Notes and Summmaries of the Royal Holloway College Debate
We have four reports list here from people who attended the debate.
Summary 1: By Roger Stanyard, Following Day (22nd February 2007)
Debate Report
Yesterday [21st February 2997]] I attended a debate at Royal Holloway College, University of London, between Professor Steve Fuller and Professor Lewis Wolpert. Despite the location (some 20 miles outside of central London) and the timing (5pm start – too early for people at work) it was quite well attended. The large lecture theatre was about half full. Amongst the names we noted in the audience was that of Richard Buggs.
For the uninitiated, Lewis Wolpert is one of the top scientists in the UK – one of the elite. Steve Fuller is a professor of sociology at Warwick University and is perhaps best known, recently, for being an expert witness for the defence during the Dover (Kitzmiller v the Dover School Board) court case.
It was a mis-matched – an aggressive gesticulating American (and youngish) professor in the social sciences against a distinguished old-school British (and patrician) scientist of another generation.
The scientist spoke science and the sociologist science studies. They were on two different planets.
This was not a good debate.
Neither where well prepared. Fuller, though, was certainly better prepared. He had clearly spend some time on preparing his presentation although admitted that he was unaware that he only had 20 minutes to present his case.
Wolpert’s approach was to show some science and dismiss ID as “bunkum”. We’ve seen him before on TV basically limiting himself to just rubbishing ID with simple statements. Debate it wasn’t. He needs to forcefully pin down how vacuous ID is rather than just dismissing it. He doesn’t know his enemy.
Fuller’s position was vacuous. I’m still reeling from Fuller’s position that seemed to state that ID had something in it because scientists used the language of design/engineering as (apparently) a matter of norm. He seemed to be saying that science was open to ID but scientists were denying it.
It seems that this is one of Fuller’s major arguments; others looked upon it as a post-modernist play on semantics. Fuller sort of agreed that the player behind ID is God but trying to pin him down on how design was implemented was akin to trying to nail jello to a wall. His position was nothing more that its all a bit complex (lots of arm waving and gesticulating) and could have or might have happened in ways we don’t understand in undefined scenarios.
There was also the bizarre suggestion from Fuller that Darwin was a depressive because he didn’t accept Intelligent Design.
Unfortunately, however one looks at what Fuller said, there was not one iota of science in either his presentation or in his response to questions from the floor. I am amazed that nobody picked up with him that Behe admitted in the Dover court case that his definition of science included astrology.
There is a possibility that we may receive transcripts of the lecture which I will post as and when received.
Report 2: This is a summary written by Roger Stanyard after having worked on the transcripts of the debate.
I’ll do my best to try and summarise Steve Fuller’s position in the debate and be impartial at the same time. One of the advantages I hope I bring to this is that I have transcribed the debate (with Malcolm Stein). I was, of course, at the debate as well.
Firstly, a comment about the audience. Two of the audience were Muslims and at least two seem to be fundamentalist Christians. In addressing the speakers, three of them looked to be wholly off-topic, confusing such areas as cosmology and the big bang with evolution. In one case, the fundamentalist seemed to be arguing that all morality stems from the bible and therefore the theory of evolution was inherently immoral.
Professor Fuller seems to have encapsulated his arguments in the following statement during the debate: “We are talking about the need to presuppose Intelligent Design in order to be able to do science regardless of whether the Intelligent Designer exists.”
In other words, we must accept the possibility of supernatural things to do science. (3)
I think Steve Fuller’s position, as suggested during the debate, is as follows:
- 1. Science is a product of the society we live in and therefore reflects that society in its scope and methodology.
- 2. Many people in society believe in the supernatural (God).
- 3. They too, bring perspectives to science.
- 4. Therefore without allowing for the supernatural, science is incomplete.
- 5. Science cannot, from a scientific viewpoint, dismiss supernatural causes without allowing for them in the first place.
- 6. We don’t know how many scientists accept Intelligent Design.
Fuller has a more complex argument in terms of use of language. He takes this very seriously.
Language:
- 1. The scientific world, through its use of language, admits there is scope for Intelligent Design within science.
- 2. The scientific world is so ambiguous in its use of Intelligent Design language that it is open to (allows) Intelligent Design as a possibility.
- 3. The debate between Gould and Dawkins shows that even Dawkins believes in Intelligent Design.(1)
- 4. Evolutionary Theory can’t provide an explanation of evolution until it drops design language.
Fuller also raised other scientific issues:
- 1. The scientific world would be organised very differently if it allowed for the possibility of Intelligent Design (which Fuller describes in the debate as a theory).
- 2. Intelligent Design cannot be criticised in the grounds that it is not falsifiable because, in its broadest sense, evolutionary theory is not falsifiable.
- 3. God could have been involved at various unspecified levels and in various unspecified ways. (2)
Other issues raised by Fuller:
- 1. Fuller concedes that Intelligent Design is about the Abrahamic God being the designer. His personal view is that there is an intelligent designer (2).
- 2. Intelligent Design is leading to engineering becoming involved in evolutionary theory and split into two different approaches to the biological sciences.
- 3. If Darwin was return today, as a naturalist, he would support Intelligent Design.
Other observations:
There is undoubtedly a strong element of the Gish Gallup in Professor Fullers debating technique. It is very apparent from our audio recording (not so much, though in the actual debate). The technique was entirely absent from Lewis Wolpert’s presentation.
Notes (1): My interpretation here is based on what Fuller said in debating with Wolpert. Fuller describes Dawkins as an adaptationist and that it’s the same as design:
Steve Fuller: Oh come on. Richard Dawkins is a (not clear). If there is any adaptationist, it always trades on design metaphors. People have a very strong adaptationist view of evolution.
Lewis Wolpert: But it is not design.
Steve Fuller: Yes it is, that’s the problem. Adaptation is designed and that’s why Stephen Jay Gould was so much up against Dawkins because he basically thought that Dawkins had this over-nice of evolution being able to create a kinda optimal world whereas Dawkins, whereas Gould believed in fact, as Darwin himself thought that, messy and lots of extinctions and big happenings for no good reason whatsover and Dawkins was creating for a kind of false sense that evolution may be more rational, which it doesn’t.
(2) Professor Fuller is understood to be an agnostic. However, he does suggest in the debate that the intelligent designer is God. To quote:
Lewis Wolpert: There is a designer isn’t there?
Steve Fuller: Yes of course.
Lewis Wolpert: Who do you thing the designer is?
Steve Fuller: Who do I think what the designer is?
Lewis Wolpert: Which word is it you don’t understand?
Steve Fuller: The point is, I think, people who…
Lewis Wolpert: (not clear)
Steve Fuller: I think it is a reference to God, of course it is. And I don’t think…
(3) A very strange position to take, indeed, as science can and does test the possibility of the supernatural using the scientific method.
General Comments on the Debate.
My personal view is that the whole debate misfired. Wolpert basically gave a very good scientific justification for evolutionary theory but failed to demonstrate the weaknesses of Professor Fuller’s position.
Fuller was very confident in his presentation. Yet it was little over a year since Fuller was an expert witness at the Kitzmiller v Dover School Board court case. That was a disaster for Intelligent Design. Some points that may have been raised are as follows:
- 1. Michael Behe admitting that his definition of science included astrology.
- 2. Intelligent Design was shown to be creationism.
- 3. The utter dishonesty of the book “Of Pandas and People” where the term creationism was replaced with Intelligent design.
- 4. That virtually every person in the UK promoting Intelligent Design is a young earth creationist who rejects all science that does not fit with their literal view of the bible. BCSE counts no more that three scientists in the UK currently backing Intelligent Design whilst at the same time rejecting young earth creationism.
- 5. Acceptance of Intelligent Design, de facto, thus necessarily requires acceptance of a purely religious opinion on young earth creationism.
- 6. That Intelligent design is just a front for the religious belief of young earth creationism.
- 7. That, by definition of who is promoting it (and why it is being promoted), it is not compatible with any of the natural sciences, let alone the theory of evolution. It is not compatible with our understanding of geology, history, physical geography or archaeology. Debatably, it is not consistent with mathematics either.
- 8. It’s not compatible with most religious beliefs.
- 9. The flight from Intelligent Design in the USA following Dover.
- 10. The Wedge Document.
- 11. Finally, the burden of the argument rests not on mainstream science but the Intelligent Design and young earth creationism advocates. It simply is not good enough saying how unreasonable mainstream science is in rejecting the supernatural. The IDers and YECers first have to come up with some plausible scientific alternatives. They have had 50 years to do so.
Wolpert was right to bring up the issue that Intelligent Design has not provided one iota of scientific understanding of the world. This can be padded out by showing just what the level of resources the Intelligent Design world has available to it. These include long-established “research” organisations (Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis and so on), the Discovery Institute, universities across the USA – Loma Linda, Regent, Liberty, Bob Jones, Biola, Patrick Henry….
The proponents of Intelligent Design (and I include creationism here, for self-evident reasons from my comments above) have been working on it for near on 50 years. If, as they claim, there are numerous scientists (i.e. a significant and substantial part of the scientific community) who accept it in some form or other, where are the results?
Report 3: Truth in Science Summary
There is also a Truth in Science summary, presumably written by Richard Buggs: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/. Buggs, who acts as spokesman for Truth in Science, was in the audience at the debate.
Report 4: Notes by Louis Constandinos, 22nd February 2007
(He attended the debate and argued with Fuller.)
A bit of further clarification re: Fuller.
Part of what he has been advocating is "sociological epistemology" (I might have remembered the term wrongly so I may have to go back to his books and reread). The general idea is that if someone is a christian his/her religious ideas might provide a useful starting point for a scientific hypothesis, investigation of which subsequently turns out (on the basis of the evidence) to be fruitful. Thus those religious ideas are in some part validated. It's the old postmodernist correlation not being causation cock up.
I mentioned to him on one occasion before and on this occasion that this was the case. For which he has and had no answer (expect yet more blather and obfuscation). I even used an example; I had a bit of strawberry cheesecake before I did the most successful reactionI've ever done. Thus strawberry cheescake is scientific. He didn't like it, mainly because I was being cheeky. A better analogy is I voted Liberal in the last election, I then went back into the lab and put on the most successful reaction I've ever done because as I was walking back to lab and cogitating on the ineffable splendour of the then leader of the LibDems Charles Kennedy and proportional representation I realised that the molar ratio of one of my reagents was wrong and determined to rectify it when I put the reaction on. The reaction was successful therefore proportional representation and Charlie K have been scientifically verfied and we should usher in a new age of LibDem government and cake for everyone. Anyone else worried?
Incidentally when Fuller was bare faced lying last night about evolutionary biology being some sort of overarching ideological/theoretical framework that has only been supported by subdisciplinary work in genetic/paleonotlogy etc and has never been experimentally confirmed I interrupted him with the comment that the new synthesis of Fisher, Haldane and others was PRECISELY this confirmation. He retorted with (brace yourselves) "But Fisher and Haldane were CHRISTIANS". Thank you and goodnight Prof Fuller. Sanity has left the building. "So what?" was the obvious reply. Their christianity is irrelevant to the accuracy of their scientific ideas. For Fuller this appears to be a woefully confused team game. What he is up to, other than deliberately muddying the waters and advancing his public profile, is beyond me.
