Dembski vs. Evo Devo

Ah, but Dembski isn't interested in science. He's only interested in planning his next Waterloo, at which he's very good.

As I read Dembski's article, all I could say was No, no, no your missing the point. No, no, no your wrong. No, no, no you misunderstood the article, so many "no's". It's frustrating to watch someone twist and mangle an idea and try to use the literature to support their preconceived notion.

This thread on ARN discussed the ludicrousness of the Dembski/Wells position almost 4 years ago. In addition to the difference between scientists and IDeologues when it comes to the posing and pursuit of scientific questions, it's interesting to see that, in contrast to the field of evo-devo (which has made large, bold strides in these 4 years), ID thought has changed not a single, solitary iota.

Note in the thread the inevitable resort to "you haven't explained everything, thus evolution NO!" that pops up.

"Of course not. You're not an idiot."

Awesome. That's a great line.

This phrase, "biologists are now realizing that it actually constitutes a paradox", is simply false. There is no paradox at all there, and it doesn't trouble us at all.

The discovery that the same sets of genes control the formation and pattern of body regions and body parts with similar functions (but very different designs) in insects, vertebrates, and other animals has forced a complete rethinking of animal history, the origins of structures, and the nature of diversity. Comparative and evolutionary biologists had long assumed that different groups of animals, separated by vast amounts of evolutionary time, were constructed and had evolved by entirely different means. The connection between members of some groups --- among the vertebrates, for example, or between vertebrates and other animals with a notochord -- was well established. But between flies and humans, or flatworms and sea squirts...no way! So prevalent was this view of great evolutionary distance that in the 1960s the evolutionary biologist (and an architect of the Modern Synthesis) Ernst Mayr remarked: "Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives..." This view was entirely incorrect. The late Stephen Jay Gould, in his monumental work The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, saw the discovery of Hox clusters and common body-building genes as overturning a major view of the Modern Synthesis. Gould states, "The central significance of our dawning understanding of the genetics of development lies not in the simple discovery of something utterly unknown...but in the explicitly unexpected character of these findings, and in the revisions and extensions thus required of evolutionary theory."

Paul A. Nelson -

Your post does not address the substance of what PZ Meyers said. It merely quibbles, irrelevantly, as to whether anyone has ever used the term "paradox" to describe hox genes. By its nature, it suggests an incapacity on the part of its writer to address the substance of the post.

You do provide a source for your quote box (thank you). But within it, this is unsourced...

"Ernst Mayr remarked: "Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives..." "

If Ernst Mayr remarked this, I strongly suspect that the remark has been taken out of context. It is trivially wrong. Humans and bacteria have many homologous genes for basic metabolic functions, for example. Of course, if Ernst Meyer merely put his foot honestly in his mouth, once, it means little. But if your source is twisting Meyer's words, that may mean a great deal.

The fact that homologous genes underly basic aspects of development supports common descent. The opposite would not (distorted quotes from Meyer notwithstanding).

Meanwhile, if there were NOT conserved genes underlying development, you would claim that this "supported intelligent design". But if there ARE, you will merely claim that this, too "supports intelligent design" with the rubric "common design". (Neither of these would be true, of course, it's just that the latter supports common descent more strongly than the former.) Thus, intelligent design is worthless for explaining or understanding hox genes, and makes no testable claim with respect to hox genes.

Indeed, if we were to practice "intelligent design", we wouldn't even know that hox genes exist.

Paul,

You are a good sort by all accounts. Do you agree that William A Dembski has been engaged in 'quote mining' and that his article is misleading as a consequence?

Admiral Paul Nelson stands on the deck of the sinking HMS ID, holds his teleoscope up to his blind eye and exclaims "I see no evidence!"

Meanwhile, below decks, Swabbie Dembski wearing an Abba costume mans the bilge pump while belting out "Waterloo."

The existence of the so-called "hox paradox" -- the deployment of homologous genes and their protein products in the development of classically non-homologous structures, such as vertebrate and arthropod eyes -- has been one of the most widely-discussed topics in evo-devo over the past decade.

PZ knows this, as does anyone who follows or studies evo-devo.

The quote from Ernst Mayr is taken from Sean Carroll's book, and (as Carroll argues) represents the neo-Darwinian, or Modern Synthesis, understanding of the genetic basis of homology.

It is now widely accepted that the divergent body plans are based more, but not exclusively, on differences in the regulation of a conserved set of genes rather than different gene complements.

The first approach to resolving the Hox Paradox was to deny that distantly related animals are really so different after all. The notion of cryptic anatomical similarity became a touchstone for biologists intent on uncovering the conserved genetic underpinnings of animal development. The logical conclusion of this approach was the conceptual reconstruction of Urbilateria, the latest common ancestor of all bilaterians (which is to say nearly all animals). Under the assumption that similar gene expression denotes conserved gene function, Urbilateria became a rather complex beast—with eyes, a heart, appendages, and a segmented body. But doubts slowly crept in. By the mid-1990s, it was clear that virtually all developmental regulatory genes control several different processes, some of which plainly evolved within insects and mammals. If regulatory genes can acquire new developmental roles, then their domains of expression cannot be taken at face value as indicating anatomical conservation. On reflection, some of Urbilateria's reconstructed features, such as segmentation, began to look less certain. This realization has led to a second approach to resolving the Hox Paradox, based on the notion that although developmental regulatory genes are evolutionarily conserved, their interactions are not.

The first so-called Hox paradox was the discovery that homologous genes ''code'' for fundamentally different body plans. It is now widely accepted that the divergent body plans are based more, but not exclusively, on differences in the regulation of a conserved set of genes rather than different gene complements (2--4). This commentary discusses a second Hox paradox: Why is it that in the evolution of chordates (vertebrates) the number of Hox gene clusters has increased several times (Fig. 1), often in association with major radiations (5, 6), whereas no evidence exists for such a trend in invertebrates (7)? It is hard to believe that this difference should be due to differences in the frequency of genome and chromosome duplications between vertebrates and invertebrates. In this commentary, we argue that vertebrate Hox clusters, in the absence of duplication, are structurally less evolvable than their invertebrate counterparts. The constraint on Hox cluster structure may be temporarily lifted after cluster duplication, which may make an association between Hox cluster duplications and adaptive radiations more likely in vertebrates than in invertebrates.

This is a strikingly illogical statement for a proponent of ID to make...(attributed to Dembski in the above post)...

"But biologists are now realizing that it actually constitutes a paradox: if genes control development, why do similar genes produce such different animals? Why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly instead of a barracuda?"

It is certainly interesting that highly conserved genes would be active in development, across different lineages. I don't find it a 'paradox'. A 'paradox' is something contradictory. It is certainly an exciting spur to future research, but again, that isn't what 'paradox' means.

But it also strikes me as rather overwhelming evidence of common descent. Why would an ID advocate trumpet it as a problem for the theory of evolution?

I don't mean to be sarcastic and don't wish for this to come across that way but without boring everyone with a long comment, I can only respond

ID The paradigm always stays the same

PZ, would you agree (as Carroll argues) that the neo-Darwinian understanding of the relationship of genes to development and morphological form turned out to be wrong?

Paul Nelson -

You've established the point that the misnomer "hox paradox" has been widely used. It has also been demonstrated that users of the term often acknowledge that it is something of a misnomer.

Do you agree that conserved genes active in development, across lineages, supports common descent?

Do you have an alternate, testable, scientific explanation for this observation? What is it and how can we test it?

This is a strikingly illogical statement for a proponent of ID to make...

OK, let me get this straight.

Dembski says that only God an Intelligent designer could produce different creatures from such similar genes, right?

Now, the genes are still similar, right?

So is Dembski arguing that every single reproductive event is the result of direct intervention from God the Designer?

That does seem to be where it is leading, logically.

Back 60 or so years ago, most geologists did not believe in plate techtonics because they saw no way that continents could actually move about. So there was the south america/africa similarity paradox: how could the almost exact geometric fit between the two continents be explained given they were always so far apart. The answer came when the theory of plate techtonics, which showed how continents could move about and further that continents did move about, was developed.

From Paul Nelson's description of the Hox paradox, it seems that people assumed that growth regulatory genes developed independently and at different times in different evolutionary lines. This assumption seems to have arisen without much examination: since different evolutionary lines separated early, when else would those functions have appeared. (This in contrast to matabolism, which would have to develop early and is similar in most all cellular beings -- I think Mayr, who, it seems, is being quoted by Sean Carroll, was likely talking about development genes.)

Now new infomation indicates that development genes also arose early and are widely shared. This doubtless produces a "paradox" (how can these genes work the same in wildly different animals?) but one that I suspect will lead to a resolution that will result in much better understanding on evolution.

Could Paul Nelson do something more quote practicioners of evolutionary science and claim the quotes are against the authors? Could he ask some meaningful and relevant questions that might just allow the rest of us to understand what he believes the relevant issues are?

PS: "paradox" means either puzzle or logical inconsistency. That Africa and SA fit together was a pardox to traditional (continents do not move) geology, which had to be abandoned. If evolutionary biology requires that development genes evolved late in each evolutionary line, then the hox genes are a paradox in that sense. If that is not a requirement, then they are just a puzzle. Dembski seems to be using the term in the logical inconsistent sense. Carroll in the puzzle sense.

Harold, it is true that one can't just take a crationist's word for a quote, but you still have to check.

Nelson's quote, in the box, is correct. Carroll's source for Mayr is:
_Animal Species and Evolution_, Harvard press 1963, page 609. Scientists were just beginning to be able to sequence and compare proteins, much less segments of DNA.

Bill -

Well, of course, proponents of ID make many illogical statements. This one is STRIKINGLY illogical because, while employing the "outraged by a their own straw man" tone of creationists ("why doesn't a caterpillar turn into a barracuda..."), it actually presents rather straightforward evidence for common descent, and mentions an interesting area of research. In fact, stripped of its tone of exaggeration, it is a logical question for SCIENTIST to ask.

PZ, would you agree (as Carroll argues) that the neo-Darwinian understanding of the relationship of genes to development and morphological form turned out to be wrong?

In response to this paradox [the Hox paradox], an almost automatic response has been that though they may look different these body parts are actually homologous; that there are basic and still hidden pattern formation processes underlying their development, and that these were already present in the bilaterian common ancestor. Conservation must be the reason that the same genes are used in the development of each part in diverse bilaterians, so this argument goes....But if we sum all the assertions of this sort we produce an impossible and illogical image of the bilaterian common ancestor. It would have been equipped with brain, seeing eyes, moving appendages, beating heart, etc. Something is very wrong with this picture because the way these body parts develop in diverse branches of the Bilateria actually share little in the details of their respective pattern formation processes. If the common ancestor had appendages, for example, it could not easily be ancestral to insect and mouse appendages both, because the structures and processes through which these develop are completely different.

David Margolies -

I have never encountered the usage of "paradox" to mean "puzzle" that you describe. I have only heard it to mean "logical inconsistency". However, I have no reason to doubt that you are correct. You also present a justification for considering the existence of hox genes to be paradoxical, relative to what might have been expected under some prior hypotheses.

And so, with regard the the term "hox paradox", I think we can say...

1) The term has been used. Paul Nelson is correct in this regard.
2) In this context, the term is subjective. Some situations of pure logic may constitute a paradox in an objective sense, but...
3) To some of us, the existence of hox genes does not seem paradoxical.
4) The issue of whether anyone ever CALLED hox genes a 'paradox' is relatively trivial, and does not address the substance of the PZ Meyers post.

Paul Nelson -

If you're still here...

Scientists believe the basic mechanism of evolution to be genetic variability acted on by natural selection. The RESULT of this may be described, tersely but quite accurately, as a "change in the frequency of alleles", with the understanding that much else usually changes as well.

This conception is not rigid, but it isn't especially elastic, either.

While the use of relatively conserved hox genes in development of different morphologic features is fascinating, and may disagree with earlier hypotheses of development, it is also strongly consistent with the theory of evolution from common descent, as described above.

If you disagree, can you explain why, very specifically?

Harold, I was using "puzzle" as an abbreviation for 2 a: in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate: "2 a: a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true." And I note the Wikipedia uses the word "puzzling" -- this from the beginning of the entry in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox:

"A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true (or, cannot all be true together)."

David Marolies -

Well, language is a slippery thing. It certainly seems to be a matter of subjective preference whether or one chooses to refer to hox genes as a "paradox".

That last definition is especially mind-bending - it seems to suggest that a paradox isn't really contradictory, but merely seems to be so. But then what do we call a real contradiction?

What's interesting is that science leads to paradoxes all the time, relative to how the human mind processes information. But not at the scale of biology.

It would be quite reasonable to describe much of advanced physics as paradoxical, even though it's empirically verifiable. Of course, some may choose to subjectively deny that any of it is a paradox.

I hope Paul Nelson answers my question.

PZ, would you agree (as Carroll argues) that the neo-Darwinian understanding of the relationship of genes to development and morphological form turned out to be wrong?

— Paul Nelson

The Ernst Mayr quote that Mr. Nelson takes from Sean Carroll's book is also used by Gilbert's Developmental Biology, 6th Ed. It seems to originate in the book Animal Species and Evolution, E. Mayer 1966.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.section.5475

Further searching yields a 1963 publication of the book.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674037502/qid=1122587914/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-3907674-8402547?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

My first post :-)

Paul Nelson --

As long as you're here, I would like to know: do you unequivocally repudiate and disown the HIV/AIDS denial directed at children by the magazine on whose advisory board you sit?

From a moral standpoint, I consider this much more important than a blog spat over who is quotemining whom.

The Discovery Institute has demonstrated itself to be seriously confused about the twin paradox and its resolution—why not the hox paradox and its resolution too?

Harold,

Reading further in the Wikipedia definition it says: "The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction; but where a contradiction by definition cannot be true, many paradoxes do allow of resolution...", that is, we do not need "paradox" to mean "logical contradiction" because "logical contradiction" does just fine.

Indeed, it seems to me that "paradox" more often than not indeed means "apparently contradictory". Consider the "birthday paradox", that in a room with 23 (random) people, the chances are 50% that two share a birthday (though not a birth year). See http://efgh.com/math/birthday.htm (where it shows that the term is used). Or it means a type of unsolved problem (but it does not mean the problem is not capable of solution).

I agree with you about it being "a matter of subjective preference whether or one chooses to refer to hox genes as a 'paradox'". My point is this seems to be another case where opponents of evolution are seizing on a statement or term used by biologists as a way to show evolution is in trouble again, but the use of the word "paradox" here (again) just does not justify that.

Simply naming a phenomenon a "paradox" is no admission of the problem's intractability. Simpson's paradox is a simple mathematical juggling act, there is nothing mysterious about it, even though it seems puzzling at first glance. Same, it seems, with the Hox paradox, although that is far from my area of expertise.

I think the "paradox" is not so paradoxical when you actually look at the molecular mechanisms involved. This is exactly what happened as the "Modern Synthesis" began to incorporate (or be overridden by) modern molecular and developmental genetics.

Mayr and Dobzhansky are both credited with the notion searches for homologous genes would be fruitless except in closely related organisms. For his take on the historical perpective and how advances do NOT contradict evolution, see "The Evolutionary Synthesis" Mayr, 1980.

Lets take some examples:
PAX6 encodes a protein that is required for eye development from Fruit flies to mice. How can this be, since compound fly eyes look so different than our own? (THIS is the crux of the paradox! Right?) PAX6, which is nearly identical in all animals, turns on all the genes of fly development, some of which are similar in many species, and many of which are not. Thus, a conserved transcription factor, changed little since our last common ancestor, regulated a suite of genes, some of which account for distinct eye morphology. Geneticists c.a. the 1950's might not have imagined this possible-expecting a "fly-eye" gene, and a "vertebrate-eye" gene. The understanding we share common sets of genes, and the ability to see the ancestry changes in the ones with distinct function really enhances our view of evoulution.

Same thing with many conserved genes-many code for dorsal versus ventral, right versus left, and segmentation. From this conserved body plan, different pathways and differentially evolved genes specify hand versus claw, web, etc.

TYPO "turns on all the genes of fly development"
should read :turns on all the genes of EYE development"

I will say one more thing: the Hox literature is full of great examples of how homologous pathways of development have diversified.

Thats why conserved genes of pattern formation can evolutionarily preceed the organ they now are required for. I would LOVE to know what the warrent for the last statement of this paragraph is. It seems quite contradicted by the literature:

"...impossible and illogical image of the bilaterian common ancestor. It would have been equipped with brain, seeing eyes, moving appendages, beating heart, etc. Something is very wrong with this picture because the way these body parts develop in diverse branches of the Bilateria actually share little in the details of their respective pattern formation processes"

Wrong on both counts. Intelligent design does not have a problem with problems. It has a problem with bogus solutions that Darwinists like Ruse and Carroll dress up as real solutions to the problems of biological origins.

But it also strikes me as rather overwhelming evidence of common descent. Why would an ID advocate trumpet it as a problem for the theory of evolution?

Here are some definitions of "paradox"

"That which is apparently, though not actually, inconsistent with or opposed to the known facts in any case."

"A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true"

"A statement contrary to received opinion"

I think the simple answer to why the words "hox paradox" are used is because the rhyme. Makes for a nice catchy why to describe interesting science on development.

This is very interesting stuff. Is it correct to say that evo devo places more of an emphasis on the evolution of the "regulome" than the "genome"?

Where Dembski is at his most contemptible

"The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."

— Dembski

"The lists [of conserved genes] gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."

But it also strikes me as rather overwhelming evidence of common descent. Why would an ID advocate trumpet it as a problem for the theory of evolution? Hmmm...I'm going to hazard a guess here: Becuase they are woefully ignorant of modern evolutionary biology?

I didn't even catch his sneaky change of tense.

And yes, to the evo-devo crowd, regulation is where the cool stuff is.

Data suggesting that one's theory (the Modern Synthesis) needs a "complete rethinking" have the flavor of a genuine paradox.

— some IDeologue

Evo devo places more of an emphasis on the evolution of the "regulome" than the "genome"-
I would say the appreciation of the former is growing-but we don't ignore the genetics either. There are great cases for both.

Take Distal genes-flies have one expressed in their epidermis and bran, and we have 6 closely related ones, expressed differentially in the nervous system-specifying forebrain from hind, etc. In this case, there is a genomic diversification combined with a regulatory expansion.

Other cases are strictly regulatory: Chickens (and us!) don't have webbed feet because a gene, BMP4 induces cell death in the webbing (also used in lots of other tissues for the same function)during development. Ducks have the same gene, but don't express in in the webbing, hence webbed feet.

I think understanding gene regulation (and the new field of Epigenetics) goes a long way in explaining some homologous genes used for diverse functions.

I think part of the confusion is that a gene, mutated in flies, that gives them 6 antenna, is termed a "gene for antenna." Why do humans have the same gene? No antenna here! That gene may merely identify the position for antenna. In evolution, its role may be co-opted for any number of things-change its expression location, and the genes under its control, and you may have a hearing-canal specific gene.

But to answer your question, I think the regulome does answer a lot of the 'paradox.' Humans have genes homologous to fly wing-specific genes because we use them in new ways (or old) but CRITICALLY, in new places and times developmentally.

Paul (Nelson),

I don't care what the big whigs want to say in order to pump up sales or grants, there is no HOX paradox. the same hox gene in the same organism can promote or inhibit development of structures, its all a matter of context.

So, Paul, you guys are now harping on the Hox Paradox.

Remember a few years ago, when your side harped on Irreducible Complexity? Said it was a lethal problem for evolution? How'd that work out for you?

That last definition is especially mind-bending - it seems to suggest that a paradox isn't really contradictory, but merely seems to be so. But then what do we call a real contradiction?

would you agree (as Carroll argues) that the neo-Darwinian understanding of the relationship of genes to development and morphological form turned out to be wrong?

Data suggesting that one's theory (the Modern Synthesis) needs a "complete rethinking" have the flavor of a genuine paradox. Which explains why the phrase "hox paradox" is widespread in the evo-devo literature.

Nelson's quote, in the box, is correct. Carroll's source for Mayr is: _Animal Species and Evolution_, Harvard press 1963, page 609. Scientists were just beginning to be able to sequence and compare proteins, much less segments of DNA.

Attempts to resolve the hox paradox do not agree.

Whether it threatens "evolution" depends on how that infinitely elastic word is defined.

I have never understood why creationist IDiots like Paul Nelson post comments on the PandasThumb.

Really now, this is the hotbed of Darwinist Pressure Groups if there ever was one, and, yet, Paulie drops his creationist grenades among those best equiped to defuse them.

Could it be that he has no other place to go? Is he lonely?

Considering the "Discovery" Institute site doesn't accept comments, nor does IDiots-the-Future, nor does UncommonDescentIntoMadness, I suppose this is the only free market of ideas that will even acknowledge that Admiral Nelson exists.

I can only imagine that Nelson et al post their lunacy on this site for sport because creationists offer no intellectual stimulation whatsoever. One could say they're brain dead. At least at PandasThumb there's life. Evolved, naturally.

The Rev writes "Hey Paul, do you also quote people from 1963 who declare it impossible to land on the moon?"

LoL.. In case anyone thinks this a silly question its not; there was some concern that the lunar surface was covered in a thick layer of fine powder.

Dembski claims ID has no problem with problems.. then Nelson refutes him in a heart beat claiming the HOX paradox is a problem and then goes to town on it.

So what if it is? Science is allowed to be wrong. And who made the fundamental discoveries re HOX genes? Anyone at the DI?

Paul,

What research program does the DI propose to learn more about and unravel this "paradox"?

I have never understood why creationist IDiots like Paul Nelson post comments on the PandasThumb.

there was some concern that the lunar surface was covered in a thick layer of fine powder.

Dembski claims ID has no problem with problems.. then Nelson refutes him in a heart beat claiming the HOX paradox is a problem and then goes to town on it.

So what if it is? Science is allowed to be wrong. And who made the fundamental discoveries re HOX genes? Anyone at the DI?

Lenny, Sean Carroll quoted Mayr 1963, not me. I cited Carroll's 2005 (Endless Forms) discussion of Mayr's position.

Check your email tomorrow morning for my reply to your other questions. I just lost a long blog comment I was drafting and am too tired to reconstruct it now. But I'll try to do so in an email and you can post that here.

Paul,

Exactly! "I cited Carroll's 2005 (Endless Forms) discussion of Mayr's position." Sean quoted Mayr and you quoted Sean quoting Mayr. How clever! So we may expect that Id'ers won't cite 50-100 year old quotes (selectively) and claim that the "theory" isn't working today.

Oh yeah - the dog ate my homework.

This seems typical ID behavior. Another good example if Valentine who is often quoted by ID creationists to argue that there is a problem with the Cambrian. In his latest book, Valentine makes it quite clear that he believes that the Cambrian explosion is quite in line with Darwinian theory.

New knowledge often resolves much of the ignorance in which ID finds so much solace.

Paul, you should know that theories aren't replaced with ignorance. They're replaced with better theories. If you guys don't have a better, more useful theory than evolution, you lose. So you got a theory of ID yet?

Exactly! "I cited Carroll's 2005 (Endless Forms) discussion of Mayr's position." Sean quoted Mayr and you quoted Sean quoting Mayr. How clever! So we may expect that Id'ers won't cite 50-100 year old quotes (selectively) and claim that the "theory" isn't working today.

Lenny, Sean Carroll quoted Mayr 1963, not me.

— some IDeologue

I'm new to this issue, but in my early and cursory examination thus far it seems to me that for ID advocates (some of whose intelligence and even brilliance cannot be denied), the Intelligent Designer/GOD is nothing more than that which cannot be currently explained. Such an Intelligent Designer/GOD has been for centuries or longer, and continues daily, to get smaller and smaller and less and less...a continually "shrinking" Designer/GOD. Which means, of course, that we can rule out an "unchanging" Designer/GOD. Which would include the god of Christianity.

Personally, I DO believe in Intelligent Design and a very brilliant and creative Intelligent Designer. It is clear to me, however, that She has some very serious issues and problems, including Manic-Depressive Illness and Multiple Personality Disorder. The sooner we can introduce the study of ID into the public school curriculum, wedged or otherwise, the quicker, just maybe, me might be able to get Her some of the help that the She so obviously and desparately needs.

The discovery ... has forced a complete rethinking ... Comparative and evolutionary biologists had long assumed ... So prevalent was this view of great evolutionary distance that in the 1960s [that] Ernst Mayr remarked ... This view was entirely incorrect.... Stephen Jay Gould ... saw the discovery of Hox clusters and common body-building genes as overturning a major view of the Modern Synthesis... Gould states, "The central significance of our dawning understanding of the genetics of development lies not in the simple discovery of something utterly unknown...but in the explicitly unexpected character of these findings, and in the revisions and extensions thus required of evolutionary theory."

— Sean Carroll

I find the constant anologies to human designed items to be silly if not simplistic.
Dembski quotes West:
"Consider the analogy of an ignition switch in a vehicle. One might find similar ignition switches in vehicles such as automobiles, boats, and airplanes -- vehicles which are otherwise very different from each other. Perhaps, in some sense, an ignition switch can be called a "master control"; but except for telling us that a vehicle can be started by turning on an electrical current, it tells us nothing about that vehicle's structure and function."
If people find this sort of half baked anology meaningful, then things are worse of then I thought.
If west thought about it, there is a part number that would tell a person the vehicle it most likely came from then the rest look up in Chiltons.
What is more if this is an attempt of evidence of how an "intelligent agent" plays into biology,
then I'm on my way to the "ID Pep Boys" for a new right knee.

I am in complete agreement Brian.
The fact that all the design people overlook is that we think a watch/engine etc. is designed because we know that these things are designed. If we were primitives with no connection to civilization, we would not think a watch designed, as we would have no framework from which to reach that conclusion.

In other words, if I see a watch, I believe that a watchmaker must have been involved. If I see a human, I believe a mother and a father must have been involved.

Initially, this was regarded as evidence for genetic programs controlling development. But biologists are now realizing that it actually constitutes a paradox: if genes control development, why do similar genes produce such different animals? Why does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly instead of a barracuda?

Dembski's example is staggeringly stupid. Does he think a caterpillar evolves into a butterfly? Or is he proposing intelligent ontogeny? Does he think caterpillar development is an entirely random process such that they could turn into just anything? Or does he think that caterpillars turn into butterflies by magic? If not, then he must admit that, even if the process were entirely unknown, it is entirely natural and mechanistic. And that totally undercuts intelligent design. Did I say staggeringly stupid? I think that's an understatement.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/210 [T]he message on Darwinian Evolution is getting out to the young people. Check out this hip-hop band's song called "Agency". It is an all out attack on Macro-evolution, Chemical Evolution, Common Descent, even Scientific Naturalism, on the whole. The song also states that "ID is a more possible explanation" and is very friendly to the ID movement and general ID thesis. This rapper is genuinely angry about the rhetoric employed by Darwinists-basing most of their arguments against ID on ad-hominem attacks and "Creationist" labels, in their refutation of ID, rather than addressing the scientific merits of the theory . If the pop-culture is starting to understand the gross inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism to explain the origins and the diversity of life in this universe, perhaps a paradigm shift is closer than we think. The band is called FM108 and tackles issues of biological origins, in addition to issues of criminal justice, particularly wrongful convictions and a variety of other pressing world issues. For more info contact me at: [snip] Hear the song "Agency" by FM108 @ http://www.newmusiccanada.com/genres/artist.cfm?mode=longBio&Band_Id=13736

If the pop-culture is starting to understand the gross inadequacies of Neo-Darwinism to explain the origins and the diversity of life in this universe, perhaps a paradigm shift is closer than we think.

Lenny, Sean Carroll quoted Mayr 1963, not me. I cited Carroll's 2005 (Endless Forms) discussion of Mayr's position.

Check your email tomorrow morning for my reply to your other questions.

Paul Nelson -

I asked a question earlier, but I guess you missed it. I'll post it again.

Scientists believe the basic mechanism of evolution to be genetic variability acted on by natural selection. The RESULT of this may be described, tersely but quite accurately, as a "change in the frequency of alleles", with the understanding that much else usually changes as well.

This conception is not rigid, but it isn't especially elastic, either.

While the use of relatively conserved hox genes in development of different morphologic features is fascinating, and may disagree with earlier hypotheses of development, it is also strongly consistent with the theory of evolution from common descent, as described above.

If you disagree, can you explain why, very specifically?

I'll add another question - if you refuse to answer, can explain that?

(Also, a minor correction to the question. While natural selection is clearly required for the high degree of adaptation and specialization of life we see today, genetic variability alone can and will produce evolution under certain circumstances.)

The discovery that the same sets of genes control the formation and pattern of body regions and body parts with similar functions (but very different designs) in insects, vertebrates, and other animals has forced a complete rethinking of animal history, the origins of structures, and the nature of diversity. Comparative and evolutionary biologists had long assumed that different groups of animals, separated by vast amounts of evolutionary time, were constructed and had evolved by entirely different means. The connection between members of some groups --- among the vertebrates, for example, or between vertebrates and other animals with a notochord --- was well established. But between flies and humans, or flatworms and sea squirts...no way! So prevalent was this view of great evolutionary distance that in the 1960s the evolutionary biologist (and an architect of the Modern Synthesis) Ernst Mayr remarked: "Much that has been learned about gene physiology makes it evident that the search for homologous genes is quite futile except in very close relatives. If there is only one efficient solution for a certain functional demand, very different gene complexes will come up with the same solution, no matter how different the pathway by which it is achieved. The saying "Many roads lead to Rome" is as true in evolution as in daily affairs." This view was entirely incorrect. The late Stephen Jay Gould, in his monumental work The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, saw the discovery of Hox clusters and common body-building genes as overturning a major view of the Modern Synthesis. Gould states, "The central significance of our dawning understanding of the genetics of development lies not in the simple discovery of something utterly unknown...but in the explicitly unexpected character of these findings, and in the revisions and extensions thus required of evolutionary theory."

Paul Nelson -

I did not accuse you of "quote-mining" Ernst Mayr, but rather, suggested that a source you quoted may have done so (I didn't use the exact term "quote-mine", either). That point has been cleared up, and we now all agree that the quote from Mayr appears to be accurate. Mayr appears to have had some hypotheses about development, in 1963, which have since been found to be at least partly incorrect. In 1963, Mayr's hypotheses appear to have been part of something that some people, at that time, refered to as the "Modern Synthesis". You also established the fact that, although many of us do not find the existence of hox genes paradoxical, the term "hox paradox" has been used.

None of this is relevant to the question you keep evading. I'll repeat it once more.

Scientists believe the basic mechanism of evolution to be genetic variability acted on by natural selection. The RESULT of this may be described, tersely but quite accurately, as a "change in the frequency of alleles", with the understanding that much else usually changes as well.

This conception is not rigid, but it isn't especially elastic, either.

While the use of relatively conserved hox genes in development of different morphologic features is fascinating, and may disagree with earlier hypotheses of development, it is also strongly consistent with the theory of evolution from common descent, as described above.

If you disagree, can you explain why, very specifically?

I'll add another question - if you refuse to answer, can explain that?

(Also, a minor correction to the question. While natural selection is clearly required for the high degree of adaptation and specialization of life we see today, genetic variability alone can and will produce evolution under certain circumstances.)

Paul Nelson wrote: The Modern Synthesis predicted a certain relationship among genes, development, and anatomical form. As an example of that prediction, Sean Carroll quotes Mayr 1963.

3. Thus, biologists need to rethink the relationship of genes, development, and form. Carroll cites Gould 2002 as supporting this point.

D. Stump, your comment contains a point mutation and a large insertion. It should read, "Dembski is pissing on biology." ;)

Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement simply to bamboozle people into thinking it has an actual alternative theory when it really doesn't? Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement to try and gain all the rhetorical advantages of claiming to have an alternative theory without the disadvantages of actually having to PRODUCE one?

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all.

A whale's flipper, a man's arm, a bird's wing, and a dog's foreleg...perform functions about as different and varied as styles of locomotion in vertebrates can be, yet all are built of the same bones. Why would God have used the same building blocks, and distorted and twisted them in such odd ways, if He had simply set out to make the best swimming, running, and flying machines? The common structure must reflect common descent from an ancestor possessing these bones. Evolution is proved by its imperfections.

The philosopher Paul A. Nelson has recently analyzed...the retention of design arguments in modern biology, perspicaciously criticizing on philosophical grounds two of the standard Darwinian strategies used to disprove the argument from design: the argument from imperfection or suboptimal design (appendixes); and the argument for common descent on the basis of homology (wings and flippers). He points out the inherent conflict involved in using a theological strategy to argue for the primacy of methodological naturalism, pointing out that both of these arguments against the argument from design depend upon a number of a priori, underived theological assumptions about the nature of God; for example, the argument from suboptimal design (the panda's thumb, to take Stephen Jay Gould's famous example) rests upon the undemonstrable assumption of an independently derivable optimal design. Nelson concludes that these arguments are a weakness in current evolutionary biology, and recommends that "evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution."

Check out this hip-hop band's song called "Agency".

To the others in this discussion,

I'd like to continue, but posting here at PT is an indulgence I really shouldn't allow myself. As of September 2005, I'll have a personal webpage and blog up and running, where I hope to elaborate on topics such as the Hox paradox/maybe a little paradox/not a paradox at all (pick your flavor). Come and visit [the URLs will be available at www.idthefuture.com in a few weeks]. I'll be enabling unrestricted comments, as long as people behaves themselves and don't put their shoes on the furniture.

Lenny -- I'm outa this discussion. Visit my blog when it's up, and we can continue the back-and-forth over there.

Paul,

How is the argument for common descent on the basis of homology dependent on a number of a priori, underived theological assumptions about the nature of God?

Actually, I did answer them before (see this string of comments, #28357)

— Paul A. Nelson

ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency

Re: #40284

Wow. Musical celebs embracing ID. Now THERE'S credibility for ya.

Perhaps Dembski would also like to embrace Scientology, since it works so well for Tom Cruise?

If I may, immodestly, quote from Lustig

What actual evidence do you have, in Howard Ahmanson's own words, of his positions?

"My goal is the total integration of biblical law into our lives."

When I asked if this meant she and her husband would still want to install the supremacy of biblical law, she replied: "I'm not suggesting we have an amendment to the Constitution that says we now follow all 613 of the case laws of the Old Testament ... But if by biblical law you mean the last seven of the 10 Commandments, you know, yeah."

So the effects of human activity get combined with the effects of natural (i.e., non-human) processes to produce climate patterns.

At least climatologists have an idea of what types of subtsances humans introduce into the atmosphere, how much, at what rate, and at what locations. Thus they at least have a starting point to estimate the effects of human activity.

Now does ID Theory propose an "analogous" estimate as to the mechanism and "insertion point" of the effects of the Intelligent Agent, or is it just "poof, there it is"?

Talk about elastic!

Paul, How is the argument for common descent on the basis of homology dependent on a number of a priori, underived theological assumptions about the nature of God?

— Lurker

rests upon the undemonstrable assumption of an independently derivable optimal design

— Lustig via Nelson

Nelson's discussion of perfection and imperfection raises many important points, but failed to address the main issue: the comparative method allows for identification of suboptimal design. The instantiation of components achieving particular functions gives us a basis for comparing the systems which provide for similar functionality. In those cases where such systems meet an engineering criterion of modularity, it is eminently reasonable to ask why module p was employed in one instance, but kludgy module p' was employed in another. We don't have to be able to identify the optimal in order to identify what is suboptimal. Nelson argues from a mathematical viewpoint that we can't use the suboptimality argument against a theological notion of a "reasonable" creator. He gives an equation for illustration: ObD / OptD = DesShort Where ObD is Observed Design OptD is Optimal Design and DesShort is the Design Shortfall Because we can't obtain OptD, we must forego use of this manner of argumentation, according to Nelson. However, I can derive a different equation that demonstrates the possible utility of the comparative method: ObD_a / ObD_b = DAR Where ObD_a is the figure of merit for Observed Design "a" ObD_b is the figure of merit for Observed Design "b" and DAR is the Design Astuteness Ratio This is a more appropriate metric to critique. There are no unknowns hiding here, and no necessity for finding or even worrying about an "optimal" design. That both ObD_a and ObD_b are or may be suboptimal does not detract from the utility of the comparison.

these arguments against the argument from design depend upon a number of a priori, underived theological assumptions about the nature of God; for example, the argument from suboptimal design (the panda's thumb, to take Stephen Jay Gould's famous example) rests upon the undemonstrable assumption of an independently derivable optimal design.

Nice. As I was posting, I see Mr. Elsberry has perfectly complemented my (just-invented) notion of prima facie optimality with a metric by which it can be estimated.

And JohnK's point is well taken, as well: as usual, in trying to have it both ways, the IDer gives away the store, where "the store" is any hope of an empirical research program.

If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question. ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency; most biologists disagree; and so we find ourselves with a vigorous dispute.

The ToE is a positive theory; it doesn't depend upon "disproving" design arguments for its validity, so even if such counterarguments were based on theological assumptions, it wouldn't follow that "evolutionary biology" has "theological content". And then we have Lustig writing "He points out the inherent conflict involved in using a theological strategy to argue for the primacy of methodological naturalism" -- huh? It's methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism. Since it's methodological, there's no need to argue for it, or it's "primacy". We employ methodological naturalism because our goal is to produce natural models and explanations, so we can make accurate predictions about natural phenomena and effectively manipulate the natural world, while Nelson and Lustig are off in cloudcookooland.

In short, arguing that something wasn't designed because it is sub-optimal, without knowledge of the potential constraints that might pertain to the process of design isn't the whole story.

— C.J.O'Brien

Nelson leaves out the most persuasive part of the argument: the corallary. i.e. that not only is it sub-optimal, but it is sub-optimal in exactly the way it would be were it the product of natural selection.

— C.J.O'Brien

Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement simply to bamboozle people into thinking it has an actual alternative theory when it really doesn't? Does the ID movement call itself the ID movement to try and gain all the rhetorical advantages of claiming to have an alternative theory without the disadvantages of actually having to PRODUCE one?

"The ID movement" is just a name for a group of people with similar ideas. When I began thinking about design years ago, there was no "ID movement" denoted by that name, but the ideas were percolating away nonetheless (e.g., in the writings of Charles Thaxton). The name -- the label -- is largely a matter of convention. It's the ideas themselves that attract, or repel, people. Think about it this way. If I broiled what I said was "a really fine steak" for you, but served you shoe leather, it's the shoe leather, and not what I called it, that would matter. Or, conversely, if you said to me that B.B. King's music was "sucky Muzak dreck, don't bother with it," as a fan of blues I'd discount your description or label. (Btw, I only serve USDA choice or prime to guests, if you're ever in Chicago. Shoe leather is strictly for thought experiments.) In short, it doesn't really matter what one calls "the ID movement," which explains why pejoratives such as "IDiots," "intelligent decline," "creationism-lite," "creationism in designer clothing," and the like, have had little discernable effect on the growth of the ID community.

I confess I cannot understand how my citing of this passage, which is characteristic of much of recent evo-devo literature, is seen as "quote-mining" Ernst Mayr

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all.

Nor have I. But climatologists and atmospheric scientists weigh the effects of intelligent agency all the time. Consider global warming and its possible causes. To be sure, humans aren't "supernatural," at least in the sense that I think you mean, but disentangling atmospheric effects due to intelligent agency (e.g., gas emissions from industrial activity) from so-called "natural" causes is an important area of ongoing research. If agency is suggested by evidence, science takes up the question. ID theorists think biological evidence suggests the role of intelligent agency; most biologists disagree; and so we find ourselves with a vigorous dispute.

ts wrote:

"Staggeringly stupid and staggeringly dishonest, along with the rest of his "movement". Consider this latest from Dembski -- an email he has approvingly posted on his blog which, in the middle of pushing for a cultural shift via a hip hop band, asks for it to be judged on its scientific merit."

A hip-hop band come down on the side of ID. Well, that's me convinced. Let's get rid of scientists and decide these matters by crap music.

Lastly -- your Howard Ahmanson obsession. I've spent a little time with Howard (had a memorable long dinner with him in Irvine, CA, one night), and we talked about movies, wine, and whatnot. I've never heard or read anything from Howard that comes even remotely close to "extremism," whatever that is. You are circulating hearsay, Lenny, if it rises even to that. What actual evidence do you have, in Howard Ahmanson's own words, of his positions?

Lenny -- I'm outa this discussion.

Visit my blog when it's up, and we can continue the back-and-forth over there.

Some idea of the Dicovery Institute's real aims can be revealed by looking at its funding sources. Nearly all of the Discovery Institute's money comes in the form of grants from wealthy "conservative" fundamentalist Christians. They got around $350,000 from the Maclellan Foundation, a fundie lobbying group in Tennessee. Their single biggest source of money, though, is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute. Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist -- a fringe group of fundies who argue that the US Constitution should be abandoned and the US should be "reconstructed" under "Biblical law". They are the Christian equivilent of the Muslim fundamentalists who want to form "Islamic states" under "Islamic law". Ahmanson is long associated with JR Rushdooney, one of the original founders of the Reconstructionist movement --- and one of the original financial backers of Henry Morris and the ICR (Rushdooney paid most of the publishing costs for Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood". Similarly, the Discovery Institute's Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife.) Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Although the creationists like to speak about "academic freedom" and about allowing students to make a "choice", statements by creationists and their fundamentalist supporters make it clear that this is just rhetoric. The fundamentalists have a deep and barely-concealed contempt for democracy and free choice--an attitude which is not surprising given their world-view, which is based upon unquestioned obedience to an inerrant Bible and the infallible authority of those who interpret it. Jerry Falwell, in a moment of remarkable candor, once remarked that "Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions." (cited in Vetter 1982, p. 17) Democracy, then, with its messy guarantees of freedom of thought and popular control over authority, is dangerous to the fundamentalists and their world-view. Pat Robertson bluntly says, "I think 'one man, one vote', just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise". (700 Club, March 18, 1992, cited in Boston, 1996, p. 166) "Our Founding Fathers," Falwell declares, "would not accept the tyranny of a democracy because they recognized that the only sovereign over men and nations was Almighty God." (cited in Young, 1982, p. 184) Charles Stanly of Moral Majority made this anti- democratic attitude even more plain: "We do not want a democracy in this land because if we have a democracy a majority rules," (cited in Young 1982, p. 65) while Rich Anguin of the Minnesota Moral Majority adds, "Freedom of speech has never been right. We've never had freedom of speech in this country and we never should have." (cited in Young, 1982, p. 65) Gary Potter, a Weyrich partner and head of Catholics for Political Action, states his theocratic goals with chilling clarity: "When the Christian majority takes over the country, there will be no Satanic churches, no more free distribution of pornography, no more abortion on demand, and no more talk of rights for homosexuals. After the Christian majority takes control, pluralism will be seen as immoral and evil and the state will not permit anybody the right to practice evil." (cited in Conway and Siegelman, 1984, p. 115-116) Gary North, of the Institute for Christian Economics, echos that true Christians should "get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God." (cited in Bill Moyers, "God and Politics, PBS, 1987) And this contempt for political democracy is reflected by the creationists as well. Kelly Segraves, the co-founder of the Creation Science Research Society, declares, "Humanism is a far-reaching social program that aims for the establishment throughout the world of democracy (lowest common denominator mob rule), peace and a high standard of living." (Segraves, Creation-Science Report, January 1980, cited in LaFollette, 1983, p. 182) Apparently, Segraves views democracy, peace and a high standard of living as the work of the Devil, and is determined to use creation "science" to help stamp these evils out. In essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran--they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of "God's will". As they make clear, they are perfectly willing to dismantle most of American democracy in order to save us all from Satan. Rev. James Robison puts it like this, "Let me tell you something else about the character of God. If necessary, God would raise up a tyrant--a man who might not have the best ethics--to protect the freedom and the interests of the ethical and the godly." (cited in Vetter 1982, p. 6) And there seem to be no dearth of fundamentalists willing to volunteer to become that "tyrant". The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning. According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God. In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban. While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing). Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that would manufacture the computerized voting machines if they were used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine). This ease of possible "vote-fixing" may or may not be connected to the belief of Diebold's Reconstructionist backers that only "Christians" should be allowed to vote.

I've never heard or read anything from Howard that comes even remotely close to "extremism," whatever that is.

"The ID movement" is just a name for a group of people with similar ideas.

Lenny has provided a truly chilling scenario of far right wing Christian lunacy.

This desire to return to a supposedly glorious and unspoiled past is reminiscent of another unsavory political movement, namely Nazism. They too wanted to create a society and culture befitting their, um, "worldview." And of course "non-conforming" science was not allowed.

Maybe I'm just over-reacting, but Nazism also started off as a far right wing, kooky fringe movement.

Maybe I'm just over-reacting, but Nazism also started off as a far right wing, kooky fringe movement.

Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that would manufacture the computerized voting machines if they were used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine). This ease of possible "vote-fixing" may or may not be connected to the belief of Diebold's Reconstructionist backers that only "Christians" should be allowed to vote.

It bothers me, as an evolutionist who was trained in the 70s and 80s, that so many here are so strident in denying that the "Hox paradox" is/was a real issue. It may have come as no surprise to developmental geneticists, but it certainly was to the comparative morphologists, ecologists, paleontologists, and population geneticists who composed most of evolutionary biology practitioners from the 60s through the 80s. Further, the asserted primacy of regulatory changes in generating character change poses real difficulties to rather ossified notions of "character" and homology, an implication of which the quote above from Davidson correctly identifies.

But folks, this is EXACTLY what separates science from non. Science confronts new observations and when necessary, rethinks old notions. Vituperative defensiveness (to paraphrase, "there is no paradox, never was, and anyone who'd think otherwise is an idiot") is beneath you, and in this case, inappropriate. Celebrate that your field is not in fact a rigid orthodoxy as alleged.

Can you guess what I found when I Googled Christ and paradox?

Christianity, it appears, is simply riddled with paradoxes. One can only conclude it must be rejected as false, using the logic above.

Lenny has provided a truly chilling scenario of far right wing Christian lunacy.

so many here are so strident in denying that the "Hox paradox" is/was a real issue.

Vituperative defensiveness (to paraphrase, "there is no paradox, never was, and anyone who'd think otherwise is an idiot")

I meant to bold was above. One of the chief complaints here, as evident to one willing to read carefully, is Dembski's and Nelson's messing with tenses and timelines.

PZ Myers wrote "This phrase, "biologists are now realizing that it actually constitutes a paradox", is simply false. There is no paradox at all there, and it doesn't trouble us at all."

That's true, there is no paradox -- in the sense of some sort of apparent logical inconsistency. There are of course unresolved problems -- such are the life blood of scientific research.

There's also the devious twisting of the meaning of words by ID creationists. You'll see a scientist mention something like the Hox paradox or the C-value paradox, by which they mean, "Hmmm. Here's a curious and unexpected datum; what does it tell us about biology?" The creationists throw out the word in the sense of "Hey! Here's an unresolved conflict in evolutionary biology, which means the whole shebang is bunkum!"

The latter is plainly a lie. None of these things upset evolution at all, and are more enlightening than paradigm-busting.

The C-value paradox is an even cooler example. It's called a paradox, but the only thing it perturbs is the bias that humans are supposed to be the pinnacle of evolutionary complexity.

I challenge you to provide a single quote that supports the claim that anyone here as denied that the Hox paradox was a real issue.

This phrase, "biologists are now realizing that it actually constitutes a paradox", is simply false. There is no paradox at all there, and it doesn't trouble us at all.

The promise of evo devo is that genetically induced changes early in development, though small and easily attainable in themselves, might nonetheless lead to macroevolutionary changes.

Or is Dembski once again indulging in his usual 'make something up and the rubes will believe it' rhetoric?

It seems that Ahmanson has tempered his views a bit:

'The Christian view of man is that we're not perfect. You don't give to things that base themselves on the optimistic view that human beings are going to be doing it right," Mrs. Ahmanson explained. When I asked if this meant she and her husband would still want to install the supremacy of biblical law, she replied: "I'm not suggesting we have an amendment to the Constitution that says we now follow all 613 of the case laws of the Old Testament ... But if by biblical law you mean the last seven of the 10 Commandments, you know, yeah."'

from:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/01/06/ahmanson/

This phrase, "biologists are now realizing that it actually constitutes a paradox", is simply false. There is no paradox at all there, and it doesn't trouble us at all.

Please don't impugn my intellectual honesty.

Idiot appears at least 10 times

He concludes that no one would think the appearance of these two different structures constitutes a paradox, because "You're not an idiot." Leaving only idiots who think it does.

In as much as he is analogizing this to the Hox paradox, we may safely assume he reserves the same conclusion for anyone thinking there is a Hox paradox.

Finally ts, you really should argue on the merits and refrain from ad hominem attacks.

It seems that Ahmanson has tempered his views a bit:

Howard Ahmanson says he also doesn't think stoning is the answer, yet he stops just short of condemning the idea. "I think what upsets people is that Rushdoony seemed to think - and I'm not sure about this - that a godly society would stone people for the same thing that people in ancient Israel were stoned," he said. "I no longer consider that essential. "It would still be a little hard to say that if one stumbled on a country that was doing that, that it is inherently immoral, to stone people for these things," Ahmanson said. "But I don't think it's at all a necessity." http://www.politicalamazon.com/cr-ahmanson.html

When you are Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., you give away money and you never expect to see it again. But then a $3,000 contribution to the Republican running for governor of Hawaii returned to Ahmanson - with no explanation, just a brief note of thanks but no thanks. The reason for the rejection seemed perfectly clear to Ahmanson and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson. Most of the gifts from their private philanthropy generate little notice. But a handful of groups and individuals they support have drawn dark clouds of controversy around them. So some - such as Linda Lingle, now governor of Hawaii - find it easier to reject the money than risk being tainted by the Ahmanson name. "We figured it had to be this," Howard Ahmanson says over breakfast, referring to their public perception - or misperception as they see it. His hunch was on the mark. A group called Hawaii Citizens for Separation of State and Church had protested Lingle's acceptance of Ahmanson's contribution, describing him as a "Christian supremacist" who backed an Old Testament-style penalty of death by stoning for homosexuals, adulterers and incorrigible children. "The views of the contributor were quite different from the views of the campaign," says Bob Awana, Lingle's chief of staff. "We just thought in the heat of battle, getting ready for an election only 10 days out, it could have turned into a lightning rod - and we didn't want it to." The return of the Lingle check in late 2002 sounded an alarm for the Ahmansons. As their names surfaced again and again - linked to hot-button issues from opposing gay clergy in the Episcopal Church to science texts challenging Darwin's theory of evolution - the alarms grew louder. "When a politician sends money back, it's serious," Roberta Ahmanson says. The Ahmansons came to believe they had an image problem, which they blame on the distortion, intentional or not, of their views by others. They also came to believe that they held some responsibility to explain themselves and their beliefs, so that people might understand them and their work, which they see as a calling to do good in the world. "It brought home that having our name attached to things could harm causes that we care for, because we hadn't talked to the press and hadn't made ourselves vulnerable," Roberta Ahmanson said.

Some of USC's political connections are more than a little frightening. Take the Daily Trojan for example, which last month sold space in the Opinions section to conservative ideologue David Horowitz. Horowitz gave the paper $900, and in return he was given all of page 5 on which to run a 1,034-word canned editorial about the Palestinians. Of course, students don't pay a penny and still get to write about Palestinians, but the prospect that someone can buy space in the Opinions section is a little perturbing. Granted, the top of the page indicated the article was actually an advertisement. Even so, it would have been easy for students to overlook the small text and simply assume it was another article. Or take Howard Ahmanson Jr. If you look at the huge rock slab of donors in the foyer to the library, you'll see the Ahmanson Foundation featured prominently. It's probably a fair guess that he also gave quite a lot of money to our Ahmanson Science Center, being that we named it after him. What's especially funny about this, our naming a science center after Mr. Ahmanson, is that he does not even believe in evolution. Last year alone, he gave nearly $3 million to the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, an intelligent design (read: anti-evolution) think tank.

The Conscience of an (ex-)Conservative A blow-by-blow report of a dissolution of a political marriage by Philip Gold Leaving an organization can be hard. Leaving a movement, harder. And leaving an idea � unless you realize that the movement has deserted the idea, and that it�s time to say so � traumatic. The proximate cause of my recent departure from Discovery Institute, Seattle�s main conservative think tank, was my opposition to President Bush�s Iraq war. But I also left because I could no longer abide the purposes of the movement. Over the last several years, I�ve become sadly convinced that American conservatism has grown, for lack of a better word, malign.

Paul Nelson says that when someone serves you shoe leather, claiming it's steak, the important thing is that it's shoe leather, not what the chef calls it.

Funny, in my world most people would regard the word as being inextricably linked with the deed in this case, and would regard the chef as a liar or outright fraud because of it.

Paul Nelson says that when someone serves you shoe leather, claiming it's steak, the important thing is that it's shoe leather, not what the chef calls it. Funny, in my world most people would regard the word as being inextricably linked with the deed in this case, and would regard the chef as a liar or outright fraud because of it.

Alas, Nelson seems to have run away, again, without telling me.

But he said he would email you the answers. Surely it can't be that Paul Nelson is a liar.