Notes from Evil Bender

[For the lead-up to this, check here and here.]

Martin Cothran has responded again, and since I think one of his criticisms is actually valid, I’ll start with that:

And if you peel off all the invective, the questions themselves are perfectly fair, although I have answered most of them in previous posts or in the comment sections of other posts.

Aside from the fact that it’s nearly impossible to track everything a blogger says in every comment’s section, this is actually fair, in that it’s not Cothran’s fault. I actually got fed up with trying to navigate the blogspot archiving on Cothran’s blog, and so was not able to hunt down older posts. So my apologies: I couldn’t find the previous discussions Cothran is referencing.

I’ll also apologize for being somewhat incorrect in my previous prediction–I didn’t go far enough. I obviously underestimated the logical twists Cothran is willing to put himself through to defend ID. I know, you’d think I’d know better after all this time dealing with ID proponents. Perhaps I’m a closet optimist. Anyway, to recap, I’ve repeatedly argued that Cothran wants ID to be considered science. He claims he does not:

Several posters have called on me to say why I think Intelligent Design is science. I have delayed answering this question for a few days because I wanted to go back and verify my recollection on what my position on this has always been. Well, I had some time yesterday afternoon to do that, and my memory was indeed correct.

I have never said that Intellectual Design was science. In fact, as my search verified, I have said this–or, rather, said that I have not said this–several times.

Notice he hasn’t said ID isn’t science. He just thought back and decided he’s never said specifically that it was science. So is Cothran about to argue that ID is not science and force me to retract everything I’ve said? Not even close.

So let me just repost a comment from my post, “Is Intelligent Design Science (cont.),” which ran on Oct. 3, 2006, since it adequately sums up what my position has always been. It was my answer to a commenter’s question, “Can you propose a test of science that you think ID can pass?”:

My answer to that question is, I don’t need to, because I have not made the claim that ID is science. I don’t know whether it is or not, and am not sure it matters a great deal, except to people who think science is the only legitimate form of inquiry. But I am curious, as a cultural observer, about the enthusiasm with which the scientific establishment has attacked ID, an enthusiasm that results in reckless assertions about what science is and isn’t that bring even theories well within its own domain into question.

If he doesn’t know whether ID is science, then why is Cothran so concerned about whether scientists attack it as non-science? If he’s not sure himself, why wouldn’t he defer to the experts, or at least admit he doesn’t have anything substantial to add?  Because this is all part of his elaborate dodge, an attempt to get ID into science classrooms without having to actually respond to demands that he explain why ID should be taught as science. You see, he wants to “teach the controversy”:

Oh, and while we’re at it, let’s deal with another myth I see making the rounds: that I think Intelligent Design should be taught in science classes.

Maybe the people who are making this claim could do their own little search and tell me where I said this. My position (and I haven’t done a search on this one, but I’m fairly confident I’ve never said anything else) is that what science teachers teach in their classrooms should be left up to science teachers. I’m against mandating it and I’m against prohibiting it.

I look forward to seeing Cothran publicly state, then, that it’s a good thing that the teachers in the Dover school district no longer have to let a disclaimer about ID be read in their classrooms, since the administration forced that on them against their will.

Somehow I don’t think he will, though. After all, Cothran is now arguing that a) he doesn’t know if ID is science, b) he doesn’t think scientists are well qualified to answer that question, and c) that science teachers in high school should teach ID if they think it is science.

So Cothran thinks all the scientists who argue that ID isn’t science are just reflexively attacking ID, but if some high school teacher thinks ID is science, he should be allowed to teach it as science. Why are scientists’ opinions suddenly valuable when there’s a chance ID might get taught in a science class?

The answer, of course, is that this entire battle plan relies upon continuing to pound the idea that there is a “controversy” about evolution and ID and in so doing create that controversy. After all, if scientists don’t respond, then ID proponents claim to have won the argument, and if scientists do respond, ID proponents use it as evidence of a controversy.

Cothran’s a bit behind, though: “teaching the controversy” is out of favor among other ID proponents at the moment. Now they seem to be favoring teaching the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution–those both approaches amount to attacks on science.

For a moment, Cothran approaches a reasonable position:

I also think that if I were a science teacher, and if I believed that Intelligent Design did fall into the realm of science, that I would continue to be reticent about spending classroom time on it (other than mentioning that it is an issue) until it had had a chance to show whether it can succeed as a more formal scientific enterprise.

Mr Cothran, I’ll happily give you credit for this much: you, at least, have admitted that ID has not yet been shown to be science. While this contradicts the idea that it has any place in a science classroom, you’re obviously more honest than many ID proponents. When I read this the first time, I thought there was hope for you. Then I read the following sentences:

But it the meantime, I’m going to continue to point out the curious enthusiasm shown by Darwinists to makes sure ID doesn’t get that chance by doing things like shutting down programs that even try to inquire into it.

First of all, no “Darwinists” have ever shut down an ID program. Baylor did demand that Dembski’s “lab”–which existed only in web-page form, and didn’t do any science–not be associated with the University, and I’m not thrilled with the way Baylor handled some aspects of that issue. But scientists are clamoring for ID to do real research, to publish real papers. Furthermore, if ID did any of that, if it demonstrated its scientific credibility, made testable, useful predictions, scientists would accept it. If ID could demonstrate its merit as science, scientists would happily see it included in classrooms.

But we don’t see that. We’ve still not seen any scientific publications from the DI, or any peer-reviewed science at all from them. We keep asking for it, and yet we don’t get it. And when, in Kitzmiller, ID proponent BSB was asked why he hasn’t done the study he says could falsify ID, he said it would not be “fruitful.” Doing science wouldn’t be fruitful!

If Cothran and his crew want ID taken seriously, they should stop attacking scientists who point out that ID isn’t science. Instead, they should encourage their own people to get out and do science.

Instead, Cothran is arguing that ID might be science and might not be, but it’s bad that “Darwinists” attack it for not being science because they can’t say that, except when one of them wants to teach ID, in which case that’s fine, even though ID hasn’t been demonstrated to be science.

The worst part of this is the twists Cothran has had to go through to get to his argument. He’s got himself making contradictory claims, and he continues to show me to be correct. Every time he posts, my argument that this is really about getting ID into science classes is given further proof.