Skeptic magazine has an interesting article, based on a 2017 article in Science & Education, describing a study that compared the argument topics and argument types found on websites discussing origins issues. It is not clear from the Skeptic article whether they counted arguments on discussion forums.
The comment I found most interesting is:
[T]he ID creationism approach has been, and continues to be, primarily a program meant to prove the existence of God. It therefore bears more resemblance to natural theology and apologetics than it does to science. Seen in this light, it is surprising that ID creationists once believed that ID would somehow help them achieve their goals.
The author characterizes the irreducible complexity argument as an argument meant to prove the existence of God. I suppose some here would disagree.
I think the ID creationists may have believed ID would help them achieve their goals only because creation science had been so decisively rejected. At that point it was either become more scientific or become more apologetic, and science was clearly not a way forward.
The original article is R. M. Barnes, R. A. Church, and S. Draznin-Nagy. 2017. “The Nature of the Arguments for Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution.” Science & Education, 26, pp. 27–47.
From the OP
quote:
The author characterizes the irreducible complexity argument as an argument meant to prove the existence of God. I suppose some here would disagree.
end quote:
I think some folks on the ID side view IC as a way to prove God’s involvement in nature but I would be very surprised if anyone thought it proved God’s existence.
At best it might prove the existence of some unspecified nonhuman intelligence.
peace
They are confusing intent with the actual argument.
Skeptics are Funny Magazine, January 2017
The study further went on to note the hilarious irony of skeptic groups clinging on to ridiculous terms such as the skeptic coined term, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, named by idiot-savant skeptic David Dunning. However the study did not go too deeply into the specifics of the absurd use of the pseudo-scientific terms, primarily because the authors felt it was too obvious to delve into too deeply, and furthermore, skeptics who read the magazine likely wouldn’t understand it anyway.
This article quoted here is just a cheap boring shot.
ID/YEC exist to demonstrate that the natural world shows a creator, and errors about origins.
its not to prove the existence of God. its to prove the truth.
one could say the opponents purpose is to oprove God/genesis is not true.
Yet i would not accuse most of them of this.
Its dumb dull stupid.
they seek to draw conclusions, persuade others, that lead to rejection of God/genesis.
ID/YEC are all about intellectual use of natures evidence to figure out conclusions on origins. fair and square.
Good grief.
I assume you wrote this stuff yourself. I could be wrong, but it would help to prove me wrong if you provided a link to the “original” article. If I am right, why did you bother?
timothya,
Ask rather, does phoodoo have the self-awareness to see the delightful irony of his comment?
timothya,
Its a magazine, how can I provide you with a link? Maybe try the library.
Skeptics!
Irony doesn’t get any thicker than phoodoo’s posts.
So that would be a no, and you can’t provide any evidence that this “magazine” actually exists?
I disagree with this article. ID arguments have the structure of reasonable, non-theistic arguments: they claim there is objective evidence of design in nature. They catalog that evidence and present evidence that natural processes are inadequate for what exists in nature.
It doesnt matter that all their arguments fail on close examination. One could say that their religious bias leads them to selectively interpret info. I think thats certainly true but everyone has some sort of bias that leads them to filter evidence. On its face, ID looks reasonable and non-religious.
I disagree with you. Every book by an ID creationist starts with some mentioning of the evils of materialism, some anecdote about evil scientists pushing agendas, etc. They read like apologetics. Go read something at UD. I haven’t seen any one presented as purely scientific. Ask the author a question, and you’ll see the classic evasive techniques, mixed with some mentioning of materialism/Darwinism/metaphysics, typical of classic apologetics.
I’ve never seen any ID discussion that reads like science. The science is selectively presented, sometimes a lot of it (even if misunderstood), but even then the composition reads like apologetics.
Of course, I might be wrong. Maybe there’s some “academic” fields where mistaking metaphysics for religious beliefs is all right and “reasonable.” Maybe there’s some academic fields where it’s “reasonable” to talk about opposing views as if all where “Darwinism” and “materialism.” If so, then too and for those “academic” fields.
Does the style matter if, in the end, falsehoods are exposed?
Darwinism is either dead or not…Who cares by what style of arguments the last nail into the coffin of Darwinism was driven and by whom? 😉
Thanks for posting this, Walter. I note Dr Barnes states in his article:
I couldn’t see any indication of which sites were used in the study.
ETA, I mean 15 ID websites?
Style is relevant to credibility. It’s telling that you don’t think it matters … lol.
I dont think you can lump in the commenters and posters at UD with the main people publishing books. Meyer, Behe, Axe etc are much more careful about hiding a religious motivation. Their works sounds to most like a legitimate interpretation of cutting edge science that just happens to be religion-friendly….just as Axe’s papers look like legitimate scientific papers that can buttress ID claims
This was written by a guy who regularly complains about reading comprehension.
See, skeptics are funny.
Alan Fox,
Well, Skeptics Are Funny Magazine looked at over 1000 websites.
So obviously their conclusions are much more robust than this flimsy work.
Robert Byers,
I am a coauthor on the original study that is linked to from the Skeptic article.
You wrote:” ID/YEC exist to demonstrate that the natural world shows a creator,”
That is, in part what our study found. Although that particular message was more central to the ID websites than the YEC websites.
You went on to say that ID/YEC do not have as a goal to “to prove the existence of God.”
I think we may not see eye-to-eye because of semantics. To me, if the text in a website is used to “demonstrate that the natural world shows a creator” then the text in that website could also be said to provide evidence for the existence of God. However, it seems that you think that the act of demonstrating the existence of a creator is not the same as providing evidence for the existence of God. Are you simply pointing out that “a creator” may be something other than God, or were you making a different distinction?
RodW,
I am a coauthor on the article linked to in the Skeptic article.
You wrote: “ID arguments…claim there is objective evidence of design in nature.”
In the actual websites that my coauthors and I examined, this wasn’t strictly the case. To clarify, we found that each argument was composed of (at least) 2 parts: data and claim. We found that in many of the ID websites in our sample “evidence of design in nature” was used as data and the resulting claim was “therefore there must be an intelligent designer”. So we both agree that “evidence of design in nature” is a core aspect of the argumentation strategy of proponents of ID, we disagree in regards to whether that is used as evidence for the truth of a claim or it is used as a claim.
To be fair, “evidence of design in nature” can be used (and was used) as both data and claim.
E.g.
Because data X, therefore (claim) we see design in nature
Because (data) we see design in nature, therefore (claim) there must be an intelligent designer
Alan Fox,
As a coauthor of the study, I would be happy to provide the full text of the 72 websites. Simply email me at ralph.barnes@montana.edu. I can also provide a copy of the journal article (for those who might not be able to access it because of the paywall). The journal article contains quite a bit of information about the method and results.
Robert Byers,
You wrote: “This article quoted here is just a cheap boring shot.”
As a coauthor on the original study, I suppose no one would be surprised if I disagreed. If you read the original article (I would be happy to provide it to those who are blocked by a pay wall), you will see that my co authors and I simply selected 72 commonly visited websites, identified the arguments in each website. We then identified the data and claim of each argument, and then used a rubric to identify the particular types of data and claim that were used. The results of this frequency count then served as the basis of our results section. My coauthors and I were not motivated to insult individuals on any side of the debate. We merely noted that no one had every done the boring work of analyzing the arguments on each side of the debate to see if those representing different sides of the debate employed different argumentation strategies. To be honest, neither I nor my coauthors had any idea what we would find when the study began (thus the study was descriptive and not hypothesis drive). Had we found that websites on all sides of the debate used all types of data and claim in equal proportion, then we would have been happy to publish those results.
I can see one of the co-authors of the study, Ralph Barnes, has joined TSZ and has a couple of posts waiting for approval. Welcome Ralph, I’ll let the mods know
dazz,
Thanks. Messages approved.
Hi Ralph,
Interesting paper. Thanks for the research & writing.
You wrote:
I’m curious why you compared “apples with oranges” in your choice of terms.
In other words, why didn’t you use the label “evolutionists” instead of merely “proponents of evolution” so that the sample would refer to equivalent categories? Notably you don’t refer to “proponents of creation,” only “proponents of creationism” (18 times).
Do you not think that “evolutionists” also “employ arguments” in this “conversation”? Or do you simply deny the designation “evolutionists”? In other words, why use “creationism” vs. “evolution”, when the proper and more appropriate comparison is “creationism” vs. “evolutionism” and “creationists” vs. “evolutionists” (& also IDists)?
Similarly, in the paper, you & your co-authors write,
Whether “Darwinism” is a disreputable ideology or not, it is nevertheless still an ideology. I trust on that part we are agreed; it is not ‘strictly natural science’, the latter which takes the proper designation of “(neo-)Darwinian,” rather than “(neo-)Darwinism.” However, to suggest (Scott & Branch) that “evolution is a disreputable ideology” seems to fail according to the same logic of yours and your colleagues’ that I am inquiring of above. It is rather “evolutionism” that is ideology, not merely evolution alone, isn’t it?
Could you please comment on this chosen comparison of terms by you and your colleagues?
Thanks,
Gregory
Welcome to TSZ, Dr Barnes. (Don’t you just love these Marshall Mcluhan moments.)
I appreciate for the offer to provide more details and will be emailing.
Dr Barnes has offered to provide his list of 72 websites. Assuming for the sake of argument that Skeptics Are Funny Magazine is not your attempt at parody, can you do the same for your suspiciously round figure of 1,000 websites?
I think you are confounding the act of arguing that X shows the fingerprints of a creator and arguing that a creator exists.
The argument is more about how the Creator works rather than about his existence.
The folks at Peaceful Science agree entirely with the Discovery institute that a creator exists. They only disagree as to whether his actions are empirically observable using scientific principles.
PS would argue that science is necessarily methodologically incapable of detecting the actions of a creator.
While the DI would argue that science is not or rather should not be so limited.
peace
One thing I notice is how readily identifiable Creationists are, compared to the opposition, owing to their repeated use of the same few verbal tics. It just hit me, one might say …
That one made me laugh.
If you can’t easily recognize the observable bias in your own side that says more about you than anything else.
peace
One of my favorite verbal tics from the other side is the ubiquitous use of the place filler “evolved” as in
“Whales “evolved” echolocation in order to better navigate their ocean environment.”
It’s a dead give away
Peace
The use of the tired internet non-statement ‘says more about you than anything else’ says more about you than anything else …
You missed my point though. I’m not talking about stance, but of distinctiveness of voice. It’s far easier to construct an identifiable lampoon of a specific Creationist than their opponents, I would assert. You disagree, give it a go. Let’s see if anyone can guess who it is you’re mimicking.
Who are you ‘doing’ there?
I don’t really fixate on people’s style that much I’m more interested in what they say than how they say it.
I never quite understood the attraction of political impersonation but I do find that often the more you dislike a persons politics the more apt you are to study and mock their presentation.
peace
I dare say, but you responded directly to my point in order to disagree with it, rather than to claim the moral high ground.
It falls into the realm of human experience known as ‘humour’. It is, of course, subjective.
It sure is! 😉
Peace
Actually I thought you were claiming that IDers as apposed to Darwinists all used a similar terminology rather than that they talked funny
Yep, one persons humor is another persons bullying ridicule. It depends on your perspective I guess
peace
I wouldn’t notice style half so much if there was any substance. Sweeping generalisation, of course, but the people I’m thinking of say nothing – their posts consist of little but their tics.
Neither. I’m saying that some people have a style that identifies them immediately, and they are over-represented in the Creationist ranks.
Yeah, those poor old politicians, eh?
I was actually alluding to those stupid Creationists. Who talk so funny
peace
You brought up political impersonation.
One question would be whether a specific lampoon were like an impression of Trump, or like Trump’s impression of a disabled person. Of course, one can just rise above such tomfoolery, as you do perched upon your moral high horse. Good for you.
In all seriousness
There are many more atheists here than theists
I’d say about 5 atheist/agnostic posters here who generally have interesting things to say.
There are probably a correspondingly smaller number of theists who are generally interesting. The rest have been ran off by what passes for humor here.
If you are dissatisfied with the level of dialogue I really would suggest a little self policing of the ranks
peace
Alan Fox,
Wait a second, are you saying this article isn’t a parody?
Come on, no one with a straight face could write:
, and expect anyone to believe this is a scholarly writing, can they?
The author can read minds? I guess they do believe in magic then.
But then, to make it even more clear that its a joke, they write:
Seen in the light, that you just invented? Haha. Come on Alan, can’t you see a farce when its so obvious? They make The Onion look subtle.
The program of the skeptic is primarily a program meant to prove God doesn’t exist. Seen in this light, its no wonder they shake rattles, stamp their feet and shit their diapers. How did they think this would achieve their goals?
Great satire Mr. Barnes! Bravo. You sure fooled these fools. Well done!
I have to say though, you should think of a more clever title for your magazine. That was a dead giveaway. You joker you….
Imagine for a second that the ID camp managed to produce evidence supporting the intelligent origin of life and it became a widely accepted scientific fact (it takes a lot of imagination, I know). Does anyone here doubt that all of a sudden, the same IDists that claimed ID is not about identifying the designer would rush to ascribe the design to their preferred invisible friend?
I mean, come on.
Who cares?
Theists get chased off by humor?
I’m impressed. I didn’t notice that the spelling-software changed some typo I made when writing “too bad” for “too and”, yet you did! Congratulations!
Still, reading for comprehension is not the same as writing for comprehension.
😀
Welcome Ralph Barnes,
Sounds like an interesting study. I expect I’ll be in contact.
This seems to be the general point of contention.
So any argument in favor of the existence of an Intelligent Designer was classified as “God exists”, whether that was explicitly stated or not.
Allan points out that humor is subjective. Perhaps what passes as humor from atheists here is not universally thought to be funny.
peace
Once again, we all know that intelligent designers exist we encounter them every day. There is absolutely no need to argue for their existence.
What is at issue is the question of whether we can detect the actions of said intelligent designers and distinguish those actions from “natural” causes.
peace