Science And Society

Is ID Conservative?

I was going to comment on the post from Tom Bethell here, but Derb handles the situation well, and I’m busy as hell, what with NASA releasing their final CFI for CEV today (I’m working with one of the major subcontractors for one of the bidders on the proposal), which I have to read, pronto. Not being a conservative, I don’t really have a dog in that particular fight, but I do find it amazing that so many people who call themselves conservatives are so profoundly anti-science, even if they don’t realize it. It’s certainly not a classical liberal (which is probably the best description of me) position.

But actually, I guess I do have a few more thoughts, or expansions on Derb’s thoughts, regarding the flawed logic in the argument of the blind watchmaker.

William Paley’s flawed argument has been refuted over and over again, and yet Tom Bethell repeats it. Here it is:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there; I might possibly answer, that, for anything I knew to the contrary, it had lain there forever: nor would it perhaps be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place; I should hardly think of the answer I had before given, that for anything I knew, the watch might have always been there.

There are significant differences between watches and living creatures, that render this argument specious. If one examined a living creature, one would first discover that it is, in fact, living, and not a mechanical artifact that would wind down after time and cease to work, unless one wound it again, at which point it would be resurrected. The living creature reproduces, and its offspring, while resembling it, are not exact replicas. The watch would not reproduce, no matter in how much proximity one brought it to other watches, of whatever watch gender (if such a thing even existed and could be determined by examination). In other words, unlike the living organism, there are no obvious mechanisms by which a watch could possibly have descendants that were different from, and perhaps improved over, itself.

And there is a ready explanation for the watch that requires no invocation of supernatural powers–simply put, watchmakers exist. They are real, material beings, whose existence no serious rational person doubts, for whom the evidence of existence is in fact indisputable from a scientifically objective viewpoint, from whom one can procure watchmaking and watch repairing services.

Life in general, on the other hand, appeared long before man. Even biblical literalists admit to this–man (and woman) weren’t created until the sixth day, after all the other beasts, over which they would have dominion.

The same argument applies to Tom Bethell’s archeological artifact. The most natural explanation for an archeological artifact is that it was created by a human, because that is, as Derb points out, one of the fundamental precepts of archeology.

But that doesn’t satisfy when explaining life, because in order to postulate life as designed, one must postulate a designer. In the case of the watch, it’s easy–people done it, and there are plenty of people around to blame it on, and no one disputes the existence of people. Their existence is scientifically, indisputably provable.

But who is the designer for those things that came before people? If Behe et al want to pretend they’re talking about space aliens, to avoid the issue of bringing religion into the classroom, then they have to also confess that they’re only delaying the problem, because who then designed the space aliens?

It’s not possible, ultimately, to talk about “intelligent design” without talking about a god of some kind, and once one does that, one leaves the realm of science which, like it or not, is the realm of materialism. Humans, being a form of life, are material beings themselves, capable of designing things, so artifacts requiring designers that were designed after humans came along are readily explained. The mystery is how life came to its diversity in the absence of humans, since humans came to the show pretty late. And once we resort to designers, we end our scientific inquiries, and simply yield to the same ignorance we had before the enlightenment.

The IDers (and creationists) may be right, but they’re not being scientific. My predilection remains with the people who have given us the knowledge and technology that allow me to live a long, comfortable and healthy life, relative to the nasty, brutish and short one that prevailed prior to the scientific method.

General

It’s 8:45, Do You Know Where Your Cat Is?

Patricia has been trying to keep the guest bedroom cat-free, in deference to potential allergenic guests. But occasionally she forgets, and Jessica, for whatever perverse feline reason, has decided that it’s her favorite room (in fact, her very own room, which we unjustly keep her out of), and lives for the times that the door gets left open.

She’s not thrilled to be caught in the act, but on the other hand, she can’t be bothered to show much deference to our recognition of her insubordination. She’s too mellow and relaxed, and she is, after all, a cat.

General

It’s 8:45, Do You Know Where Your Cat Is?

Patricia has been trying to keep the guest bedroom cat-free, in deference to potential allergenic guests. But occasionally she forgets, and Jessica, for whatever perverse feline reason, has decided that it’s her favorite room (in fact, her very own room, which we unjustly keep her out of), and lives for the times that the door gets left open.

She’s not thrilled to be caught in the act, but on the other hand, she can’t be bothered to show much deference to our recognition of her insubordination. She’s too mellow and relaxed, and she is, after all, a cat.

General

It’s 8:45, Do You Know Where Your Cat Is?

Patricia has been trying to keep the guest bedroom cat-free, in deference to potential allergenic guests. But occasionally she forgets, and Jessica, for whatever perverse feline reason, has decided that it’s her favorite room (in fact, her very own room, which we unjustly keep her out of), and lives for the times that the door gets left open.

She’s not thrilled to be caught in the act, but on the other hand, she can’t be bothered to show much deference to our recognition of her insubordination. She’s too mellow and relaxed, and she is, after all, a cat.

Space

Call For Papers

This year, the Space Studies Institute is doing what used to be known as the Princeton Conference on Space Industrialization in conjunction with the National Space Society’s International Space Development Conference, in LA in May. They have a call for papers up for anyone interested in presenting relevant ideas.

[Update on Wednesday morning]

As Lee Valentine notes, the full name of the conference is Conference on Space Industrialization and Space Settlement, making it rare, if not unique, among regularly held space conferences.

Political Commentary

Abramoff Is A Republican Scandal

So says Rich Lowry. He’s right, but of course not because there’s something uniquely corrupt about Republicans per se (though there is something uniquely hypocritical about their corruption, because they were supposed to be the party of smaller government, and present fewer opportunities to seek rent, as George Will eloquently points out). It’s because Lord Acton had it largely right–power does indeed corrupt.

The Republicans should view this as an opportunity to get back to their small government roots. Unfortunately, they probably won’t. Not that I’m inclined to vote for Democrats in preference, of course, because we know they’d be even worse. There is a “culture of corruption,” but it’s a culture of power, not of party.

Political Commentary

I Thought I Was Going To Have To Shut Down

…when I read that there is now a federal law against annoying people via the Internet. I mean, I’d probably get fifty to life. Or consecutive life terms, to judge by some of my commenters.

But then I saw the loophole, that says it’s OK to do it, as long as you don’t do so anonymously.

But what will Atrios do?

[Update on Tuesday morning]

A lot more discussion on this here.

It seems to be possible to read the law as applying to Internet telephony only (perhaps to extend existing anti-harassment laws that apply to phone calls to VOIP, but it’s vague enough that we can be assured of some pretty broad prosecutions that will result in court interpretations (hopefully interpretations that the law is unconstitutional nonsense).

[Late morning update]

Orin Kerr confirms that it is a VOIP issue.

Space

Blogging Without Thinking

Or at least without educating oneself on the subject. Over at this week’s Carnival of the Capitalists, the very first post is a libertarian (my guess) whining about government regulation of space tourism. This is always the knee-jerk response of small-government types (of which I’m one) when they’re completely unfamiliar with the history of commercial space and space law in general.

The FAA NPRM that Mr. Cohen is so exercised about was not a spontaneous power grab by the federal government, and didn’t appear ex nihilo, even if he wasn’t following the subject–it was the result of years of discussion with the industry, and a result of a consensus between them and the regulators (though there are a few dissenters, but even they don’t want no regulation–they just want a different set of rules and a different part of the FAA to regulate it).

Like it or not, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty obligates the federal government to regulate launches. It will continue to do so until we decide to renegotiate or withdraw from it (good ideas, in my opinion, but unlikely to happen soon). There was never any option for non-regulation–the only question was what form the regs would take. Absent any defined regulations for it, it was impossible to raise money for it (because investors hate uncertainty in general, and regulatory uncertainty in particular), which is why the nascent American space tourism industry fought very hard a couple years ago to get legislation to legally define this new flight regime, and expand the FAA’s legal authority to explicitly deal with space passenger launches, in a way that would green light investors and not stifle the industry. So far, it has been quite successful, since the money is now flowing, and no serious player (other than Burt) is complaining about the regulation level. If you look at the comments on the NPRM so far (and ignore the nutty ones), you’ll see that they’re constructive, and meant to fine tune a good first cut by the agency. So far, they seem to be in keeping with both the letter and intent of the legislation.

Before people let loose with their keyboards on this issue, they might serve their readers better if they review and familiarize themselves a little with the history first.

[Update on Monday evening]

Here’s an equally naive, but more optimistic (and realistic) take:

Last week, for probably the first time in my life, I got excited by the prospect of U.S. government bureaucracy. The Federal Aviation Administration took a step toward developing rules for space tourism, issuing more than 120 pages of proposed guidelines for

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!