home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

return to 'evolution' main-page

from the article:  https://evolutionnews.org/2024/08/intelligent-design-and-the-stop-hitting-yourself-argument/

Intelligent Design and the “Stop Hitting Yourself” Argument

Daniel Witt

August 27, 2024

On the topic of intelligent design, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has called the online information source “appallingly biased.” And who can argue with that? As of this writing, readers who go to Wikipedia — the website most people go to find out about an unfamiliar subject — will find this statement about ID: 

The failure to follow the procedures of scientific discourse and the failure to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny have weighed against intelligent design being accepted as valid science. The intelligent design movement has not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and has failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID.

Of course, that isn’t true at all. See here for a “List of Peer-Reviewed and Mainstream Scientific Publications Supporting Intelligent Design.” It is 186 pages long. But I’d like to focus on something else, namely, the type of argument that is being made. This is what the Wikipedia article has to say about why, supposedly, no such articles have been published or are forthcoming: 

Dembski, Behe and other intelligent design proponents say bias by the scientific community is to blame for the failure of their research to be published. Intelligent design proponents believe that their writings are rejected for not conforming to purely naturalistic, non-supernatural mechanisms rather than because their research is not up to “journal standards”, and that the merit of their articles is overlooked. Some scientists describe this claim as a conspiracy theory… Critics and advocates debate over whether intelligent design produces new research and has legitimately attempted to publish this research.

The absurd claim is that ID theorists aren’t even really trying to publish in peer-reviewed papers; in other words, the idea that intelligent design articles are often blocked by journals because they are intelligent design articles is some sort of a hoax or conspiracy theory.  

This rhetorical move is old as dirt. Take this lecture about the benefits of peer-review, from critical comments by Jeffrey Shallit about William Dembski’s 2001 book No Free Lunch: 

I have covered six of the most significant problems with [No Free Lunch]. At least some of these problems could have been avoided had Dembski been more willing to test his claims through the peer-review process. But intelligent design advocates have consistently failed to publish their work in scientific journals (Gilchrist, 1997; Forrest, 2001). When pressed, some say this is because academia is a “closed shop”, run by an “elite” that is biased against them.

This claim is undermined by the fact that many non-mainstream and controversial views routinely get published in the scientific literature. Just recently, controversial claims of table-top fusion induced by the collapse of super-hot bubbles were published in a major scientific journal (Taleyarkhan, West, Cho, Lahey, Nigmatulin, and Block, 2002).

What intelligent design advocates fail to realize is that the peer-review process could benefit them enormously, by identifying weak arguments and incorrect claims before they are published…

The benefits of peer review are so obvious that I can only conclude that some ID advocates are not really interested in the advancement of science. Their goal is to replace science as it is currently done with a form of religion, and that in turn may have unintended consequences.

William Dembski, it should be added, has this to say about Jeffrey Shallit. 

Now, let’s set aside the fact that Shallit’s argument against the claim of censorship is supported only by the existence of a paper on “table-top fusion induced by the collapse of super-hot bubbles” (which is, needless to say, not quite so hot a topic as “Is Life Designed?”). What can we see about the type of rhetoric being used here?

Take note of the gleefully condescending tone: “some of these problems could have been avoided had Dembski been more willing to test his claims through the peer review process…What intelligent design advocates fail to realize is that the peer-review process could benefit them enormously…The benefits of peer review are so obvious that I can only conclude that some ID advocates are not really interested in the advancement of science…” 

ID Theorists Take the Advice

Well, maybe the tone was a mistake. Maybe it was just honest, well-intended, constructive criticism. Right? 

If so, critics such as Professor Shallit should have been pleased when, in 2004, Stephen Meyer managed to get a paper that argued explicitly for intelligent design published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. 

But instead, what you saw was more like consternation. The biology world was all in a tizzy that such a paper had been allowed. People couldn’t believe that it had actually been peer-reviewed, since what peer-reviewers would accept a pro-ID paper? (Talk about a No True Scotsman fallacy!) 

Hilariously, the New York Times editorial board wrote that although they don’t believe ID has any place in science, they “ruefully give him [the editor] credit for maneuvering a brief for intelligent design into a peer-reviewed scientific journal, although how rigorous that review was remains a point of contention.” (Now why did it have to be “maneuvered” into the journal, may we ask?)

Anyway, through whatever clever maneuvers, ID theorists had done it. They had gotten an ID article peer-reviewed and published. At that point, all the people who had had chastised ID proponents for failing to publish peer-reviewed papers said, “Oh good, they took our advice,” and a civil discussion of the merits of the arguments commenced. 

Just kidding. Instead, all that happened was that the powers-that-be went after the journal editor responsible and destroyed his career. That story is probably familiar to most people who follow ID, but I’ll give a brief account here for those who don’t know. 

The Sternberg Saga

The editor was a man named Richard Sternberg, who also worked for the Smithsonian Institute as a crustacean expert. He had been volunteering his time as managing editor of PBSW, and was already near the end of that appointment when the Meyer article came out. But his colleagues at his other job couldn’t bear working with someone who had allowed an intelligent design paper to be published.

They have denied this, of course. But two subsequent federal investigations, by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel and by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform, found clear evidence of wrongdoing: they had, as Sternberg had claimed, persecuted him for publishing an ID-friendly paper.

If you doubt Sternberg’s side of the story, I recommend reading those reports. I don’t see how anyone could read them without concluding that Sternberg had his career systematically destroyed for daring to put a pro-ID paper through a fair peer-review process.

First, his colleagues started spreading conspiracy theories and wild accusations, such as the idea that Sternberg wasn’t actually a scientist (in fact, he had two PhDs in biology), and the false and irrelevant assertion that he had “extensive training as an Orthodox priest.” Apparently, people at the Smithsonian thought he was some sort of Young Earth Creationist sleeper agent. 

Higher-ups at the Smithsonian started searching for a pretext to fire him, as evidenced (for example) by a letter stating: “As he hasn’t (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind.” Eventually, failing to come up with any valid reason to terminate his contract, they resorted to driving him out with a hostile work environment. The Special Counsel letter to Sternberg stated: 

Eventually, they determined that they could not terminate you for cause and they were not going to make you a “martyr” by firing you for publishing a paper on ID. They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied access for off-duty conduct. This was actually part of the strategy advocated by the NCSE [the anti-ID organization they had brought in to help deal with Sternberg]. Undeterred, these same managers then embarked on a new strategy to change your working conditions and create a hostile working environment. Several e-mails complained that you should not be allowed to “live” on the same working floor with other scientists.

Even Nell Payne, the Smithsonian director of government relations, agreed with Sternberg’s assessment of the situation. While the situation was unfolding, she wrote in an email to her colleagues: “But isn’t the Society private and isn’t their journal private???? I don’t think we are allowed to control what our people do on their own time, as long as it’s legal.” According to the Special Counsel report, after reviewing a small sample of the relevant emails, Payne concluded: “It looks to me like precisely the sort of management pressure Sternberg is complaining about.” 

Nevertheless, the Smithsonian succeeded in driving Sternberg out. He was demoted without cause, and it was predetermined that his contract would not be renewed (despite the fact that he still had two and a half years left on it, during which he might have made any number of discoveries or achievements). In the end, he left.

Now That the Truth Is Out… 

Okay, so Sternberg lost his job, but at least now the truth was out. It was apparent to the world that the “closed shop” theory was right, and ID theorists weren’t to blame for the lack of ID-friendly peer-reviewed articles. After all, what editor would dare to submit a pro-ID paper to peer-review knowing he or she would get Sternberg’s treatment? So everyone who had accused ID proponents of making up excuses and conspiracy theories apologized, and dedicated themselves to making the scientific community more open to honest disputation. 

Just kidding. They went on as usual, of course. 

In 2006, while the dust had not yet settled from the Sternberg fiasco, the NHS ran a hit piece on intelligent design with this incredible paragraph titled, “The ‘persecuted scientist against the establishment’ hoax”:

Another plea often articulated by ID proponents is the idea that there is a community of ID scientists undergoing persecution by the science establishment for their revolutionary scientific ideas. A search through PubMed fails to find evidence of their scholarship within the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In the original Wedge document [a leaked Discovery Institute document], a key part of the plan to displace evolutionary biology was a program of experimental science and publication of the results. That step has evidently been skipped.

The logic here is … interesting. 1. ID proponents claim to be persecuted by the scientific establishment. 2. A search of PubMed fails to reveal any peer-reviewed articles about ID. 3. Therefore, they aren’t persecuted by the establishment.

Got it? And this was immediately after a respected scientist was driven out of his job for daring to publish a single pro-ID article! 

It makes you wonder if they really expect anyone to buy their reasoning. Or could the bad reasoning be… the point? 

After all, when a bigger kid whacks a smaller kid with his own hand and says “Stop hitting yourself!” the bully isn’t expecting anyone to believe his claim. On the contrary, the whole point is that even though obviously the bigger kid is the one doing the hitting, no one can do anything about it. If people (somehow) believed the bully, it would defeat the whole point. The point is mocking the weak by confronting them with their own weakness. 

When I started thinking about this rhetorical move, I wanted to call it the Stop Hitting Yourself Fallacy. But on reflection, I don’t think it actually is a fallacy, since it isn’t a mistake and it isn’t intended to deceive. Rather, it’s a rhetorical device that achieves exactly what it intends to achieve: a display of dominance.  

Fortunately for the weak, it has a downside. Boasting of your ability to act without consequences may intimidate some of your opponents, but it lets everybody know that the true source of your dominance is brute force, not truth. 

And once people know that, it’s only a matter of time before they get fed up. That seems to be happening now, with a young generation of researchers calling out the bullies and censors who are upholding the neo-Darwinian paradigm. 

The old saying that “liars never prosper” may not be true (obviously, they often do prosper). But there’s another saying: “A lie has only one leg.” The disadvantage of falsehoods is that you have to keep artificially propping them up, and entropy is on the side of truth. So while it may not always be true that “the truth will out,” it does seem to be the case that gravity wants it to.

And that should be encouraging to anyone who is struggling in the face of ideological discrimination. At the end of the day, climates of opinion and spirits of the age are man-made, and man-made structures always crumble. So keep hitting yourself just a little longer, and don’t give in. 

Daniel Witt is a writer and ESL teacher. Originally from West Texas, he has been living for the past few years in Amman, Jordan, where he enjoys foraging for edible plants, hiking in the desert, and trying to talk in Arabic. He graduated in 2018 from the University of North Texas summa cum laude with a BA in History and a BS in Ecology. His favorite animal is the sea gooseberry.