The Wedge Strategy of Fiat USA and other nefarious intelligent designs
First, my apologies. I’ve been very slow in responding to comments this week (and am still catching up). This is due to a perfect storm of factors including publishing deadlines and the start of a new semester.
In this post I want to respond to two different issues, both relating to ID.
The first one is brought up by clamat in response to my critique of Expelled. Clamat writes:
“Did the Discovery Institute renounce the Wedge Document and I didn’t hear about it? Just because the basic claim of ID can be articulated neutrally doesn’t change the fact that virtually all of the people who promote ID appear to do so in service of a larger religious agenda.”
I don’t know how many times I have heard critics of ID bring up the Wedge document and it is a complete red herring. Actually, forget the red herring. This point stinks worse than a full diaper genie left in a Walmart parking lot on a summer afternoon.
Seems harsh? Awww, clamat can handle it.
So why the strong words? Because it is a bogus response, that’s why. Let me explain.
You’re in the market for a small car. You’ve seen the new Fiat 500 in your local Chrysler showroom. Clearly this is not your dad’s notoriously unreliable “Fix it again Tony” Fiat Spyder. This car is stylish and reliable. And it is getting great reviews from the automotive press. So should you buy?
But wait. (Though experiment begins here.) Imagine that a document is discovered, a “wedge document”, which reveals Fiat USA’s intention to eliminate the Chrysler brand in the next ten years and then buy a controlling interest in GM and Ford. Do the nefarious plans of those Fiat executives mean that you should cross the 500 off your list and buy an (ugh) Chevy Sonic instead?
Of course not. You can buy the 500 without buying into Fiat USA’s wedge strategy. And you get a great car too.
And you can buy into ID without buying into the Discovery Institute’s wedge document. Poor clamat comes off like a desperate Chevy salesman who’ll try anything to dump his fleet of Sonics.
Now for the next comment. Mattk writes:
”clamat brings up the wedge document and that, along with a lot of other evidence, shows that ID in it’s original conception was a blatant attempt by religious interests to undermine the teaching of evolutionary theory rather than originating as a scientific theory to explain observations. However, that does not necessarily mean that it could not, in principle become a real scientific theory. I don’t think that it has though.”
This reveals an important misunderstanding. Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Rather it is a claim in the philosophy of science regarding what kind of causes can be appealed to in scientific theorization. If it is legitimate to appeal to intelligent causes in scientific theorization then we can consider whether there are any instances where such an appeal would belong in a theory. But whether or not there is any legitimate theory which appeals to intelligent causes is a secondary question. The primary question remains whether such inferences are legitimate in principle. And raising fears about a document associated with a particular Seattle think tank which was written in the 1990s merely obscures that important question.
Tags: Discovery Institute, intelligent design, wedge document
21 Comments
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
pete says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 6:17am
It’s also an ad hominem attack (or ad discoveryinstetutium attack)
To go back to the car sales analogy, a salesman him(her)self may be a complete slimeball, but have a great car, that excels in performance, safety, and reliability. Yet the product is the new kid in the market, and is associated with a division of the company who engaged in shady dealings which gave their other products a bad reputation.
Discovery Institute aside, does that make Intelligent Design, on an a priori basis, an unworthy concept?
Do we tell physicists that they are bufoons for apparent logical discrepancies between wave and particle theories of light?
Or is it only just the intellectual and scientific philosophies of methodolical naturalists that society should lend a charitable ear to?
And if a reputed jerk was to give a starving person food, or a thirsty person water, should we tell the possible jerk in question that their food is not sustenance, and their water is not quenching…… unless we taste the food or drink the water, and find out apart from the reputed jerk (jerk being my new favourite word for the time being) that we are still intellectually starving and thirsting?
Although I have mentioned that I am not convinced that the evolutionary theory accounts for origins of life on this planet, proven cosmological evolution (from T=0 onwards) seems to fit quite nicely with theories of terrestrial macro-evolution.
And with all the apparent finely tuned constants that permits life (both terrestrial and cosmological), how is this plain documented observation part of some sort of purported neo-conservative creationist re-branding?
And unless someone can show me a cogent theory as to why these vast amounts of infinitely sensitively-ranged constants are as they function based on a chaos/many universe/etc model, then stop shooting the messenger, even if they are called the Discovery Institute.
When we attack the person and not the idea, we look like Jerry Springer audience members (Jerry…..Jerry….)
Beetle says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 11:53am
Your car analogy fails because there are more than two choices. Surely it can be reasonable to boycott a disreputable manufacturer, even when they offer good products!
A closer analogy would be someone who digs through holocaust denier propaganda insisting there is some nugget of historical value. When it is known that the person is distant cousin a famous anti-Semitist, it is really hard to take them seriously. Fool me once…
I will repeat the comment I made last week. The problem is that ID as an actually scientific proposition has been thoroughly discredited by those with a religious agenda. It is a shame, because any actual science that might have been possible in the near term is now hopeless tainted. It is up to those who caused the damage to repudiate the ill behavior. It is not reasonable to expect mainstream science to pretend those bad actors are not still around. Persons such as yourself who refuse to be candid about motivations of ID proponents are actually impeding development of an ID form of neo-Darwinian theory.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 12:00pm
Good post – I agree wholeheartedly. The problem with ID is not that it is propounded by the Discovery Institute but rather that it dissuades research into biological origins by asserting a mile “0″ without going any further. Moreover, if established, ID does nothing more than suggest the existence of the Judeo-Christian God as the cosmic designer any more than my previously mentioned bored alien teenager from another dimension?
Sean R Reid says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 12:26pm
TAM, how does it dissuade further research?
I’m genuinely curious, as I’ve stated here, and elsewhere, that I’m no fan of the ID movement.
However, as a matter of scientific philosophy I don’t see how it’s a game-ender. I don’t think that attributing initial causation to an intelligent being -whether human, spiritual, etc…- means that we will just stop looking into the origins of life. I actually think it might give us more information in which to dig deeper.
Thoughts?
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 1:47pm
Sean, I must preface my response by noting that I promised Randal that I would read Dembski’s The Design Revolution: Answering The Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design
and have yet to do so. I really should read that before I take any further boots to ID. My unread library is becoming unwieldy.
That being said, I will reproduce an excerpt from a blog post that I wrote a copuple of years ago: I just listened to another Nova podcast – a fascinating interview with Judge John Jones who overturned the Dover, Penn. school board policy which questioned the theory of evoluton and required biology teachers to present “intelligent design” as an alternative. The Judge found it remarkable that proponents of the policy had been able to get it through a school board. He explains how the premise of ID is absurd (i.e. teach kids to stop their inquiries when they get to something which appears to be designed and assume that it was the product of a master designer). ID is the opposite of science – they start with the conclusion of a master designer and then walk backwards looking for facts to justify their belief. You rarely get to hear this issue discussed by a judge – one of the most simplistic and scathing criticisms of ID that I have ever heard.
The problem, as I see it, is that “attributing causation to an intelligent being” doesn’t explain anything and doesn’t get us anywhere. As you undoubtedly appreciate, all it does is raise the question of who designed the designer? If the designer is supposedly eternal (note the special pleading – exception to rule that all things must be designed), what evidence do you rely on to believe that there was a designer at all and not simply some basic building blocks of life that are “eternal”? I don’t get it but perhaps Dembski will set me straight.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 12:02pm
Randal, do you worship your parents? If not, why?
randal says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 4:17pm
No. Because I think you only ought to worship God. Why, do you worship your parents?
The Atheist Missionary says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 12:04pm
Beetle, Randal has graciously admitted that ID is not a scientific theory.
MattK says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 2:47pm
I believe that the car analogy is somewhat misses the point. The problem is that the DI does not make cars. They make ideas (I’m being charitable). If I could fix the car analogy I would say that the leaked document details how the car manufacturer has been substituting cheap parts in the actual production cars and then lied about it. The problem is a lack of intellectual integrity. In the marketplace of ideas that is not irrelevant to the quality of the product. This is especially true for those who do not have the necessary expertise to “crash-test” the arguments (be they philosophical or scientific) themselves. For others, I have yet to see any clear definitions of intelligence or design. The ones that I have heard are indestinguishable from “x is too complex/too improbable for evolution” but does not set out any predictions except that evolution is wrong. The rest is appeal to intuition. Can we have any confidence that ID proponents have a conception of intelligence and design that is yet to be clearly articulated but might be scientifically valid and independent of preconceptions frontloaded from the Bible? No, because the proponents lack intellectual integrity and we have direct evidence that their preconceptions come from religious beliefs (not inspired by but directly imported from). Why would anyone – philosopher or scientist – suspect that a non-religious conception of ID is even possible? Without religion we know no attributes of the “designer” – goals, source of inspiration (study? experience? trial and error? – these are required for all human designs – the only ones we know about), so how do we even identify design?
“Intelligent design is not a scientific theory. Rather it is a claim in the philosophy of science regarding what kind of causes can be appealed to in scientific theorization.” Since when? Is that what Myers argues in his book? That would be fantastic because then we can do away with all the nonsense about changing science textbooks and “teaching the controversy” (strange though that Myers was the author of the press release anouncing DI’s teach the controversy strategy.)
“If it is legitimate to appeal to intelligent causes in scientific theorization then we can consider whether there are any instances where such an appeal would belong in a theory.” Sure there is, archaeology routinely draws inferences about design.
randal says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 3:23pm
MattK, here is the analogy:
(1) The Fiat 500 is the best small car in its segment.
If I have reason to believe(1) is true, then I ought to buy the Fiat 500. And that is true irrespective of whether Fiat USA has a wedge document. Thus to talk about Fiat’s wedge document as if that provided a reason not to buy the idea is completely bogus. It stinks to high heaven. I can smell that diaper genie from the McDonald’s parking lot.
(2) Intelligent design is in principle detectable.
Likewise if I have reason to believe (2) is true then I ought to buy (i.e. believe) (2). And that is true irrespective of whether the Discovery Institute has a wedge document. Thus to talk about the DI’s wedge document as if that provided a reason not to buy the car is completely bogus. It stinks to high heaven. I can smell that diaper genie from the McDonald’s parking lot.
“Since when? Is that what Myers argues in his book?”
Yes.
MattK says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 5:13pm
My point is that the wedge document (in concert with other facts – funding sources, political activities, cdesign proponentists, etc) throws doubt on the premise – that the metaphorical car is in fact the best in its class.
Here is the thing. To the best of my knowledge the car has not even been presented yet. All we have is the wedge document. Design must be defined in the context of the designer – the source of the design. What its the goals and methods? Evolution has well defined methods and does not need to demonstrate a goal – it works without one. Design does not. Complexity is defined by IDers as an indication of design – but why? Why would we expect a designer to make complex things? Simply by analogy to ourselves? What are the functions of the complex things?
pete says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 3:02pm
MattK: I’ll refine the car argument slightly.
Beetle: I don’t think we’re dealin with holocaust deniers here, and some ID proponents are atheists, and non-christians also.
With respect to MattK’s “cheap parts” comment, we can “crash” test the ideas themselves for scientific philosophical merit. Intelligent Design can still be equally as valid on a Deistic model.
Secondly, Intelligent Design can work alongside evolution. (but not necessarily)
Again, it appears from the Big Bang onward, the cosmos appeared to evolve (stars giving birth to stars; formation of galaxies and planets).
From a philosophical standpoint, the question is whether an Intelligent Designer invisibly guided the process….. I know we are still in the realm of meta-physics.
TAM: And in stifling scientific inquiry? No dice. I would hope that the most aredent theists would seek to discover as much beauty through what they/we believe to be the most awe-inspiring intricately designed providential workings of the Living God that we can discern, and present said works in a logical cogent manner for all to see and understand.
Now, I know that non-theists won’t accept the objective validity of my statement, but from a philisophical stand point, I don’t think that I am being a boogey-man, holocaust denier, or anything else. I also used to have poorly developed theology, and while Christian, was border-line agnostic.
I am Christian don’t have a religious/political agenda. But I do believe in intelligent design as theoretically being congruent with evolution.
If someone is an atheist, and believes in evolution alone, then should they be labelled as having an anarchistic/neo-liberal deconstructionist agenda? By no means! They should be viewed as an equal partner in dialogue, with their own religious and philosophical starting points.
MattK says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 4:53pm
Pete brings up ID in the context of physics and cosmology. I know that DI does this too. Pete please don’t take this as a slag on you because I know you are presenting the arguments as you interpret them from what DI says. I just cannot, for the life of me, figure out how cosmology has any bearing on this discussion at all. I am interested in biology. I’m much less interested in cosmology (note – not uninterested) and I’m not terribly interested in atheism per se. So from my perspective the supposed fine-tuning of cosmological constants is a distraction from a conversation that I thought was about biological evolution vs ID. Frankly the very attempt by DI fellows to apply ID, which is billed as a biological theory, to cosmology utterly demonstrates that they have no coherent theory. This leads to confusion. Pete says: “Intelligent Design can still be equally as valid on a Deistic model.” This is confusing in the sense that it fails to differentiate ID from theistic evolution. In a deistic model, evolution, which begins long after the creation of the universe (when initial conditions are set), is completely untouched by this form of ID. No evolutionary biologist would care about this (in a professional capacity). Besides being confusing the atempt to apply ID to both squid and quasars is also very telling. It shows that ID is not being used as a coherent framework for explaining a group of phenomena. What do E.coli and the Andromeda galaxy have in common? That they are complicated? So what? Anything else? Is ID just a name for arguments for God that use aspects of scientific knowledge? That to me is the only thing that unifies arguments for ID in cosmology with ID arguments about the bacterial flagellum.
randal says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 5:27pm
“So from my perspective the supposed fine-tuning of cosmological constants is a distraction from a conversation that I thought was about biological evolution vs ID.”
This strikes me as a perplexing claim. If it is legitimate to infer intelligence in principle then it is in principle legitimate to infer intelligence as the causal ground of the origin of the universe as well as the origin and evolution of life.
MattK says:
Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 12:08pm
My point about cosmology is not about whether it is possible in principle to infer design. My point is that if one’s goal is to support the role of God in all things it makes sense to argue for design in all things. However, if one’s goal is to create an explanation based on observations that makes specific predictions that can be empirically tested it seems pretty out there. You don’t see string theorists telling molecular biologists about how string theory explains ribosomes, do you? Or astrophysists telling geneticists how inheritance works.
randal says:
Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 7:27pm
“You don’t see string theorists telling molecular biologists about how string theory explains ribosomes, do you? Or astrophysists telling geneticists how inheritance works.”
No. And neither should you have scientists who have no training in the philosophy of science speculating on the necessary and sufficient conditions for a mode of enquiry being “scientific”. Anyway who cares whether cosmic fine-tuning is scientific or not? The really interesting and important question is whether we can discern cosmic fine-tuning, not whether by doing so we are or are not engaged in a scientific enterprise.
MattK says:
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 1:39pm
“No. And neither should you have scientists who have no training in the philosophy of science speculating on the necessary and sufficient conditions for a mode of enquiry being “scientific”.” said the pot. In any case, you are misunderstanding my argument. I am not making an issue out of expertise, I am making an issue about whether a coherent theory could apply to such disparate phenomena without first establishing their commonalities with respect to the theory.
“Anyway who cares whether cosmic fine-tuning is scientific or not?” I do.
pete says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 7:54pm
MattK:
I actually am not interpreting the validity based on what DI says, and certainly take no offence/”slagging” to your rebuttals.
I base my understanding of ID on independent study of the cosmological and terrestrial constants coupled with the fine tuning required to sustain life on our planet, and find the coincidence too numerous to chalk up to the end product of mere random chaos in an unintelligent blind process.
You don’t need the DI to know that. You can get it from other independent sources.
If you can show me just 1 more universe that has no life, then you reduce my the plausibility of my argument by 50%. If you can find a universe that has life, but maybe only 1 or 2 fine tuned constants, then my plausibility goes down even further.
Theoretical physicists are still working on the issue, but until such time as proof is found, DI or no DI, the ID model is still valid
clamat says:
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 6:06pm
pete,
How much do I reduce the plausibility of your argument if I can show you a universe that is 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999, etc., etc., etc. percent hostile to life? Seems like an awful waste of space. God is terribly inefficient, apparently.
But this is beside the point: Your argument rests on “life bias.” It simply assumes, without any justification whatsoever, that life has inherent significance, that it is a “goal.” You have no reason to believe that life is inherently significant. Correction: You have emotional reasons, but not rational ones.
clamat says:
Tuesday, September 6, 2011 at 6:29pm
Reply to myself:
On second thought, the fact that 99.999 etc. percent of the universe is hostile to life is entirely on point. Put another way: If the universe was designed to support life, why isn’t it teeming with life? That life exists only in sporadic patches on the thin skin of a small planet in the outer reaches of a middling galaxy of 100 billion stars among 100 billion galaxies strongly suggests that life is almost certainly not inherently valuable.
clamat says:
Friday, September 2, 2011 at 8:10pm
[Sniffle]. No I can’t. Stop it!
You forget (ignore?) the original point that I “invoked” the Wedge document to address:
How is it a “red herring” to point out that the folks who developed ID conceptually and remain its most ardent proponents issued a manifesto that clearly indicates they intended ID to serve a battery of religious and political commitments? To the extent you claim to approach ID as a purely “philosophical” matter, you are the rare exception. (Isn’t “Expelled” itself evidence of this? Contrary to your suggestion, I believe the producers of the movie understand ID perfectly well.) With regard to the original issue, my point is squarely on the mark: The association of ID with a particular agenda is entirely justified.
This post, on the other hand, goes to the validity of ID. I never suggested the Wedge document has anything to do with the validity of ID. Indeed, elsewhere I clearly stated I agree that, as you put it, “a minimal commitment scientifically to the possibility of detecting intelligent causation” is entirely valid. I don’t know why you continue to suggest I hold a position you know I don’t.
But much as you would like to constrain the term to this simple, eleven word core principle, “Intelligent Design” actually connotes a great deal more than that. Most of the leading intellectual lights of the ID movement would strenuously disagree with your proposition that ID is not a scientific theory in addition to being a philosophy. To the extent ID claims validity as either one…
To echo what I said elsewhere: The consensus is that the Fiat 500 is a terrible car. To echo MattK: The primary aim of the people who build the Fiat is not to make good Fiats but to make sure nobody buys anything else.
Your analogies stink.