It’s really ironic that Glenn should be advising others to “drop the bogus arguments”. Motes, beams… you know the drill.

In my first response (#1 for this page) I wrote that what I am trying to do is fairly simple and down to earth, in contrast to the pretensions of the foremost ID proponents. I wish you would remove this page from the “antievolution” category of your archives, since there really is no antievolution discussion going on here.

On the #2 response which you wrote, you said, “Certainly, that leaves a lot of scope for someone who actually wanted to pursue science to do something different, but why would they want to use the ID label or any of the bogus arguments that come from way back in religious antievolution?”

My book basically agrees with you on all four points, and I am appealing to the ID movement to:
1) Drop the ID label (as a good option, on an equal footing with redefining the ID label). The specific ideas are more important than the need to categorize different ideas under some kind of blanket label, and if you can’t put a new face to an old name, then it is time to drop the name (that went with the ugly face).
2) Drop the bogus arguments. What is unscientific, illogical, irrational, disproven, childish, shortsighted, or unproductive should be discarded.
3) Drop the religion. If you want to talk about God, find the appropriate forum in which to do so; and if you want to talk about science, respect the pluralism of our scientific community.
4) Drop the anti-evolution. There has been no proof offered that certain biological structures could not have evolved.

I appeal to the scientific community to:
1) Ignore the ID label. Don’t reject certain ideas or new ideas (whether your own or someone else’s) based on the source, the associations, or the implications, but isolate those parts of the ideas which can be expressed in natural science and work with them.
2) Drop the bogus arguments. Determinism is not the only factor operating in the universe, since we ourselves act purposefully which we know by experience.
3) Get over the religion. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because someone contemplates or believes in the supernatural does not mean that none of their ideas are of any earthly good.
4) Drop the anti-ID. Be willing to explore your own arguments for intelligent design which have nothing to do with religion and the supernatural, instead of looking to the ID camp to have to come up with everything on their own. Darwinist ideas do not have to be discarded or disproven in order to think through ID scenarios. In the absence of absolute proof, the open-minded and large-brained can explore multiple possibilities and live with the reality that sometimes we don’t have all the answers or can’t narrow explanations down to only one possibility.

The research (academic research, not scientific research) and thinking I did for my book was in this direction. The only “pretension to significance” is to get more people thinking in this direction. It doesn’t take a lot of exposure to the ID debates to pick up that a great deal of the controversy is between the supernatural and the natural sciences.

It may even be better to have someone not immersed in the same-old argument lines to point this stuff out.

Casey Luskin’s review calls my book a “unique little book which rises above the rhetoric”. Wesley seems to want to reject my book because there is not enough of the rhetoric he is accustomed to and comfortable with. Perhaps the problem is that my book is way below the scientific pretensions, instead of because it is trying to sound significant. I purposely want to ignore the arguments of the high-profile names in Intelligent Design, because the experts are having no trouble at all with making counter-arguments … they don’t need my humble help with that part … but they may need my two cents to help keep from throwing out the baby with the bathwater in the process.

When I share my views with people in the thick of it, they don’t reject my views as wrong so much as telling me that my views do not fit into their framework or do not address the issues they are currently working on.

A science professor I know agrees 1) that very few people stress the secular aspects of ID ideas, 2) that very few people (in the ID movement) decry the sectarian aspects of ID ideas, 3) that separating the two would take a lot of momentum out of the movement, and 4) that the separation needs to take place for scientists to take ID seriously and for people outside of religious circles to take it seriously.

As far as I know, my book is the only book out there trying to do this, but that is its only significance. I would be thrilled to see twenty better books appear on the market with similar objectives, and written by people with much more experience and insight. You can take it as a layman asking the scientific and religious communities to grow up, because I hear what you all are saying and it is childish, shortsighted, and very unproductive.

It is a modest proposal to ask people to go beyond the culture wars, see what can be agreed on, stop the name-calling, and further the cause of serious natural science without all the religious and supernatural baggage that gets in the way of progress. If a scientist does not believe in the supernatural, that is fine. Just see what ID ideas can be used in natural science and run with them, but don’t reject them because of the source or because of the associations or implications.

ID in natural science may go unnoticed, and that is fine. The debates would end, and people would just get back to work. Let science be science, and let philosophy be philosophy.

My mistake has nothing to do with what I think regarding ID, and nothing to do with being an idiot, I assure you. When I think of Tim Beazley, I think of your review on amazon.com, and not of what I or you wrote on the Austringer site. Yes, I see my mistake now. I definitely did mention your name on Aug. 29 on this site, even though I did not mention your name on amazon.com.

If I “accuse” you of anything, it is of creating a false dichotomy (in what you wrote on amazon) between natural causes (known or unknown) and intelligent design, similar to what Behe does. Perhaps I should change my wording from “creating” a false dichotomy to “perpetuating” that type of thinking created by Behe.

You may choose to agree with me that natural causes and intelligent design are entirely compatible, or you may choose to disagree with me and agree with Behe that they are mutually exclusive. What is your position so far?

I stand corrected that a false dichotomy does not preclude third options, it only intends to preclude third options. I think it is an issue of semantics, and you knew what I meant. Regardless, I admit my mistake. We should all try to be more exact with our language, and when we do that we find much more agreement. My point was that I agree with you on the three possibilities there; there are definitely more than just two. I was not trying to mangle your argument, but to paraphrase it and support it.

The big meta-issue I see so far is Shrom’s relevant experience and knowledge of the subject matter. Pretty much the preponderance of references are to Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and one debate. This has struck me as an awfully thin basis upon which to write a book with such pretensions to significance.

On 29 Aug, Shrom said: “Where Beazley creates a false dichotomy is in assuming that known natural causes and unknown natural causes do not fall into the category of intelligent design.” Notice, Shrom specifically named me as the guilty party. When I pointed out that I had not proposed any dichotomy at all, but rather had merely pointed out that arguments actually made by Michael Behe lacked the essential elements of Behe’s theoretically valid dichotomy, Shrom responded with a brand new statement, “I do not accuse [Beazley] of anything; in fact I don’t mention you at all in my review.”

Well, Shrom, whether you mentioned me in your review or not, you did accuse me of creating a false dichotomy in your post to Wesley. Your accusation in that post was false, and your refusal to admit that speaks volumes about your integrity.

Furthermore, your additional comment, that “[Beazley's] argument is that the false dichotomy between known natural causes and supernatural causes precludes the third option of unknown natural causes,” simply compounds your error. Your claim about what I said is not only a grotesque misrepresentation of what I actually said, it is also completely nonsensical. For your information, a false dichotomy does not “preclude” a third option, rather it is the existence of a third option that makes the dichotomy false. Either you can’t understand simple English sentences, or you don’t have the intellectual integrity to admit your mistakes.

If I am free to complain that too many people create a false dichotomy between intelligent design and natural causes, then let me be free to make my complaint. There is no accusation to be more accurate about. I didn’t mention Behe by name, but I do in my book. Yes, he is one of those people who tends to set up the false dichotomy that I am complaining about. My problem is not with people, but with certain ideas and logical fallacies. I am not bothered about who specifically might express a biased idea, but I am bothered when misleading ideas are taken for solid thinking, and I want to point out the fallacy so that we can all approach the issue more clearly.

I don’t think I mangle your argument in the least. Your argument is that the false dichotomy between known natural causes and supernatural causes precludes the third option of unknown natural causes. Far from mangling it, I practically quote it verbatim. Here is the paragraph from my review that you are talking about:

While there is a false dichotomy between “known natural causes vs. supernatural causes” (a third option is unknown natural causes), there is also a false dichotomy between natural causes and design (a third option is natural intelligent design). Intelligent design and unknown natural causes – or even known natural causes for that matter – are very well compatible. In fact, much ID theory is drawn from observing natural evidence and bringing reason to bear on it, requiring no supernatural speculation whatsoever. An atheist scientist is just as capable of developing ID theory as a theistic one.

On Aug 29, Glenn Schrom accused me of “creat[ing] a false dichotomy” in my review of something Michael Behe wrote in the Discovery Institute’s recent book “Traipsing Into Evolution.”

In reality, I was paraphrasing arguments that Behe and other ID-iots make. If Schrom wants to complain that “Too many people create a false dichotomy between intelligent design and natural causes,” he is welcome to do so, but he should aim his accusations more accurately. The false dichotomy Schrom is complaining about came from Michael Behe, not from me. If Schrom is so clueless that he can’t figure out a simple thing like that, then that doesn’t inspire much confidence in his ability to figure out more complex issues.

Tim Beazley

P.S. If you want to verify just how badly Schrom mangled my argument, you can read my argument in its entirety in the customer comments section for “Traipsing Into Evolution” at amazon.com.

I would like to refer you to a critical review of the book Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision (paperback). In the review by Tim Beazley, he talks about the false dichotomy. “There is no known natural cause for X, therefore X is attributable to design.” He then points out the third category which Behe allegedly ignores: unknown natural causes.

Where Beazley creates a false dichotomy is in assuming that known natural causes and unknown natural causes do not fall into the category of intelligent design. They certainly can, and that is what my book addresses. Too many people create a false dichotomy between intelligent design and natural causes.