meeting, likely at least partly to reflect real occurrences and roadblocks ID has been having into American classrooms, but also to lay the seeds for what is otherwise a war on academia, first amendment advocates (or exclusionists as ID has presented them) and the scientific establishment. The Rule refers to “[the assumption] that everything in the universe is explainable in terms of natural causes. Intelligent causes are not allowed. The technical term for the rule is “Methodological Naturalism” (Calvert and Schwabauer 17) and the entire play reads out as though the teacher, Nate Plummer, is being summoned to explain himself as Shylock before a rogue court in Merchant of Venice. Indeed, like Shylock, Nate makes the argument that he is not being questioned for what he has done but rather what he represents, vividly represented in the lines below:
Trent: This is all very vague. What principles? What scientists? What evidence? There is no real evidence!
Nate: Would you like to borrow some of my books?
Trent: Show me the peer-reviewed articles, Nate! Show me backing for Intelligent Design Creationism in the science journals!
Nate: But that’s just the point! The science publications aren’t going to print articles that challenge Darwinism. They use the rule more stridently than anyone else […] We aren’t going to speculate about who the designer is. That’s a question you have to take to your church, or synagogue, or philosophy teacher. (ibid 19-22)
The taking up of the position of the persecuted is undeniably steeped in pathos, as is the tone of the entire play that those in power to enrich a curriculum and promote intellectual diversity in the classroom fight stridently to maintain the fragile engineering of a house of cards. Why is there lack of peer review? Because ID is a threat! An intelligent designer suggests the existence of a divinity? That’s a question for a Priest, Rabbi or another individual necessarily open to understanding varying phenomena but without actual scientific training because after all, such an individual has vested interests in maintaining The Rule! These are the messages that scream loud and clear in this passage and furthermore, that the content and validity of the statements made within the ID argument do not need external scrutiny (presumably because such scrutiny is inherently biased) and should simply be taken at face value as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution and ideas of Natural Selection and Natural Science for the last century and a half as though it were merely presenting a Pepsi Challenge to students. In other words, that composition and breakdown were meaningless next to personal taste and preference which alone could seemingly justify individual validation of any argument.
What is ultimately desired therefore, is not a free exchange of ideas but a supposedly free market of ideas. While the Intelligent Designer question tends to point superficially at the concept of a divinity, the argument that ID deserves equal time however, must first be discussed. ID is therefore not necessarily Creationist Science but Capitalist Science, or at least as it has come to be defined in the early twenty-first century. The greater the number of products within a marketplace is argued to produce a healthier market, and within that cadre of products, the highest quality will inevitably dominate the market because of consumer choice while the entire phenomenon is guided by an invisible hand that perpetuates it out of self-interest. This is what will be taken to be the basic framework of a contemporary neoliberalist economy. The rhetoric ID uses therefore is not something to be found in the Gospels, The Bhagavad Gita or The Qu’ran, it is not necessarily steeped in a theological interpretation of biological evolution but rather a neoliberalist/neoconservative one. The imploring for diverse opinion in scientific discourse is akin to advocating for more diverse products on store shelves; to ask for specific consideration given to granting equal time in classrooms for ID to be taught is no less then asking for equal shelf space; and to infer about the concept of an intelligence behind a complex and deliberate (as opposed to random) design is no less than invoking Smith’s invisible hand in the market and reifying it within the realm of evolutionary science. ID therefore is Capitalist-driven science that is marketed as both legitimate scientific theory while simultaneously encouraging criticism of it as a god-gap pseudo-science because it benefits the argument and arguers as any marketing strategy would—as product placement. The outright attack after attack on naturalism throughout ID’s rhetoric indicates the utter lack of a scientific approach and rather the embracement of a completely market-based approach with Naturalism as a competing product which ID has a duty to attempt to usurp and dominate. Project Watchdog, (Appendix C) an initiative from an IDNetwork-related website (http://www.idurc.org), made up primarily of undergraduate students also plays a role in ID’s product positioning. PW claims to monitor and respond to stories and articles in varying media outlets viewed as incorrectly or perhaps unfairly, reporting and discussing ID. The former director of this particular website, Tristan Abbey, made such a PW-response article entitled “Are Darwinists Chicken?” (Appendix D). Where to begin on how this particular piece of writing is devoid of any academic integrity is moot, however, what is important to note is that the language both in this particular article and in most other ID-related articles are clearly not written for an academic audience, but for the lay-person, and (pardon the pun), by design. The claim that ID seeks a foothold and voice into legitimate peer reviewed journals is therefore disingenuous and incredulous. The aim of ID is to seek a mainstream audience and commercial attention for after all, as a theory steeped in capitalism it necessarily must try and attract as many consumers as possible, which catering to the scientific community and academia will not afford them, and even online, what is noted as Appendix E was linked to as “twopageexplanation.pdf”. Their use of varying polling data and statistics (Appendix F) seek to legitimize their claim through public appeal despite the fact that the layperson is typically ignorant of complex science taught beyond the high school level. The statistics provided as representative of ‘scientists’, much like the rest of these numbers are also highly suspect given the source: The Cleveland Plain Dealer tends to editorialize with right-wing and pro-business leanings, hence to note that such a newspaper published polling results such as these has to also be viewed with outright skepticism.
ID is absolutely junk science. Its proponents groan about a lack of access to legitimate peer reviewed journals and equal print when in fact they do not desire it. Their refusal comes out in their rhetoric as they position their theory not as a legitimate option but a product to not only be bought and sold but one that deserve shelf space by virtue of its very existence. The argumentative, anti-academic style does not lend itself well to debate but rather to sound bites and news clippings, wisely realizing that less and less actual detail about any specific subject is being reported but rather glossed over by a lay public that are masters in no field. In fact, even when presenting evidence that demonstrates a supposed willingness and openness to discuss the merits of other evolutionary theory besides ID openly by scientists, the polling data itself is necessarily suspect because the media source would be favourable to advancing ID under a shared overarching ideology. ID is not legitimate not only because it isn’t presented as a legitimate option but rather because it replaces reasoned arguments with product placement and attempts to win a marketing war that it masquerades as a theoretical and theological war to its advantage.
Works Cited
Calvert, John H. and Harris, William S. “Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution” in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. Autumn 2003.
Calvert, John and Schwaber, Daniel. The Rule. Intelligent Design Network <http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TheRule.PDF>, 2002.
Intelligent Design (ID) has been postulated in recent years as a response to Darwinist Evolution theory. The analysis of ID is highly suspect as it has effectively avoided publication in peer reviewed journals, with the exception of one religious based one, The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. One of the means in which the advocates of ID set out to advance the theory is through the use of polling data which suggest merely than an uninformed and supposedly random group of individuals are keen to the idea of an intelligent hand guiding evolution, seemingly to be interpreted as a consensus among the majority, even if that majority is ignorant of the science and theory itself. The main tools used are those of logos and ethos, and a demand for what has been referred to as intellectual diversity, in this case within the natural sciences. However, pathos is also used, specifically through the explicit notion that ID is not so much a challenge but a threat to the scientific establishment through such things like The Rule, a play written to expose the denial of voice to ID within academia. Pathos is also used through the overarching notion that given that ID is a threat, it must also guard itself against establishment forces that would seek to silence its authors any further through initiatives such as Project Watchdog which presents itself as an external auditor along the lines of FAIR, but tend to realistically act as not only a response mechanism to ID criticism, but as an attack dog. ID makes the argument that it does not postulate a theory of creation science and on that point, there is some merit, however, it can be counter-argued that if ID is not creation science, it is at the very least junk science based upon the reified notion of Adam Smith’s invisible hand, thereby theorizing an evolutionary theory that if not based on a specific religious myth, then definitely on a mythologizing of the invisible hand guiding nature and evolution as it does free markets, thereby equating nature and free markets in its theory and arguably mythopoeia.
The logos of ID theory rest in its explicit desire of objective scientific analysis, and is based upon what the purveyors of the theory link to antiquity, Platonic and Aristotelian notions of the natural sciences. While not explicitly referring to it, one can assume that one of the more prominent reference points they are trying to give light to is that of the concept of Platonic forms. Forms could not be anthropomorphized; however they were referred to as a given object in its perfect and ideal form from which real objects exist. This notes to what Calvert and Harris refer to in Appendix A as “apparent design [how…] For the first four thousand years of recorded human history, the design hypothesis was universally accepted” (Calvert and Harris 549). The notion attempts to signify as they state previously “In science, the most obvious and simplest explanation is usually accepted first” (ibid 549). Even if one were to concede the legitimacy of these two statements, while true, they do not state much substantially. What Calvert and Harris refer to as irreducible complexity once again lends itself to the ideal of Platonic Forms as evidence of an implicit design mechanism within some living organisms as ID posits that a single scientist deduced that when removing a part of an organism, “the system can cease functioning. The adjective ‘irreducible’ means the system cannot be ‘reduced’ to a simpler, functioning system that could develop into a more complex system” (ibid 550). Again however, this does not say much because its conclusion is based on observations of interdependency of moving protein components as though to completely dismiss biological interdependency as a conclusion in and of itself. Instead, because it must be whole in order to function at all, that alone is taken as evidence of an intelligent hand, a forethought design pattern that because “the individual parts have no Darwinian selective value” some sort of non-random and deliberate design must be in place for it to occur. There is no evidence or data presented that suggests this, merely the statement itself it would seem, is to be sufficient enough to make the design imperative hold water.
Culvert and Harris also proceed to discuss DNA, in cultural terms as unquestionably valid and absolutist a scientific concept as there exists to further their topoi. They argue that DNA is information which ascribes meaning to organic structures, however continue stating “The only force in our experience known to produce meaning is a mind. For example, the letter sequence “SGIDNE” conveys no meaning. However, the same letters re-arranged into “DESIGN” have something new” (ibid 551). First of all, “NGISED” would seemingly also convey no meaning under the same premise; however, it is quite evident that this is simply the word “DESIGN” spelled with letters in reversed sequence. The concept of meaning within their argument is presented in absolute terms, however it is as flawed as the rest of their arguments, and serves as a prelude to how the designers of ID use the written word and assign to it and through it a single meaning which suits the aims of their argument while ignoring how language and meaning are constructed and instead taking consensus as evidence of something transcendental to further their claims. What also needs to be noted are their use of the word design itself and its role in the ethos of their argument. Taking a word, which appears within the name of your research interests, and using it as an example to denote and define meaning attempts to apply that same sense of meaning bearing to the research interest itself. Indeed, Harris and Culvert do this quite often in their essay. They also use it in their Scrabble example to illustrate the probability of extracting in correct sequence the letters D-E-S-I-G-N. Overlooking issues of there existing more than one tile of the same letter in the bag and certainly more than twenty-six in total, and also the existence of blank tiles which can be used in the place of any letter at the player’s discretion, the claim is that given random sequence that this particular sequence could only occur given their conditions, 1 in over 300 million outcomes, assigning to it a probability so small that they state, however ambiguously “Most scientists would acknowledge that any event having a probability of occurring that is less than 10150 is virtually impossible” (ibid 544). Looking beyond the fact that their definition of ‘most scientists’ is revealed to be just one in a non-peer reviewed text as per the footnote, the suggestion here is that these letters act as independent variables, share no dependency upon one other and are only given meaning and functionality when they are presented in this sequence. Once again, there is a presumed meaning in the Latin alphabet that suggests it has always existed, that the written word too has therefore always existed. To conceptualize the words “flour” (as a baking ingredient) and “flower” (as flora) without the written word is impossible because they sound the same, so one must rely on context to assign meaning to them. The letter sequences cannot understand context, but those speaking and hearing the words can. Arguably it is the confusion, deliberate or otherwise, of language with communication that is the pressing issue in this instance. The conceptualization of language let alone a written one is not a superset of communication, nor of existence, hence this entire example to illustrate improbability of natural selection is absolutely ludicrous.
Calvert, along with Daniel Schwabauer prior to the release of the above mentioned essay, released a play entitled The Rule (Appendix B) once again highlighting not only the rather strange relationship ID places between the oral and the written but rather an over-reliance on pathos to make what should otherwise be an even handed scientific argument. It is set in a school board meeting, likely at least partly to reflect real occurrences and roadblocks ID has been having into American classrooms, but also to lay the seeds for what is otherwise a war on academia, first amendment advocates (or exclusionists as ID has presented them) and the scientific establishment. The Rule refers to “[the assumption] that everything in the universe is explainable in terms of natural causes. Intelligent causes are not allowed. The technical term for the rule is “Methodological Naturalism” (Calvert and Schwabauer 17) and the entire play reads out as though the teacher, Nate Plummer, is being summoned to explain himself as Shylock before a rogue court in Merchant of Venice. Indeed, like Shylock, Nate makes the argument that he is not being questioned for what he has done but rather what he represents, vividly represented in the lines below:
Trent: This is all very vague. What principles? What scientists? What evidence? There is no real evidence!
Nate: Would you like to borrow some of my books?
Trent: Show me the peer-reviewed articles, Nate! Show me backing for Intelligent Design Creationism in the science journals!
Nate: But that’s just the point! The science publications aren’t going to print articles that challenge Darwinism. They use the rule more stridently than anyone else […] We aren’t going to speculate about who the designer is. That’s a question you have to take to your church, or synagogue, or philosophy teacher. (ibid 19-22)
The taking up of the position of the persecuted is undeniably steeped in pathos, as is the tone of the entire play that those in power to enrich a curriculum and promote intellectual diversity in the classroom fight stridently to maintain the fragile engineering of a house of cards. Why is there lack of peer review? Because ID is a threat! An intelligent designer suggests the existence of a divinity? That’s a question for a Priest, Rabbi or another individual necessarily open to understanding varying phenomena but without actual scientific training because after all, such an individual has vested interests in maintaining The Rule! These are the messages that scream loud and clear in this passage and furthermore, that the content and validity of the statements made within the ID argument do not need external scrutiny (presumably because such scrutiny is inherently biased) and should simply be taken at face value as an alternative to Darwinian Evolution and ideas of Natural Selection and Natural Science for the last century and a half as though it were merely presenting a Pepsi Challenge to students. In other words, that composition and breakdown were meaningless next to personal taste and preference which alone could seemingly justify individual validation of any argument.
What is ultimately desired therefore, is not a free exchange of ideas but a supposedly free market of ideas. While the Intelligent Designer question tends to point superficially at the concept of a divinity, the argument that ID deserves equal time however, must first be discussed. ID is therefore not necessarily Creationist Science but Capitalist Science, or at least as it has come to be defined in the early twenty-first century. The greater the number of products within a marketplace is argued to produce a healthier market, and within that cadre of products, the highest quality will inevitably dominate the market because of consumer choice while the entire phenomenon is guided by an invisible hand that perpetuates it out of self-interest. This is what will be taken to be the basic framework of a contemporary neoliberalist economy. The rhetoric ID uses therefore is not something to be found in the Gospels, The Bhagavad Gita or The Qu’ran, it is not necessarily steeped in a theological interpretation of biological evolution but rather a neoliberalist/neoconservative one. The imploring for diverse opinion in scientific discourse is akin to advocating for more diverse products on store shelves; to ask for specific consideration given to granting equal time in classrooms for ID to be taught is no less then asking for equal shelf space; and to infer about the concept of an intelligence behind a complex and deliberate (as opposed to random) design is no less than invoking Smith’s invisible hand in the market and reifying it within the realm of evolutionary science. ID therefore is Capitalist-driven science that is marketed as both legitimate scientific theory while simultaneously encouraging criticism of it as a god-gap pseudo-science because it benefits the argument and arguers as any marketing strategy would—as product placement. The outright attack after attack on naturalism throughout ID’s rhetoric indicates the utter lack of a scientific approach and rather the embracement of a completely market-based approach with Naturalism as a competing product which ID has a duty to attempt to usurp and dominate. Project Watchdog, (Appendix C) an initiative from an IDNetwork-related website (http://www.idurc.org), made up primarily of undergraduate students also plays a role in ID’s product positioning. PW claims to monitor and respond to stories and articles in varying media outlets viewed as incorrectly or perhaps unfairly, reporting and discussing ID. The former director of this particular website, Tristan Abbey, made such a PW-response article entitled “Are Darwinists Chicken?” (Appendix D). Where to begin on how this particular piece of writing is devoid of any academic integrity is moot, however, what is important to note is that the language both in this particular article and in most other ID-related articles are clearly not written for an academic audience, but for the lay-person, and (pardon the pun), by design. The claim that ID seeks a foothold and voice into legitimate peer reviewed journals is therefore disingenuous and incredulous. The aim of ID is to seek a mainstream audience and commercial attention for after all, as a theory steeped in capitalism it necessarily must try and attract as many consumers as possible, which catering to the scientific community and academia will not afford them, and even online, what is noted as Appendix E was linked to as “twopageexplanation.pdf”. Their use of varying polling data and statistics (Appendix F) seek to legitimize their claim through public appeal despite the fact that the layperson is typically ignorant of complex science taught beyond the high school level. The statistics provided as representative of ‘scientists’, much like the rest of these numbers are also highly suspect given the source: The Cleveland Plain Dealer tends to editorialize with right-wing and pro-business leanings, hence to note that such a newspaper published polling results such as these has to also be viewed with outright skepticism.
ID is absolutely junk science. Its proponents groan about a lack of access to legitimate peer reviewed journals and equal print when in fact they do not desire it. Their refusal comes out in their rhetoric as they position their theory not as a legitimate option but a product to not only be bought and sold but one that deserve shelf space by virtue of its very existence. The argumentative, anti-academic style does not lend itself well to debate but rather to sound bites and news clippings, wisely realizing that less and less actual detail about any specific subject is being reported but rather glossed over by a lay public that are masters in no field. In fact, even when presenting evidence that demonstrates a supposed willingness and openness to discuss the merits of other evolutionary theory besides ID openly by scientists, the polling data itself is necessarily suspect because the media source would be favourable to advancing ID under a shared overarching ideology. ID is not legitimate not only because it isn’t presented as a legitimate option but rather because it replaces reasoned arguments with product placement and attempts to win a marketing war that it masquerades as a theoretical and theological war to its advantage.
Works Cited
Calvert, John H. and Harris, William S. “Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution” in The National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly. Autumn 2003.
Calvert, John and Schwaber, Daniel. The Rule. Intelligent Design Network <http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TheRule.PDF>, 2002.