Thoughts in a Haystack

Okay, Donald James Parker is not Willaim Dembski. Heck, he's not even Casey Luskin. But as an advocate for Intelligent Design Creationism not steeped in the misdirection so meticulously crafted by the Discovery Institute, his arguments are, in many ways, more revealing than what we get from those stalwarts of ID. Plus, there is a certain amusement in his flailings.

Despite having promised not to address ID again at the end of his last post, he's back again, after having gotten the relentlessly pedagogical Ken Miller to respond to an email. Parker posed three statements (apparently unable to pose a straightforward syllogism) and asked Miller if they were illogical:

Parker then claims that Miller "sidestepped the question of logic." In fact, Miller first pointed out that it wasn't the assertion of design (in their proper forums) that he maintains threatens America's scientific soul, it is the attempts by IDeologists to make science just another culturally-driven relativistic discipline that does that. In other words, Parker's conclusion was not a fair representation of Miller's position. Miller went on to discuss the meaning of "design" (Warning: theological content ahead):

Parker even says that there is "some validity to that argument." The fact that he can still assert that Miller has sidestepped the logical argument is a nice marker for the sort of intellect we're dealing with here. Just in case you drop by again Mr. Parker, when someone shows that the premises and/or the purported conclusion are false, that is addressing the logic.

Parker does get Miller's point to a degree, noting that such a definition of design "means that the Creator at least designed the laws which bring about the effects we see," a point I think Miller would agree to. But how could that possibly be a scientific conclusion that should be taught in public schools? Quite apart from the mention of a "Creator" running afoul of the Establishment Clause, Parker is still humping his ridiculously restrictive definition of science, which somehow excludes historic sciences, such as police forensics and archeology, but he has now added to it by excluding anything that "can not be reproduced by experiment or falsified in a test tube." So, according to Mr. Parker, astronomy, geology, plate tectonics, volcanology and the like are not "real" sciences and are just "conjecture based on circumstantial evidence and what I refer to as wishless thinking." By that standard, however, the notion of a creator that created the laws of the universe is an equally unscientific idea that cannot be taught in public schools.

Of course, Parker's definition of science or other forms of reliable knowledge is silly even on his own terms. Besides the fact that we find circumstantial evidence a good enough basis to execute people, what does Mr. Parker think such a standard would do to any arguments for the historicity of Jesus? Nor can the assertion of a designer of the laws of nature meet the correct definition of science, since it cannot be tested by the means available to science.

Speaking of logic, having declared that evolution is not science, he then says this:

Why, if it is not science, should they acquiesce in it being taught as science? ... unless he realizes, as the Discovery Institute certainly knows, that the "evolution is not science" claim is a spectacularly losing argument?

There is a simple reason why the opposite is not true: evolution, as science, can and should be taught in public schools but ID, as religion, cannot be taught as true in public schools under our Constitution. It can be taught in churches and religious schools or even in comparative religion classes in public schools, though. Why is that not good enough? ... unless they know that their religion, without the imprimatur of government, can't stand the competition of science? No doubt sensing his loss on all these fronts, the best he can do in the end is beg for mercy for his beliefs:

But that's the point of science, Mr. Parker! It is not just a catalog of unrelated factoids about the world; it is an attempt to understand them in the larger context of how the world works. To study biology without our best explanation as to why life looks the way it does would be like studying American history as a series of dates and events without mentioning our "conjectures" about democracy or the injustice of slavery.

In the end, Parker's arguments, as is the case with all creationists, are inconsistent and ad hoc attempts to save his beliefs from science -- either by using other peoples' tax money to bolster them or, in the alternative, by depriving children of the knowledge of the world that might save them from the kind of muddled thinking Parker exhibits. In one case, he is just a sneak thief, trying to pick my pocket; in the other, he wants to rob children of an education, which I would call a kind of child abuse.

Neither motive speaks well for Mr. Parker's fate if, in fact, he winds up before some eternal judge.
.