Discovery Institute and the status of Intelligent Design as science

The Discovery Institute has lately taken the position (argued by law student Michael Francisco) that Judge Jones was wrong to even consider ruling on the question of whether Intelligent Design is science. This position has been refuted in detail by Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, by John Pieret at Thoughts in a Haystack, and by Mike Dunford at The Questionable Authority.

I have one critique of Dunford's argument--I believe he is conflating two positions in order to create a contradiction on the part of the Discovery Institute when he points out that they argued that he should rule on the constitutionality of Intelligent Design, but should not have ruled on whether Intelligent Design is science. These are distinguishable issues and one could hold both simultaneously without contradiction (though not necessarily without error). Where the Discovery Institute contradicted the recent argument from Michael Francisco is that its expert witnesses and its amicus brief did argue for the scientific status of ID, as Brayton and Pieret point out.

Wanchick's moral argument

Richard Carrier and Tom Wanchick have begun a debate over at the Internet Infidels site. Wanchick gives six arguments for Christian theism, one of which is the following "moral argument":

But what makes us obliged not to mistreat humans? After all, if naturalism is true, "a human being is a biological animal,"[16] as naturalist Julian Baggini admits. But unless humans have unique moral worth not had by beasts, it seems objective moral truth wouldn't exist. It wouldn't, for instance, be immoral to rape or kill, for animals do so to each other regularly with no moral significance.[17]

When somebody says "it seems," that may be an indication that there isn't a solid argument. Here, for instance, Wanchick says that unless humans have unique moral worth distinct from all animals, there is no objective moral truth. The conclusion clearly doesn't follow without additional premises. The more obvious conclusion from the premise that humans are not the unique holders of moral worth is that animals also have moral worth, that mistreating and abusing them is wrong, and perhaps that it is immoral to kill animals for food--this is the conclusion drawn by many vegetarians and vegans. Moral worth is a distinct concept from moral responsibility, so the fact that animals don't respect each others' moral worth doesn't make them morally blameworthy. One can have moral worth and rights that deserve to be respected without having the capacity for moral reasoning or responsibility.

Paul Draper pinpoints the problem such properties would cause for naturalism: "every human being has a special sort of inherent value that no animal has, and every human has an equal amount of this value. Such equality is possible despite the great differences among humans, because the value in question does not supervene on any natural properties. It is a nonnatural property that all (and only) humans possess."[18] The great naturalist philosopher J.L. Mackie, and myriad others, agree.

Mackie's "queerness" argument certainly does carry some weight as an argument against the objectivity of moral properties. This argument about equality, however, I find less convincing. I would argue that the inherent value that is "equal" is that we recognize a set of individual rights for those who meet certain minimal criteria of personhood (or sentience, consciousness, capacity for pain, or whatever are the minimal features which give rise to such rights), and it is those rights which are equal, and are so for social and economic reasons. In fact, the actual value any one person has (for themselves and others) does vary from person to person based on natural properties.

Unfortunately, to defend naturalism, Draper and Mackie (like Carrier) have to absurdly deny that humans have such unique inherent worth.[19] Carrier even says some animals are more morally valuable than certain humans in virtue of their superior intellect, rationality, etc.[20] But such positions are obviously false. Humans have moral worth not found in animals, regardless of their comparative capabilities, and the failure to recognize this is simply a lack of moral insight.

There is no argument here except bare assertion: "such positions are obviously false." Those who advocate animal rights would question Wanchick's capacity for moral insight, and since Wanchick supplies no evidence or reasons to support his position on this issue, there is no reason to prefer his position to theirs.

But since these moral properties obviously do exist in human beings and aren't natural, they must have a supernatural source. And since moral properties exist only in persons, the source of moral properties must be a supernatural person.

Again, Wanchick has proceeded by bare assertion--"these moral properties obviously do exist in human beings and aren't natural"--that's two assertions, neither of which he has offered any support for. He then asserts that "moral properties exist only in persons," again without argument. I have some ideas about how such an argument could be constructed, though most of them involve non-objective meta-ethics, which would not support Wanchick's view. I don't think that Wanchick actually believes that "moral properties exist only in persons"--surely he would agree that there are particular actions that are objectively wrong, such as an axe murder. But an axe murder is not within a person, it is an action in the natural world, and for it to be objectively wrong is for that action to have moral properties. If Wanchick agrees with this, it undermines this entire argument. If he disagrees with it, then he owes an explanation for how his view is not a form of subjectivism.

The moral order, then, is evidence of a supernatural person who grounds moral truth. Additionally, at least some moral truths are necessary, and thus their foundation must be a necessary being grounding moral facts in all possible worlds.[21]

Wanchick finishes up with more bare assertion, throwing in his "additionally" remarks without any justification or argument.

I'm not sure if this is the worst of Wanchick's six arguments, but it's quite feeble.

Dead In Christ

Maureen, of "Fucktard" fame, was apparently exposed by Justin, at fifteen minutes, as a college student at WVU, and not the poor uneducated woman she claimed to be. By all appearances, she has deleted the Dying in Christ blog and her own Blogger profile.

Justin just posted this (off-topic) comment about it over at Die Eigenheit:

I mainly posted those ones you found at the other site, asking her what they were about and why she swore so much. She deleted them, saying I had blasphemed the holy spirit, so I reposted them... asking if WVU had a policy about using their computers to spread hate speech and the like.She told me she didn't go to WVU, I was clearly wrong and that she "was too old" to go to "university" and blamed the profanity-laced comments on the other blog on "Zach" whom had already apologized for doing such naughty things. I told her they weren't possibly from Zach (or he's the smartest 12 year old in the world), and then within a half-hour... the whole thing was gone.

I don't know about anyone else, but as I sit here and laugh hysterically, contemplating Maureen's accusation that Justin blasphemed the Holy Spirit, I have to admit that I'm going to miss the old broad.

UPDATE: It appears that we are witness to a resurrection, as Dying In Christ has been reincarnated as a blog "intended to start reflecting a more Unitarian/Universalist or a Secular Humanist point of view. More to follow :)".

Sounds like it won't be quite so funny, though.

The Disneyfication of Devo: DEV2.O

This is just too horrifying for words--four teenage kids doing Devo covers, with the blessing of the band.

"I'm honored to be the new Mark Mothersbaugh!" declared Nicole!

says a press release. But I guess it is just the next step in devolution...

They don't do "Mongoloid."

Pushing spyware through search

Ben Edelman points out how Google is a major player in the distribution of spyware by accepting paid advertising from companies that distribute it. The data is now easily available, thanks to SiteAdvisor.com, about which sites are distributing this crap, and if Google really wants to not be evil, they should start refusing the money of these sleazy companies.

This is a parallel situation to Internet providers who provide connectivity to known spammers. I am pleased to work for a company that has a strict acceptable use policy (which I helped write, and which my organization is responsible for enforcing), which allows us to take appropriate steps to keep spammers off our network and quickly terminate contracts and access of those who manage to make it on. But too many are unwilling to say no to the money, and look the other way when their contracts are violated, which unfortunately includes the big guys (SBC, which is now part of AT&T, and MCI, which is now part of Verizon, are two of the very worst offenders out there).

Goldwater Institute: Confused priorities

In today's release from the Goldwater Institute, "The Nanny State Comes to My Mailbox," Andrea Woodmansee complains about the fact that a birthday card from Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano contained the statement "One of your most important roles as a parent is to make sure your baby is immunized."

I find it more objectionable that the state spends money to send out cards for all births instead of on more useful things (or did Ms. Woodmansee get special treatment as a result of her proximity to power?) than I am that the card contains an accurate statement about the importance of immunization.

This state contains numerous anti-vaccination conspiracy theorists who put the rest of us as well as their own children at risk by not having them vaccinated.

Failing to have children vaccinated is arguably a form of child abuse--failing to take reasonable steps to give the child proper medical treatment.

I can't bring myself to be exercised about Janet Napolitano promoting vaccination when we have a President who doesn't respect Constitutional limits on his power.

Does anyone doubt that Barry Goldwater would have prioritized George Bush's abuses of power over Janet Napolitano's birthday card promotion of vaccination as a subject of critical attention?

Kudos to James Frey for coming clean

Now that Frey has confessed that The Smoking Gun's expose is quite accurate and his book was filled with fabrications, Oprah has also admitted that she was mistaken to continue supporting him and give "the impression that the truth does not matter."

It's more satisfying to everyone when liars confess than when they continue lying, and when those who make mistakes admit them rather than cover them up.

How you can tell the Discovery Institute isn't doing science

Mike Dunford compares their PR output to their scientific output at The Questionable Authority. They put out a press release at a rate of 0.44 per day, but scientific papers at a rate of 0.0046/day. Another way of looking at it is that it took them over 20 years to generate the 34 papers on their list, but their last 34 press releases have come in the last 77 days (since November 10, 2005).

Stop Badware!

In addition to SiteAdvisor.com, Google, Lenovo, and Sun have backed a project by the Berkman Center at the Harvard Law School, the Oxford Internet Institute, and Consumer Reports WebWatch to create a "hall of shame" for purveyors of spyware and adware, at www.stopbadware.org.

StopBadWare and SiteAdvisor.com should team up, if they haven't already (Ben Edelman was formerly a student fellow at the Berkman Center and an advisor to SiteAdvisor.com and has already created his own hall of shame list for affiliate programs)--the latter's data should be quite useful to the former, and is available under Creative Commons license.

Turning mental institutions into condos

CNNMoney.com's grand-prize winner for dumbest moment of 2005 goes to a plan to convert the creepy Danvers State Hospital into high-end apartments and condos. This mental institution was an example of the architecture known as the "Kirkbride Plan," similar to other Gothic Revival masterpieces like the H.H. Richardson-designed Buffalo State Hospital.

Danvers was the setting of the 2001 film "Session 9."