Sal Cordova has replied, kind of, to my post and to Jack Krebs' response to his questions, in a comment at Uncommon Descent. Let me first note that I was wrong about Cordova teaching at George Mason. I'm not sure why I had that in my head, but it's not true. I don't know what it is he does, but I do know that he hangs around the IDEA clubs at various Virginia colleges and lectures on ID frequently. I don't know him personally, but I can say that the friends I have who have met him say he's a very nice and gracious guy. Still, this stuff about these allegedly difficult questions putting our side in a vise just strikes me as patently absurd. Here is his response:
My personal view is to teach truth whether or not it conflicts with religious views. A scientific consensus does not equate with truth. Darwinism does not equal truth, it is only a hypothesis.
This seems rather odd to me. He seems to think that things that are true come with a stamp on the top that says "100% true". But in the real world, such absolute certainty is difficult to come by outside of fields like mathematics where the premises are controlled and formal proofs are possible. This is essentially a false dichotomy, where an idea is either 100% proven true beyond all doubt or it's a "guess" or an "opinion". But certainly is a continuum, not a simple either/or choice. No theory is ever considered proven beyond all doubt, but the longer a theory resists disproof and continues to explain the evidence well and predict the nature of new evidence, the more certain we are of its validity.
In deciding what to teach in science classes, we must start from this same premise - you teach those ideas that have stood the test of time, that are supported by the overwhelming weight of scholarly consensus and that explain the evidence well. That is why we teach the germ theory of disease rather than the alternatives, why we teach heliocentricity rather than geocentricity, why we teach gravitational theory rather than "angels pushing the planets in their orbits" theory, and yes, why we teach evolution rather than creationism. It is true that sometimes dominant theories get overturned, but they are overturned because scientists do the difficult work of building models, deriving testable hypotheses from them and conducting those tests. If ID wants to replace evolution as the dominant theory, its advocates will have to follow that same process and drop the PR campaign.
Sal then goes into his 4 questions and explains why he asked them, to set up this "vise strategy" he apparently really does think is a powerful argument. I don't get it, but that's what he says. So let's look at how he explains each one of them and why he asked them.
On question #1: Is it possible ID and/or creationism are true?
1. If Nick or Jack admitted Darwinian could be true, well, what a great concession.
I presume this is a mistake and that what he really means is that if Nick or Jack admitted that ID or creationism might be true, this would be a "great concession". But would it be? I don't see why. Of course ID or creationism might be true. Virtually any idea that is not logically incoherent might be true. It might be true that angels push the planets around in precisely the same orbits that are predicted by standard gravitational theory. It might be true that it rains when leprauchans dance an Irish jig in the mystical land of Nod. But what might be true and what is well supported by the evidence and what is testable and has explanatory power are entirely different questions. So even if one agrees that these things might be true, that hardly amounts to a "great concession".
On question #2: Is it possible the mainstream view of origins is wrong?
2. If Nick or Jack admitted Darwinian evolution might be false, well, then they've just given away the store. If a Darwinist inisist it's truth, they'll have to justify it in a court of law if a case went to trial in Wisconsin, and boy we'd have a REAL good vise-strategy wouldn't we if the IDists employed some first rate lawyers to get after them.
Again, I'm baffled by why he thinks this would "give away the store". And again, the only reason he could think that is if he's stuck in this false dichotomy where evolution is either 100% proven true or it's just a wild guess and any alternative anyone wants to come up with is just as likely. Of course evolution might be false. Any scientific theory might be false because all are held provisionally. New evidence might show us that we've got it completely wrong. But after 150 years of confirmation, with vast amounts of new evidence being found and all being consistent with evolution and explained by it, how likely is it? Not very likely. It is rare that a dominant, long-standing and well supported theory gets overturned, and when it does happen it can only be the result of difficult theoretical and experimental work to establish a new theory as having more explanatory power. If and when ID gets to that point, it may be worth talking about. But even Dembski admits that it is premature at this point, while Paul Nelson admits that they don't even have a general theory of ID from which to draw testable hypotheses to guide any research.
On question #3: 3. Are ID and/or creationism religious views? Sal's follow up on this is that this was just "a set up for #4."
On question #4: If so, is it proper to use public schools for the purpose of changing ID and/or creationist religious views?
If they deny that their goal is not to change people's religious views on origins, then it shows (in my mind anyway) they are being forthright with their real aims. They could of course say, "it's OK to be a creationist and in the end it won't harm science." If they did that they would of course have affirmed ID nor creationism are harmful to science, thus contradicting everything they've said to date.
This is completely incoherent. Yes, we emphatically deny that our goal is to change people's religious views, and Sal agrees that in saying so we are being "forthright" with our real aims. And I will agree that someone merely being a creationist won't harm science. But teaching it in schools will harm science education. More importantly, in a court case the real question is going to be whether ID is a legitimate scientific theory or merely a religious idea wrapped in scientific sounding language. I see no reason to believe the next court case will turn out any differently than the Dover case. If they can't win with a conservative judge whose benefactors are major ID supporters, they have little hope of winning this battle in another courtroom. And frankly, I'm not at all concerned about whether the IDists employ "first rate lawyers" or not.
Whether Jack or Nick or Ed answer, my intent was to see whether the other side ducked or evaded the question as that would indicate a weak point. My suspicions were somewhat confirmed, namely, the other side feels vulnerable to a lawsuit that would allege the establishment of a state religion, the state religion being any religion that honors Darwin and despises ID and/or creation. The vise would descend on them in multiple ways. Larry Caldwell is laying the ground work for how part of that legal arguement would be prosecuted.
Wow. Talk about seeing the world through rose colored classes. Neither Jack nor I ducked or evaded the question in any way. I answered them directly and pointed out that they are not the stumpers he oddly thinks them to be. I have absolutely no doubt that a lawsuit alleging that the teaching of evolution is an establishment of religion would be a major league loss for the plaintiffs. And frankly, Larry Caldwell is little more than a sue-happy nut with an axe to grind. Such claims have already been tried in various forms in court and they lost. Epperson v Arkansas already decided that the teaching of evolution cannot be banned on religious grounds, and Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District already decided that it was not a violation of anyone's free exercise rights to have to teach or be taught evolution. Peloza's complaint argued that "evolutionism" is an "historical, philosophical and religious belief system, but not a valid scientific theory." He lost.
If Sal really thinks that filing a suit claiming that the teaching of evolution is an establishment of religion has a real chance of winning, he is living in a fantasy world. Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief. Evolution is no more "naturalistic" than any other scientific theory, they are all naturalistic in precisely the same manner. This argument will not only lose, it will lose badly, flagrantly, and quite possibly without ever even going to trial. In the words of President Bush, bring it on.
In response to whether I would be refrain from teaching round earth, or heliocentrism, or the dangers of snakes to people who had religious vews on these issues, I'd say teach it. But trying to establish Darwinism on the same footing as gravity or the roundness of the earth in a court of law? Who knows...I mean even ruse has called Darwinism a secular religion, and we are dealing with opinions, not proven facts.
The good thing is that the average Federal judge is smart enough to recognize this false dichotomy. It simply isn't valid to claim that something is either "proven fact" or "opinion". I don't know of anyone on our side who is the least bit afraid of having to testify in such a case about the strong case for evolutionary theory as true to the same extent that other well accepted theories are true. Indeed, I would argue that if such a case really were argued on such grounds, our advantage is even stronger than if it is argued on the grounds of the validity of ID. Sal may be a nice guy, but I frankly think he is verbalizing out of his posterior on this one.
Update: Good lord, listen to the latest from Sal:
The issue then becomes, is it right for the govenment to promote something as true, that might possibly not be true? And further, can such a policy of promoting something that is possibly untrue be used when it infringes on the religious beliefs of students?
*shaking head* Can he really be this dense? Is that really possible? Outside of a math class, virtually everything any school teaches as true, and virtually everything anyone believes to be true, "might possibly not be true." By his reasoning, then, schools could teach virtually nothing. Do we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earth is round? Of course not. Beyond all reasonable doubt, sure, but not beyond all possible doubt. Do we know with 100% certainty that most diseases are really caused by micro-organisms and that the proper way to treat disease is with medications and therapies to attack and kill those micro-organisms? Nope. But I'm not going to stop going to the doctor and neither, I suspect, is Sal. This is nothing more than special pleading and one giant red herring.
- Log in to post comments
I find this embarassing. How can you even have a conversation with a person on a topic like this who honestly believes that scientific theories are refuted when scientists honestly admit that they are falsifiable, or that they *could* be (doesn't mean are, or are likely) wrong.
If scientific statements aren't entitled to the property "being true" or "justified true belief" because they are not 100% certain, then I guess we'll have to walk around saying "who is to say?" about just about everything with the exception of banal analytic truths like "all bachelors are unmarried" or mathematical and geometric truths. I mean come on -- doesn't the ID movement have better than this? Is this it? It is frustrating to think that this is the state of the "debate".
Sal goes on to have a hypothetical trial in his head:
Clearly he's looking for an atheistic defendant who wants to destroy religion, not one who advocates Science.
hmmm... the block quote didn't quite like my text. Sorry about that. Everything except the first and last lines are quoted here.
Here's how Sal might be working: he asks you a question; you give a long and detailed answer; his attention wanders after about the tenth word; everything you say goes in one ear and out the other and gets forgotten; finally, having forgot your answer, he says you "ducked" and refused to answer. QED ID.
It's a bit like Bill "loofalafel" O'Reilly asking a scientist about a scientific issue, and then saying "Now I don't wanna hear any scientific stuff..." (Yes, he really did that.)
"If Sal really thinks that filing a suit claiming that the teaching of evolution is an establishment of religion has a real chance of winning, he is living in a fantasy world."
I thought we knew that already. While many reasonable but poorly-educated and/or deeply religious people may genuinely believe in ID, it's main proponents are at best self-deceptive cranks. Behe's response to his cross-examination and Jones's ruling clearly show he's disconnected from reality and it's been obvious for a long time with "the Isaac Newton of information theory" Dembski.
I like how some conservatives who love to rail against the real and/or perceived moral relativity of the left apply the same twisted logic to science education.
Sal does not agree that in saying "Yes, we emphatically deny that our goal is to change people's religious views", you are being forthright. You're only being forthright if you "deny that [your] goal is not to change people's religious views on origins", which would be to say that your goal was to change their views. So, unless you want to affirm your secret scheme to change people's religious views, you are not being forthright.
Silly double negation.
Is it just me, or is Sal conflating two separate issues here? Whether the theory about the "view of origins"--such an ill-defined term I really don't see how anyone could answer that--could be wrong is not the same as whether evolution could be wrong. Evolution cannot be wrong, as we have repeatedly seen it happen, and continue to see it happen every day.
Is this the way contemporary creatures came to be? It is remotely conceivable that evolution is not responsible, though as you said, not likely. And as for the "view of origins", is he talking about abiogenesis? Whether the catalysts were all on earth or some came from meteors? Polygenesis vs. monogenesis?
It's not coincidence that ID supporters confused what might possibly be true with what is probably true. Like it or not, they should realize that almost all pseudoscientists make the same specious argument.
And for good reason. It allows them to operate within that margin of error all scientific theories have, and so in essence it all boils down to the "God of the Gaps" again.
I trust this is a rhetorical device of playing dumb to make Sal look stupid. Because of course, this is a TOTAL misrepresentation of Sal's reasoning. His ideal schools wouldn't teach 'virtually nothing', they would teach everything Sal knows is true. And what makes something true enough to teach has nothing to do with evidence, and everything to do with how strongly Sal believes it to be true. So of course science classes would drop evolution (Sal knows it's false) and substitute creationism.
We keep forgetting that religious beliefs are never 'probably' true or false. They are either 100% guaranteed true, or they are heresy and 100% false. Since evolution conflicts with Sal's religious beliefs, it must satisfy the requirement of being 100% true to Sal's safisfaction. This is the one common standard of merit Sal has ever genuinely proposed - his own personal faith. YOUR faith doesn't matter.
I wonder what would he say about court verdicts. Are they "true" according to him, or do people get hanged based on "guesses"?
Like I said in the other thread. He was just trying to catch someone speaking offhand so he could have a "GOTCHA" moment. He's got no interest what-so-ever in honest discussion.
Salvador T Cordova wrote last year: " I'm an alum and extended studies student at George Mason University (BSEE,CS,MATH)."
I have a problem with this question: Is it possible ID and/or creationism are true?
It seems to be asking if these two (and i don't seem them as identical or synonymous) concepts are valid using rational and logical criteria~true/false constructs. Creationism is a religious credo, and thus can only be evaluated with the contexts of faith and theological consistencies etc. It is really neither true nor false in the logos sense; it represents a theological representation of various religious sects mythos, and as such just "is." ID, on the other hand, linked as it is with creationism, would only be testifiable/verifiable if it were excised from creationism in some way or other. I would first ask if this were possible, separating ID from its religious spawning?? If it cannot be, and certainly has not been so far, then again one cannot ask if ID is true or false, just if it is hermeneutically sound as it manifests the religious facts of various sects.
Skemono wrote:
I think this is an inaccurate argument. He clearly is not speaking of the fact of evolution but the theory of evolution, which means the theory of common descent, which we do not observe directly, indeed cannot observe directly. That's not terribly relevant, of course, because whether we can observe the past directly or not, we can still study the evidence and develop viable and compelling theories to explain it, as we do in many fields of science and in every court of law every day. But I don't think it's a good idea to conflate the fact of evolution that we observe, which no one denies, with the theory of evolution as an historical explanation for the development of all life on earth.
Lawyer: Do you feel creationism is a threat to science?�
wildlifer: Not anymore. It's a religious belief that's advance on the educational system was stopped.
Lawyer: Would you like to see measures taken to thwart the advance of creationism.
wildlifer: Not really, the court has ruled. It's a dead issue.
Lawyer: Do you want to use public schools to help thwart creationism�s advance�
wildlifer: No. Like I said, it's a dead issue.
Lawyer: But you clearly said you want to thwart creationism�s advance, did that have absolutely no bearing on your promotion of this policy?�
wildlifer: No I didn't. I said the court had ruled on creationism and it's a dead issue.
Lawyer: Would good science allow the airing of minority opinions? Clearly there have been a few minority opinions aired in peer-reviewed journals, and we have statements from several scientists to that effect.
wildlifer: Minority opinions are aired in the journals, not the classrooms.
Lawyer: So your desire to thwart creationism had no bearing on your support of suppressing minority opinions
Wildlifer: Science is not a democracy, there's no right to free speech, one pays for speech with research and supportive evidence. There's no thwarting of minority opinions with anything other than rigorous review. And again, the courts have ruled on creationism.
I find it hard to believe that Dembski's janizary Sal Cordova is taken seriously by any rational being--his "vise strategy" and related comments are such puerile nonsense. Has he any inkling of what science is and how it works? Did he really think he was about to score a massive coup, snaring scientists in the tangle of their own web? I've come upon such thinking elsewhere, from people who are far outside of their expertise. The responses to Sal's questions, seen here in comments, clearly show that the "vise" is less like a nuclear explosion and more like a fart in a hurricane.
Keep in mind that for Sal, an [i]atheist[/i] and someone who accepts evolution [i]are the same.[/i] For him it's a purely religious thing: if you advocate evolution, you [i]must[/i] be espousing a [i]religious[/i] point of view. And the [i]only[/i] reason for that is to destroy the Christian point of view.
The vise appears to be on Sal's head - everything else but blind religious belief has been squeezed out.
Sal again:
"I doubt that. We have pictures of the world being round. Students can test claims of gravitational theory and electro-magnetic theory. Any pictures of the transitionals from LUCA (last universal common ancestor) to every major Phyla? Any ideas? No
We don�t have Nobel laureates who profess belief in a flat earth, we do have Nobel laureates who doubt Darwin. We don�t have physcians who profess belief in a flat earth, but we have 33% who doubt Darwin. This is not an insignificant amount of dissent from a knowlegeable segment of the population.
I grow tired of hearing objections to Darwinism being equated to objections to gravity. There are serious problems with the theory, the only place where there is no controversy is among the theory�s defenders."
And that's it in a nutshell; he truly, honestly believes that evolution is an ill-supported theory. He just doesn't get it. Sometimes I think Dembski is in the same boat. They must be baffled why more scientists don't support their position.