Let’s Not Debate Design
by Jeremy Stangroom
I’ve just been sent a review copy of a book called Debating Design. I don’t normally go in for book burning, but I’m tempted. It’s edited by Michael Ruse and, wait for it, William Dembski. It claims to provide a “comprehensive and even-handed overview of the debate concerning biological origins”. And, guess what, there’s a whole section on intelligent design written by the bastards – to quote Norman Levitt – from The Discovery Institute.
Maybe someone could explain to me why Cambridge University Press would publish such a book? If I decided to resurrect the theory of phlogiston, I wonder if I could persuade them that it warranted a book.
Perhaps more to the point, why did Ruse and the other scientists and scientific thinkers agree to particpate in such a project as Debating Design? I don’t entirely agree with the stance taken by scientists such as Richard Dawkins and Steve Jones when they say that they won’t debate with creationists and their ilk. But given that part of the ‘wedge strategy’ of the intelligent design people is to establish the scientific credentials of their enterprise, why participate in a project which might so obviously go towards furthering that aim? That just seems very bizarre. Intelligent design is primarily a political movement, so why give them a political victory?
That is interesting. You may remember, I’ve wondered about Ruse in N&Cs (and elsewhere) before – about whether he is woolly or not. There was some article of his last year that I thought cut way too much slack for religion, and it puzzled me. So maybe that’s part of why he participated? Excessive sympathy for ‘faith’?
Yeah. Latha (Menon) talked about Ruse on Saturday. It’s a bit depressing. But I think I’m right in saying that he testified against creationism at that landmark trial in the early ’80s.
Ah – that’s interesting. Because it was something he said about an ongoing friendly disagreement with Dawkins that prompted one of my comments, I think. [To clarify for any readers who might not know: Latha edited Dawkins’ A Devil’s Chaplain.] Maybe he’s simply changed his views since the trial (which would be depressing). His article in House Built on Sand is pretty non-woolly.
Maybe scientists have a poor understanding of what is actually accomplished by public debates. They’ve apparently never heard of the fallacy of the false compromise, which is what IDers hope to exploit in their audience. That’s the reason Holocaust survivors and legitimate historians refuse to debate the slimy likes of David Irving and his minions: both sides know that a substantial portion of the audience will lazily and erroneously conclude that there is something to be said for both sides.
Go ahead, OB, burn the book.
OB might have a job burning it since it is currently some 5000 miles away from her!
My bad. Go ahead, JS, burn it.
You a Buffy fan, Connie?
From what I’ve read of Ruse, he’s definitely _not_ woolly. His essay collection “Is science sexist?” is basically excellent. As Jerry mentioned, he has his credentials in arguing against creationism.
In general, though, I believe debating pseudoscientists within the same cover of one book – whether it is intelligent designers, creationists, or fantasy-historians – is a bad idea. It will usually provide some veneer of legitimacy for the pseudoscientists in question. They will point to the book and say: “Look how serious scientists are taking us!”
“It will usually provide some veneer of legitimacy for the pseudoscientists in question.”
Exactly. That’s the problem. It’s the same thing which leads to all the anxiety about the fact that Stephen Meyer’s ID paper was published in a peer-reviewed science journal. It blurs the distinction between science and pseudoscience.
Who knows, maybe I can burn distant books with the power of thought.
JS: Actually, I’ve never seen Buffy, the movie or the TV show. Am I missing out?
OB: A mind is a terrible thing to lay waste with.
Connie
Well, you’re missing out by not ever having seen the show. The movie isn’t so hot (apparently, I haven’t seen it).
The “My bad” expression was used a lot in Buffy (hence my question).
Jerry S,
Not sure of it’s exact origins, but we were using the term “my bad” in suburban Atlanta in the mid- to late- 80s, usually in a sports context, like meaning for a frisbee (or a ball) to go in one direction, but having it fly in the other.
Regards,
James
James
Ah, that’s interesting. I don’t think people were using it here in the UK until Buffy. But I could be wrong. I don’t get out much!!
Jerry,
I believe it was co-opted from American Ebonics, by the bourgeois reactionary imperialistic white suburb dweller. ;-)
Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Brit use it except to make fun of a Yank (namely yours truly!)
(I still remain a big Buffy fan myself, and the film was a perfect send-up of 1950s teen horror flicks mixed with 1980s style. It had one of the blokes from Beverly Hills 90210 in it as the romantic interest. It was hilarious. But you really have to look at the film and the series as two different animals.)
Regards,
James
There was a fairly interesting debate (though it kind of meandered off after a while) between Tooby and editor of Slate Judith Shule over ‘how to deal with fringe academics’
Here it is
http://slate.msn.com/id/74139
It’s a tricky one – if you ignore it it will undoubtedly not go away, and just get reformed as the unspeakable truth. Yet to cover it bestows legitimacy. Contrary to my usual inclinations on discourse, I would say the best way to deal with it is a total lack of respect. Bring it up in a ‘oh that! people still believe this? Sigh. this is why it doesn’t hold up, this is why it isn’t science, this is why people normally ignore it – cos its crap’ kind of way. A bit like Martin Gardner does in his books on pseudoscience (e.g. Did Adam and Eve have navels), which are quite fun, but could do with a bit more debunking rather than purely scoffing at the beliefs.
Aw go on, Jerry, tell them about your poster.
Let’s get ID out of TV and radio!
Why are we giving idiots air time? This is free Repub propaganda, it’s not science. Why won’t Giuliani, McCain and the other intelligent Repubs take a firm stand against this nonsense? Speak out against idiocy! I agree scientists should not debate these morons!
[…] Let’s Not Debate Intelligent Design […]