Creationists saturation-bombing Amazon?

I initially felt compelled to read the reviews before I voted "not helpful." Besides the absolute syrup-covered tripe, I eventually noticed that a great many of the positive reviews are repeated. Jeebus approves.

"Daniel of the Year"? Do I want to know?

No. No, I really didn't.

Most of the positive reviews of Meyer's books are short diatribes against the "evil Darwinists". There is a feature at Amazon where you, as a voter, can express your opinion that the content is not appropriate for this website. On the other hand, please vote in favor of my review ("Sterling example of mendacious intellectual pornography from Stephen Meyer") and Don Prothero's, since ours are the two most comperhensive rebuttals to Meyer's mendacious intellectual pornography; mine discusses how Meyer has created the "straw man" distinction between historical and experimental sciences, in which I noted that in a "historical" science like evolutionary biology, there have been important experiments on measuring the rapid pace in which Natural Selection acts on populations in the lab (Richard Lenski's E. coli experiment that is still ongoing) and in the field (John Endler's classic experiment on Trinidad guppies that is recounted in Richard Dawkins's latest book.) and challenges his contention that ID can offer plausible, testable, scientific hypotheses; Prothero's is a terse, but still exhaustive, condemnation of Meyer's breathtakingly inane claim that the "Cambrian Explosion" was a real event and is supportive of Intelligent Design, by reminding us of the extensive fossil record that shows it was more a "Cambrian Slow Fuse" (I will concede that I shall plead the Fifth as to whether I am the anonymous "pen-pal" which Matt Young refers to at the start of this blogy entry.).

More Lying for Jesus.

It's good to see that Kwok has apparently read the book before reviewing it this time.

The thing that I can't abide is an attack on the Amazon rating system like this. What, the book can't stand on its own? They're afraid of negative reviews?

sad, so very sad...

Blake Stacey said: "Daniel of the Year"? Do I want to know? No. No, I really didn't.

The IDiots carpet-bombed Amazon two years ago giving rave reviews of Dembski's and Wells' Design of Life - see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/dembskis-and-we.html

Review bombing won't make any difference. Obviously "Signature" isn't selling. Only the faithful will buy it, anyway, both literally and literally.

At 600 pages, that's 599 and nine-tenths more than any creationist is going to read.

Let 'em bomb. Good luck with that.

I did see that Bob the Crow sobered up enough to make a less than coherent comment to a review. Talk about buried, Bob. You're reduced to making comments to negative reviews on an insignificant book on the Amazon dot Com website? Seriously?

Meanwhile, I bought Prothero's book while I was on Amazon and it's a great read. I especially like the passage where he calls Jon Wells the "Hindenberg of Creationism." Yep, that was rich.

If you have read Signature in the Cell, we need your help! Please write a review at Amazon.com (they need not be long, just honest). This is a book that has earned its place in the top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon, the book that made the Times Literary Supplement's Top Books of 2009, and an author who was named "Daniel of the Year" for his work. Please take a moment and defend Dr. Meyer and his groundbreaking book. Sincerely, Anika M. Smith

Was this really "one of the Times Literary Supplement’s Top Books of 2009," or is that another distortion by the PR machine? Would be disappointing if true.

Matt:

This is an old story by now. Objectivists and Scientologists bulk-bought so many books that Random House and then other publishers had to start excluding bulk buys from bestseller lists. Amazon has been a complete game almost from day one of there being reviews there.

I don't review books I didn't read, but I've mentally ceded Amazon as a battleground to the authoritarians years ago. Web polls and Amazon stars should be some sort of metaphor for worthlessness.

Was this really “one of the Times Literary Supplement’s Top Books of 2009,”...

Steve Meyer... He's the tool who tried to imply that supernatural explanations were a valuable part of science on NOVA's episode on the Kitzmiller Vs Dover trial, after not bothering to show up for the trial, right?

Hrafn said:

Was this really “one of the Times Literary Supplement’s Top Books of 2009,”...

It is in fact in Times Literary Supplement's Books of the Year 2009. It turns out that by "top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon", they meant this Best Books of 2009: Science Top 10 list.

How in the world did Signature outperform Only a Theory?

I have read "Signiture in the Cell" It isn't very good. I hadn't planned to review it. There are other better things to do, like pooking needles in your eyes.

Well, OK.

I have written a small number of reviews of creationist crap books posted on the Amazon site. Your positive votes on "Was this review helpful?" in fact help keep reviews on a book's front page. This is another creationist ploy- they organize their pals to vote against critical reviews of creationist books, sending them to the abyss. For example, my review of Walter Brown's creatocrap.

A better link.

alex from memory that's steve fuller - an american who lives and teaches in england.

And he's living proof that if you know absolutely nothing about science whatsoever, you make a lousy sociologist of science, philosopher of science, historian of science or what have you.

Strictly speaking, it was mentioned favorably by one of their reviewers, the philosopher Thomas Nagel.

There are some comments on Thomas Nagel's opinions here:

http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2009/12/nagels-nonreply.html

(Hat tip to John Wilkin's blog evolvingthoughts.net )

How in the world did Signature outperform Only a Theory?

— Alex H

Paul Burnett said: The IDiots carpet-bombed Amazon two years ago giving rave reviews of Dembski's and Wells' Design of Life - see http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/12/dembskis-and-we.html

Gary Hurd said: I have read "Signiture in the Cell" It isn't very good. I hadn't planned to review it. There are other better things to do, like pooking needles in your eyes. Well, OK. I have written a small number of reviews of creationist crap books posted on the Amazon site. Your positive votes on "Was this review helpful?" in fact help keep reviews on a book's front page. This is another creationist ploy- they organize their pals to vote against critical reviews of creationist books, sending them to the abyss. For example, my review of Walter Brown's creatocrap.

Hrafn said: The DI's Nota Bene mailing list:

If you have read Signature in the Cell, we need your help! Please write a review at Amazon.com (they need not be long, just honest). This is a book that has earned its place in the top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon, the book that made the Times Literary Supplement's Top Books of 2009, and an author who was named "Daniel of the Year" for his work. Please take a moment and defend Dr. Meyer and his groundbreaking book. Sincerely, Anika M. Smith

Incidentally, they're lying about its "top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon" -- it's current rating in the 'Science' section is #57 (it's classified as "Books > Science > Physics > Cosmology" of all things).

Marion Delgado said: Matt: This is an old story by now. Objectivists and Scientologists bulk-bought so many books that Random House and then other publishers had to start excluding bulk buys from bestseller lists. Amazon has been a complete game almost from day one of there being reviews there. I don't review books I didn't read, but I've mentally ceded Amazon as a battleground to the authoritarians years ago. Web polls and Amazon stars should be some sort of metaphor for worthlessness.

Alex H said:

Hrafn said:

Was this really “one of the Times Literary Supplement’s Top Books of 2009,”...

It is in fact in Times Literary Supplement's Books of the Year 2009. It turns out that by "top 10 list of bestselling science books at Amazon", they meant this Best Books of 2009: Science Top 10 list.

How in the world did Signature outperform Only a Theory?

I am grateful to all for heeding my message and my special thanks to Matt Young for passing on the word, since the most popular "Most Helpful" reviews at Amazon.com now are negative one star reviews written by those who heard about Amazon being "dive bombed" by Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg Collective drones. I encourage everyone to post their own negative one star reviews.... and with my apologies to RBH (who thinks I have a tendency to promote myself), could you please vote on behalf of my review at Amazon, which is entitled "Sterling example of mendacious intellectual pornography from Stephen Meyer".

Appreciatively yours,

John Kwok

A Christian biochemistry professor has posted a review of Signature in the Cell here. He wasn't too impressed! I encouraged him to post it at Amazon.

Karen S. said: A Christian biochemistry professor has posted a review of Signature in the Cell here. He wasn't too impressed! I encouraged him to post it at Amazon.

BTW, Karen, yours is a classic understatement:

"He wasn't too impressed!"

His was a genteel, but still, quite harsh, condemnation of Meyer for mixing bad theology with bad science.

Karen S. said: A Christian biochemistry professor has posted a review of Signature in the Cell here. He wasn't too impressed! I encouraged him to post it at Amazon.

Blake Stacey said: "Daniel of the Year"? Do I want to know? No. No, I really didn't.

Dave Luckett said:

Karen S. said: A Christian biochemistry professor has posted a review of Signature in the Cell here. He wasn't too impressed! I encouraged him to post it at Amazon.

Dead set he wasn't impressed. But did you notice him copping flak from both sides, the new-atheist sneer at his faith and the bornagain who wanted to know why he wasn't a Christian first, last and always? I really don't like the polarisation that's going on.

I hope one day ID can publish a book that will get 100 post-its from me as I read it (and not from frustrations!). I will keep trying to read these books if you and your colleagues keep putting them out. I believe in your freedom of speech and, again, if I believe in a real God that really makes a difference I must allow for the possibility that you may be right. But you've got to do a better job if you're ever going to have a prayer of convincing me. And you've got to convince me if you ever want to convince someone who doesn't believe in any rationalities greater than their own.

Dead set he wasn’t impressed. But did you notice him copping flak from both sides, the new-atheist sneer at his faith and the bornagain who wanted to know why he wasn’t a Christian first, last and always?

In no particular order: Biochemistry professor at Seattle Pacific University, book-reader, occasional bloviator, husband, father of two small boys, structural immunologist, Christian, protein designer, baritone, bad guitarist, complex set of chemical reactions, sometimes oblivious human.

Karen S. said:

Dead set he wasn’t impressed. But did you notice him copping flak from both sides, the new-atheist sneer at his faith and the bornagain who wanted to know why he wasn’t a Christian first, last and always?

I sure did notice the flak from the creos. Haven't checked out the atheist side yet, but of course they are going to sneer. What the professor actually said in his profile was this:

In no particular order: Biochemistry professor at Seattle Pacific University, book-reader, occasional bloviator, husband, father of two small boys, structural immunologist, Christian, protein designer, baritone, bad guitarist, complex set of chemical reactions, sometimes oblivious human.

The In no particular order qualifier wasn't good enough for the creo. ID isn't about religion (of course!) but time and time again, we see that if a Christian disagrees with ID, his faith is called into question by ID proponents.

Your observations are yet another reason why I love invoking Klingons and Klingon Cosmology as "entities" for which there is far more proof than the Fundamentalist Xian version of Christianity or any pathetic flavor of creationism, especially Intelligent Design cretinism (BTW I know Ken Miller appreciates my references to Klingons, and suggested once that Michael Behe ought to write a textbook on Klingon biochemistry.). It's too bad the creos don't get it, but am also surprised that some on our side don't too.

RDK said: Don't you just love that photo of Meyer? I think it captures his real essence. Stephen C. Meyer: Intelligent Design pornstar. These guys couldn't be any more transparent if they tried.

Someone who holds such views is not fit for a position in science, and it's highly ironic that this guy thinks he can criticize Meyer about anything when, for all intents and purposes, he's not too far out of the camp. I would say he's not even out of the camp at all.

RDK said: Methodological naturalism and a belief in a personal god are mutually exclusive.

gabriel said: RDK sez:

Someone who holds such views is not fit for a position in science, and it's highly ironic that this guy thinks he can criticize Meyer about anything when, for all intents and purposes, he's not too far out of the camp. I would say he's not even out of the camp at all.

Actually, what makes science such a robust enterprise is that folks of all faiths can practice it and contribute to scientific understanding. What you are proposing is nothing short of draconian thought-policing. Lots of theists all over the world, from many different faiths, make substantial contributions to science every day. You would bar them from participating?

One has to question the conclusions drawn from scientific research if that person goes home believing that he can whisper to a sky daddy and the sky daddy hears him.

Karen S. said:

One has to question the conclusions drawn from scientific research if that person goes home believing that he can whisper to a sky daddy and the sky daddy hears him.

But what about peer-review? Don't scientists present their research findings to other scientists for evaluation? Isn't that evaluation based on the scientific merit of the idea itself, and not on the presenter's philosophy or personal thoughts? (That is my understanding, anyway.)

Objectivists and Scientologists bulk-bought so many books...

I thought Objecitivists were against "colelctivism." I also thought they were different from irrational colectivist cults.

Kudos to him for realizing that Meyer is a goon and his 600-page book is just fancy toilet paper, but at the end of the day he’s a theist.

MOST of the people who support honest science are theists. Grow the fuck up and deal with it already.

I don’t care if you do great science at work; you’re still doing the moral equivalent of going home and sacrificing a gazelle to your sky daddy.

So in other words, you think it's okay to ignore a person's actions (which are easily verifiable) and judge him solely by his beliefs (which you may not sufficiently understand)? Sorry, that's what the religious bigots do, and it's why we oppose their meddling in our lives.

Methodological naturalism and a belief in a personal god are mutually exclusive.

No, they are not; and if you can't understand this, after YEARS of debate on this subject on this very blog, then you're pretty much uneducable.

Obviously if you hold some sort of irrational belief in a personal creator, your methodology at work is at odds with your worldview.

Without observing one's methodology at work, and without understanding specifics of one's belief, you have no idea what you're talking about, and cannot justify such a statement. Period.

I am merely stating my opinion that there is some cognitive dissonance going on when someone, like the biochemist quoted in that article, criticizes someone like Meyer for something that they themselves are guilty of.

If the biochemist in question is "guilty" of anything, then you need to prove that by specific things he said or did, not by the mere fact of his belief in something you don't like.

But I can’t help but hold the belief that he must at least be a little uneasy with himself when he reflects on what he actually believes. He has to ask himself at night, “Why do I believe what I believe?”.

There are LOTS of good, intelligent people who experience such unease at one time or another. It doesn't necessarily make them less competent, less good, or less honest.

How can you hold two polarizing beliefs?

What makes you so sure his specific beliefs are "polarizing?"

Thanks for chiming in, Raging Bee. By that person's criterion then Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Guy Consolmagno, Keith Miller (no relation to Ken), Peter Dodson, Simon Conway Morris, Michael Rosenzweig, and many more capable scientists should be condemned out of hand simply for being "theists". Maybe he doesn't realize this, but he is merely reinforcing the worst stereotypical nonsense emanating from the Dishonesty Institute, Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and other similarly disreputable organizations of such ilk, in which, they, virtually in unison, contend that "Darwinism" is the "mendacious intellectual pornography" (to use my very term, but wouldn't surprise me at all if some of the brighter creos have used it at us) being promoted by such "evil Atheistic Darwinists" like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, etc. etc. Karen S. made a very good point with regards to the "Christian" biochemist being dumped on by both his fellow "Christians" and by Militant Atheists, and without revisiting the "accomodationist" issue, it is a pity that our "friend" doesn't see the irony in condemning many scientists for espousing some form of Theism. Moreover, unlike that "Christian" biochemist, I have heard truly devout Roman Catholic scientists like Ken Miller and Guy Consolmagno - a Jesuit brother and the Vatican Astronomer based at its observatory in Tucson, AZ - declare in public that, as scientists, their scientific beliefs are the only beliefs they will consider when they are working as scientists (The correct attitude one should be taking BTW IMHO, and one that is obviously lost on Dishonesty Institute IDiots like Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, Mike Behe, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Casey Luskin, etc. etc.). Furthermore, last spring, I heard Ken say at a private talk before the Brown University Club in New York that those who embrace religious faiths that are hostile to science should reject them immediately (Without speaking for Ken, I believe he would condemn that biochemist's effort at "appeasing" Stephen Meyer as much as PZ Myers and Jason Rosenhouse have.).

Since Richard Dawkins has paid a friendly social visit to that notorious den of "Neville Chamberlain evolutionists" (Referring of course to NCSE's Oakland, CA offices), then maybe we should all focus instead on the bigger issues at hand, like confronting the Dishonesty Institute every single opportunity we have and demanding from Amazon.com that it stops such ludicrous policy like bending over backwards for people like Ken Ham, Stephen Meyer and Mike Behe, and declaring that "Signature in the Cell" is one of the best "science" books of 2009.

Those of you who object to Amazon.com's recognition of "Signature in the Cell" as one of the best science books of this year, should contact Amazon, writing a polite note pointing out that:

1) Intelligent Design isn't science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in reputable scientific publications.

2) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book

3) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books

Feel free too to alert Amazon.com to the ongoing Dishonesty Institute "campaign" on behalf of Meyer's latest mendacious intellectual porn and to state, again politely, your displeasure with Amazon.com's ongoing support for people like Michael Behe, William Dembski, Ken Ham, Cornelius Hunter, David Klinghoffer (I have no hesitation in condemning David Klinghoffer for being the consummate liar and con artist that he is, even if he did graduate from our undergraduate Ivy League alma mater.) Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, and Jonathan Wells, to name but a few.

Raging Bee said: MOST of the people who support honest science are theists. Grow the fuck up and deal with it already.

So in other words, you think it's okay to ignore a person's actions (which are easily verifiable) and judge him solely by his beliefs (which you may not sufficiently understand)? Sorry, that's what the religious bigots do, and it's why we oppose their meddling in our lives.

No, they are not; and if you can't understand this, after YEARS of debate on this subject on this very blog, then you're pretty much uneducable.

Without observing one's methodology at work, and without understanding specifics of one's belief, you have no idea what you're talking about, and cannot justify such a statement. Period.

If the biochemist in question is "guilty" of anything, then you need to prove that by specific things he said or did, not by the mere fact of his belief in something you don't like.

From the review: The bottom line is that I want your work to be in conversation with mainstream science. Your set of predictions is a good step forward (though you overstate your own success in the accuracy of the junk DNA predictions, you have an OK point). But reading this book after reading Williams is like reading Twilight after reading Lord of the Rings. It's just not in the same ballpark. Look, I want to believe, but you have to help my unbelief by demonstrating something, not by just taking the most difficult thing we can find, saying it's unexplained, and saying "now you have to believe what I say." No, actually, I don't.

There are LOTS of good, intelligent people who experience such unease at one time or another. It doesn't necessarily make them less competent, less good, or less honest.

RDK, do you personally apply the scientific method to every aspect of your life? Do you do tests to attempt to falsify the hypothesis that your partner loves you? Do you do detailed technical analysis of artistic efforts to establish objectively that a given piece is beautiful or not? Or, is it that case when you come home from a hard day in the lab (or tormenting graduate students or technicians, depending on your position and employer), "on" goes the whacko light and you start believing all sorts of unfalsifiable and subjective things?

RDK said: Obviously if you hold some sort of irrational belief in a personal creator, your methodology at work is at odds with your worldview. One has to question the conclusions drawn from scientific research if that person goes home believing that he can whisper to a sky daddy and the sky daddy hears him.

RDK wrote:

"How is what Meyer doing any different than what this guy is doing when he goes home and reads his Bible, and whispers to his sky daddy? It’s not."

I agree with you that their beliefs are similar in that they both choose to believe in supernatural entities without any evidence for their existence.

But there is a big difference between someone who keeps their own personal beliefs to themselves and does not allow them to affect their scientific work and someone who tries to lie to people in order to fool them into sharing his own baseless beliefs. There is a big difference between someone who admits that their beliefs are based on faith not evidence and someone who lies to people and tries to convince them that their beliefs are based on evidence when in fact they are not.

Personally, I don't really care what anyone believes. But when they try to lie to people in an attempt to undermine real science, I say that someone needs to stand up to them and expose them for the hypocrites that they are.

One question: Why is it prima feces so unbelievable that Meyer's book would get positive reviews? Ever consider that it might actually contain some good points? After all, it was recently endorsed by noted philosopher of science Thomas Nagel, who, you might remember, is famous for helping us discover the inner world of bats.

NS
Cheers,

RDK -

I'm not religious either, but I don't see the slightest conflict between most religious stances and science, at any level.

The human religious behavior I observe is a complex set of related behaviors which encompass any or all of the following -

1) Observation of rituals. Of course, I'll note, non-religious people such as me indulge in plenty of behaviors that don't have an obvious economic payoff, too. Rituals often serve as a powerful and useful defense for people who are in circumstances of pain, sorrow, terror, etc.

2) In most cases, endorsement of a fundamental ethical code based on empathy with fellow humans. Almost all major religions argue against unjustified violence, theft, deception, needless insults, and the like (unbelievable as it may seem, in theory, the ostensible Christianity of creationists should be arguing against these things). This is an aspect of religion that I agree with.

3) In many cases, a focus on observing other taboos or restrictions which do not necessarily coincide with secular humanist ethics. Again, though, no human being chooses entirely "rational" behaviors, and it's other peoples' business if they want to, say, avoid eating onions and garlic (Jainism and some Hinduism-based schools of yoga, for example).

4) In a subset of religions, acceptance of some level of mythology as being "true" is required. This is actually NOT a universal feature of religion, though. In many forms of Judaism, many Dharmic sects, and indeed, in not a few forms of Christianity, the choice of behaviors is regarded as the essence of religion, and a fundamental good in its own right. Forced belief in mythology is not an aspect. This is often known in simplified terms as the "works versus faith" issue.

5) In a subset of religions, there may be a strong belief that behavior not sanctioned by the religion will result in some sort of punishment, and/or that proper behavior will be rewarded. Even when present, this type of belief can take any of a number of complex variant forms. Either the rewards, or the punishments, may be seen as being exclusively available to those who have been instructed in the religion in question, or they may be seen as universally applied to all of humanity. The rewards or punishments may be seen as coming in this life, as being the cause of an immediate achievement of some sort of eternal state after death, or as impacting only by influencing which subsequent transient incarnation, if any, is experienced. However, such a belief is not a universal aspect of all religions.

6) Some but not all religious stances posit the existence of supernatural figures. For many people, the belief in kind, caring supernatural figures may be a critical coping mechanism in times of physical suffering or psychological trauma.

Some atheists have turned away from one particular religion which was negative for them - but assume that all other religious stances are similar. Others simply seem to be "second generation atheists", who seem to make oversimplifying and perhaps biased assumptions about cultural traits their own family did not share.

I am always appalled by religious violence, religious intolerance, etc, but the problem is situations like that is the violence or intolerance. Many religious people are neither violent nor intolerant.

I am not religious, and also have a decent scientific education and have been trivially productive in a very applied field of science. Some of my friends are not religious, but have little or no scientific education. Still other people I have worked with have been very religious, yet been brilliant scientists.

Finally, I'll add, I don't personally see science denial by educated people as truly being motivated by "religion". This is just my own reasonable hypothesis, but I note that most mature sincerely religious people (who have had the benefit of an education) have worked out for themselves that some parts of ancient religious texts are not "literal". Evolution denial is NOT strongly associated with "religion". It is very strongly associated with a certain political ideology. I personally see the religious claims of creationists, while more or less sincere at a conscious level, as mainly being a rationalization of the emotional biases that actually drive them.

I usually agree with your comments and have zero desire for an interminable flame war; I just thought I'd clarify my views here.

"Why is it prima feces so unbelievable... " notedscholar

Most telling typo ever

Meyer's book is definitely Primo Feces.

El Primo.

Unknowntroll: Ever consider that it might actually contain some good points?

raven said:

Unknowntroll: Ever consider that it might actually contain some good points?

Because Meyers has a long history of lying and pushing pseudoscientific nonsense full of logical holes. He is an affiliate of the Dishonesy Institute, a nasty group of Xian Dominionists whose mission statement includes overthrowing the US and Western civilizations. Never heard of the allededly famous Thomas Nagel.

notedscholar said: One question: Why is it prima feces so unbelievable that Meyer's book would get positive reviews? Ever consider that it might actually contain some good points? After all, it was recently endorsed by noted philosopher of science Thomas Nagel, who, you might remember, is famous for helping us discover the inner world of bats. NS Cheers,

wikipedia: Thomas Nagel (born July 4, 1937 in Belgrade, Serbia) is an American philosopher, currently University Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University, where he has taught since 1980. His main areas of philosophical interest are philosophy of mind, political philosophy and ethics. He is well-known for his critique of reductionist accounts of the mind in his essay "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?" (1974), and for his contributions to deontological and liberal moral and political theory in The Possibility of Altruism (1970) and subsequent writings.

wikipedia: In "What is it Like to Be a Bat?", Nagel argues that consciousness has essential to it a subjective character, a what it is like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."

One question: Why is it prima feces so unbelievable that Meyer’s book would get positive reviews? Ever consider that it might actually contain some good points?

Too much caffeine today Kwok?

DS and Harold: we are essentially in agreement here. Perhaps I was too quick to speak when I said that people such as the biochemist author of that critical article of Siggy in the Cell were unfit for positions in the sciences. While I'm still of the opinion that I'd rather have people like Ken Miller free from having to stretch credibility just to maintain Bronze-age mythology, so far there hasn't been reason to believe that Collins, Miller, and the like, are incapable of effectively doing science. The part that disturbs me is that they fully embrace these rules in a professional environment and then effectively betray the merits of naturalism in their personal lives. It's something I don't understand and probably never will.

To me it is, at best, wishful thinking, and it is borderline creationist in its thinking; the idea that "okay, we're all on the same team here! We believe that the supernatural should be kept out of the scientific process......BUT I still think that there is a god that can neither be proven or disproven, and according to my theology you are going to hell because you don't believe what I believe despite us being in the same camp."

For an example of what I'm talking about watch the video where Dawkins debates Father George Coyne about the very same topic we're discussing; it's cringe-worthy the way Coyne has to torture and twist and stumble over himself in order to reconcile his religious beliefs with his science.

noscholar wrote:

"One question: Why is it prima feces so unbelievable that Meyer’s book would get positive reviews?"

Five questions:

Why is it prima feces necessary, for a book that could supposedly get good reviews on its own merits, to have someone contrive to get thousands of people to write glowing reviews regardless of the content of the book?

Why is it necessary for a book full of lies, half truths and misrepresentations of science, by a man who never did one bit of science in his life, to get good reviews just because there is the possiblility that it may contain one sentence that may be partly true?

Why is it necessary for you to come here and try to defend a man who is so intellectually challenged and morally banckrupt that he has done nothing but lie about science for his entire life?

Who in the world would care even if thousands of know-nothing lying scumbags, who are just trying fool people, gave positive reviews to a book that didn't deserve them?

Who in the wordld would care if you claim that the book deserves positive reviews if you cannot defend even one of the claims made in the book?

notedscholar said: One question: Why is it prima feces

Notedscholar, a question requiring vastly smaller amounts of effort may be "Why is Meyer's book not prime feces?"

RDK wrote:

"The part that disturbs me is that they fully embrace these rules in a professional environment and then effectively betray the merits of naturalism in their personal lives. It’s something I don’t understand and probably never will."

I agree completely. However, as I stated before, I just don't care. Whatever tortured twists and turns these guys have to go through to reconcile their personal and professional lives, that's their problem and welcome to it. But it doesn't affect me.

Collins in particular has accomplished some great things that might even help to prolong or save many lives one day. What do I care if he spends sleepless nights worrying about matters of theology? And Ken Miller is OK in my book. That guy really knows how to defend science. I don't care if he sacrifices live virgin goats every full moon, although some animal rights activists might have a problem with that.

The main point here is that there is a big difference between someone who does real science and someone who only tries to misrepresent it. The two are not equivalent and they should not be considerd equivalent or treated equally. Just because there is a big tent, doesn't mean we have to try to shove everyone into it.

I even gave Kwok a thumbs up - I feel ill. Hell, I even wrote my own review, with a one-star. Might hope to balance out the evolution deniers. The comments were a trip - I especially loved all the "Truth" and "Jesus" comments - all science so far!

For those of you interested in a general discussion of Stephen C. Meyer's ideas in his newest book as well as clips from a recent talk by him, check out the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=078B8F6FD329822E

May I respectfully point out that this is not about what anyone thinks about anyone's religion, or lack of it. It is about whether there is any objective truth to the statement, "The best explanation for the very great complexity of the cell, or of living things, is intelligent design".

That is not a true statement. Please, can we concentrate on that fact?

raven said:

wikipedia: Thomas Nagel (born July 4, 1937 in Belgrade, Serbia) is an American philosopher, currently University Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University, where he has taught since 1980. His main areas of philosophical interest are philosophy of mind, political philosophy and ethics. He is well-known for his critique of reductionist accounts of the mind in his essay "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?" (1974), and for his contributions to deontological and liberal moral and political theory in The Possibility of Altruism (1970) and subsequent writings.

A philosopher!!! Oh. This makes him qualified to comment on evolutionary biology? No, it doesn't. The relevant subjects to understand biology include...biology courses.

wikipedia: In "What is it Like to Be a Bat?", Nagel argues that consciousness has essential to it a subjective character, a what it is like aspect. He states that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism—something it is like for the organism."

His paper on bats was written in 1974. It has nothing to do with real bats. It is something about a Theory of Mind. Really, Nagel is as qualified as a plumber, computer programmer, cat, creationist troll, or subsistence level farmer.

Badger3k said: I even gave Kwok a thumbs up - I feel ill. Hell, I even wrote my own review, with a one-star. Might hope to balance out the evolution deniers. The comments were a trip - I especially loved all the "Truth" and "Jesus" comments - all science so far!

Badger3k,

If PZ doesn't get a review copy from Meyer's publicist at HarperOne (I did and she thanked me for my review, even after I had posted it at Amazon.), he can ask me if he can borrow it. I'll lend it to him after Ken Miller reads it (Assuming that Ken hasn't seen it already, which I strongly doubt, but have stated elsewhere at PT that I would lend Ken my copy.). I'll do this since it is more important to defeat the Dishonesty Institute any which way we can, with NO PRECONDITIONS period.

PZ knows how to contact me, so if he's interested, I'll reply in a warm, friendly matter (And BTW, I was joking about him giving me photographic equipment. The only moron whom I expect such a favor from is of course everyone's favorite rabid Xian mendacious intellectual pornographer, one Bill Dembski.).

Sincerely,

John

John Kwok said: Badger3k, If PZ doesn't get a review copy from Meyer's publicist at HarperOne (I did and she thanked me for my review, even after I had posted it at Amazon.), he can ask me if he can borrow it. I'll lend it to him after Ken Miller reads it (Assuming that Ken hasn't seen it already, which I strongly doubt, but have stated elsewhere at PT that I would lend Ken my copy.). I'll do this since it is more important to defeat the Dishonesty Institute any which way we can, with NO PRECONDITIONS period. PZ knows how to contact me, so if he's interested, I'll reply in a warm, friendly matter (And BTW, I was joking about him giving me photographic equipment. The only moron whom I expect such a favor from is of course everyone's favorite rabid Xian mendacious intellectual pornographer, one Bill Dembski.). Sincerely, John

Dave Luckett said: May I respectfully point out that this is not about what anyone thinks about anyone's religion, or lack of it. It is about whether there is any objective truth to the statement, "The best explanation for the very great complexity of the cell, or of living things, is intelligent design". That is not a true statement. Please, can we concentrate on that fact?

John Kwok said: I concur absolutely, which is why I am willing to bury the hatchet with PZ Myers. Dealing appropriately with the Dishonesty Institute is far more important than trying to settle scores in the "accomodationist" debate:

Dave Luckett said: May I respectfully point out that this is not about what anyone thinks about anyone's religion, or lack of it. It is about whether there is any objective truth to the statement, "The best explanation for the very great complexity of the cell, or of living things, is intelligent design". That is not a true statement. Please, can we concentrate on that fact?

John Kwok said: If PZ doesn't get a review copy from Meyer's publicist at HarperOne (I did and she thanked me for my review, even after I had posted it at Amazon.), he can ask me if he can borrow it. I'll lend it to him after Ken Miller reads it

Why are so many intelligent people caught up in this Ken Miller tangle? What does it benefit you? How can you hold two polarizing beliefs?

Thanks for doing so, since mine may be the best negative review in the sense that it challenges Meyer head-on in his inane assumption that because evolutionary biology is a “historical science”, you can’t do meaningful experimental research in it

John Kwok said: 1) Intelligent Design isn't science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in reputable scientific publications.

ID does not say what happened (nor what will happen, nor what cannot happen), when (it makes a point of avoiding that as the “big tent” strategy), where, how, or why, or who did it.

— TomS

I have just borrowed the book from a local library, and my first chore is to search through it looking for any hint of a "theory of ID" or a description of "what happened", especially to find out if there is any speculation on when the design took place. So far, I haven't found anything. However, there are places where he seems to recognize, at least as an abstract principle, that science is supposed to make substantive statements. Whether that results in any action on his part, I'd be happy if anyone can help me out.

TomS said:

John Kwok said: 1) Intelligent Design isn't science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in reputable scientific publications.

That is an indication that ID is not science, but the reason that ID is not science is that there is no substance to it. ID does not say what happened (nor what will happen, nor what cannot happen), when (it makes a point of avoiding that as the "big tent" strategy), where, how, or why, or who did it. It is not science because there is no positive description of "intelligent design" (only the negative description that it isn't evolution).

TomS said: I have just borrowed the book from a local library, and my first chore is to search through it looking for any hint of a "theory of ID" or a description of "what happened", especially to find out if there is any speculation on when the design took place. So far, I haven't found anything. However, there are places where he seems to recognize, at least as an abstract principle, that science is supposed to make substantive statements. Whether that results in any action on his part, I'd be happy if anyone can help me out.

There were a lot of critical tags that just seemed childish and inappropiate that i didn't tick.

James said: I can't write a review as I haven't read the book, but knowing what I know about the discovery institute and the absence of any new arguments for ID I found that one way to contribute to a more informative presentation on amazon is to tick the tags that accurately represent the intent of this book - namely keeping america stupid, junk science, creationism, christian apologetics, psuedoscience, creationist, time-waster, fundamentalist christian apologetics, intellectual dishonesty, propaganda, neocreationism.

There were a lot of critical tags that just seemed childish and inappropiate that i didn't tick.

John Kwok said: Hope you ticked off the one(s) on mendacious intellectual pornography (May be one too on mendacious intellectual porn) since the Dishonesty Institute's intent always is do act via mendacity, and, to be perfectly honest, creationism of any stripe, including Intelligent Design, must be seen as intellectual pornography:

James said: I can't write a review as I haven't read the book, but knowing what I know about the discovery institute and the absence of any new arguments for ID I found that one way to contribute to a more informative presentation on amazon is to tick the tags that accurately represent the intent of this book - namely keeping america stupid, junk science, creationism, christian apologetics, psuedoscience, creationist, time-waster, fundamentalist christian apologetics, intellectual dishonesty, propaganda, neocreationism.

There were a lot of critical tags that just seemed childish and inappropiate that i didn't tick.

I just wrote directly to Amazon and got a response that they had a fair number of issues and would be looking into the matter and I would get a response in 2-3 days.

Here's what I wrote (modified from John):

I object to Amazon.com’s recognition of “Signature in the Cell� as one of the best science books of this year

1) Intelligent Design isn’t science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the 'scientists' who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books.

2) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book

3) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books

Also, I should point out that the Dishonesty Institute has begun a “campaign� on behalf of Meyer’s latest book in an effort to unfairly improve the books ratings with Amazon.

I heartily encourage you to revoke the science book status of "Signature in the Cell". If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis valid.

... because evolutionary biology is a “historical science”, you can’t do meaningful experimental research in it

Karen S. said:

... because evolutionary biology is a “historical science”, you can’t do meaningful experimental research in it

Sure you can! Simply ask all ID proponents to stop getting flu shots. (btw, astronomy is also a historical science. And ID is a hysterical science)

OgreMkV said: I just wrote directly to Amazon and got a response that they had a fair number of issues and would be looking into the matter and I would get a response in 2-3 days. Here's what I wrote (modified from John): I object to Amazon.com’s recognition of “Signature in the Cell� as one of the best science books of this year 1) Intelligent Design isn’t science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the 'scientists' who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books. 2) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book 3) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books Also, I should point out that the Dishonesty Institute has begun a “campaign� on behalf of Meyer’s latest book in an effort to unfairly improve the books ratings with Amazon. I heartily encourage you to revoke the science book status of "Signature in the Cell". If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis valid.

raven,

It speaks volumes that I believe Meyer is so "blinded" by his false dichotomy of "historical" and "experimental" science and in his all too obvious ignorance of modern evolutionary biology, that he can't conceive of the prospect that, as you've noted, "Much of evolutionary biology, maybe most of it is experimental." I also think he's blatantly quite dishonest - and thus deserving of my sarcastic description of him as a mendacious intellectual pornography - but, intellectually, he's trapped himself into the false dichotomy that he's chosen to set up for himself.

I also appreciate your excellent observation as to how we've developed the H1N1 flu vaccine. Surely Ken Ham, Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski, etc. etc. shouldn't get themselves a flu shot since they would find objectionable the important - indeed fundamental assumption - that one can only use the principles of evolutionary biology in developing influenza vaccines.

Appreciatively yours,

John

James said: ...I found that one way to contribute to a more informative presentation on amazon is to tick the tags that accurately represent the intent of this book - namely keeping america stupid, junk science, creationism, christian apologetics, psuedoscience, creationist, time-waster, fundamentalist christian apologetics, intellectual dishonesty, propaganda, neocreationism.

Divalent said:

James said: ...I found that one way to contribute to a more informative presentation on amazon is to tick the tags that accurately represent the intent of this book - namely keeping america stupid, junk science, creationism, christian apologetics, psuedoscience, creationist, time-waster, fundamentalist christian apologetics, intellectual dishonesty, propaganda, neocreationism.

Yes, tags help one categorize the topic of the book, and voting the accurate ones is probably a good idea. Right now "keeping America Stupid" is the #2 tag. It would be nice to see some of the more accurate ones (anti-science, pseudoscience, christian fiction, apologetics, creationist, etc) displace some of the higher voted inaccurate ones (like science, DNA, origins of life, evolution, cell biology)

It speaks volumes that I believe Meyer is so “blinded” by his false dichotomy of “historical” and “experimental” science and in his all too obvious ignorance of modern evolutionary biology, that he can’t conceive of the prospect that, as you’ve noted, “Much of evolutionary biology, maybe most of it is experimental.”

With ample thanks to OgreMkV, I encourage everyone to contact Amazon.com Customer Relations by writing a polite, but strongly worded, letter emphasizing these points:

1) I object to Amazon.com's recognition of "Signature in the Cell" as one of the best science books of this year.
2) Intelligent Design isn't science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the ‘scientists’ who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books.
3) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book.
4) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books.
5) The Discovery Institute has begun a campaign on behalf of Meyer's latest book in an effort to unfairly improve the books ratings with Amazon.
6) I heartily encourage you to revoke the science book status of “Signature in the Cell”. If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis as valid.

raven said:

It speaks volumes that I believe Meyer is so “blinded” by his false dichotomy of “historical” and “experimental” science and in his all too obvious ignorance of modern evolutionary biology, that he can’t conceive of the prospect that, as you’ve noted, “Much of evolutionary biology, maybe most of it is experimental.”

I should point out that swine flu is an example of a "natural experiment". Essentially, the laboratory of evolutionary biology can be as large as the entire planet. There are also any number of laboratory type experiments done in evolutionary biology from multi-hectare (acre) outside plots to Lenkski's petri dish and flask evolution of citrate utilization in E. coli.

Lenski's experiment is important simply to demonstrate how swiftly Natural Selection can act within populations, and to produce new "species" (which is what Lenski and his group have accomplished.). And then too there is the classic experiment done in the field by evolutionary ecologist John Endler on the island of Trinidad, in which he studied how rapidly Natural Selection can act on a population subjected to the pressure of increasing predation. In that experiment - as recounted succinctly by Richard Dawkins in his latest book - Endler showed that it took a very short time for brightly pigmented populations of guppies to become substantially less conspicuous with regards to their pigmentation in response to the introduction of prey species within their experimentally-controlled natural habitat.

These are merely but two of the many experiments done successfully in evolutionary biology that have escaped the attention - or have been deliberately ignored - by someone as "educated" as Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Stephen Meyer.

No problem John, I just copied and modified.

I actually use Amazon's rating system for some purchases there (of course I actually read many of the reviews, positive and negative, or at least a representative selection of both), so it bugs me that the rating and review process has been circumvented in this manner.

I would dearly love to read a well written book detailing Lenski's years of research.

Below is an example of an outdoor mesocosm evolutionary biology experiment. These are common enough. Stephen Meyers is an astonishingly ignorant and dishonest kook. QED.

Nature 458, 1167-1170 (30 April 2009) 1 April 2009

Evolutionary diversification in stickleback affects ecosystem functioning
Luke J. Harmon1,2,5, Blake Matthews2,3,5, Simone Des Roches1, Jonathan M. Chase4, Jonathan B. Shurin2 & Dolph Schluter2

Abstract Explaining the ecological causes of evolutionary diversification is a major focus of biology, but surprisingly little has been said about the effects of evolutionary diversification on ecosystems1, 2, 3. The number of species in an ecosystem and their traits are key predictors of many ecosystem-level processes, such as rates of productivity, biomass sequestration and decomposition4, 5. Here we demonstrate short-term ecosystem-level effects of adaptive radiation in the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus) over the past 10,000 years. These fish have undergone recent parallel diversification in several lakes in coastal British Columbia, resulting in the formation of two specialized species (benthic and limnetic) from a generalist ancestor6. Using a mesocosm experiment, we demonstrate that this diversification has strong effects on ecosystems, affecting prey community structure, total primary production, and the nature of dissolved organic materials that regulate the spectral properties of light transmission in the system. However, these ecosystem effects do not simply increase in their relative strength with increasing specialization and species richness; instead, they reflect the complex and indirect consequences of ecosystem engineering by sticklebacks. It is well known that ecological factors influence adaptive radiation7, 8. We demonstrate that adaptive radiation, even over short timescales, can have profound effects on ecosystems.

OgreMkV said: No problem John, I just copied and modified. I actually use Amazon's rating system for some purchases there (of course I actually read many of the reviews, positive and negative, or at least a representative selection of both), so it bugs me that the rating and review process has been circumvented in this manner. I would dearly love to read a well written book detailing Lenski's years of research.

I can’t write a review as I haven’t read the book, but knowing what I know about the discovery institute and the absence of any new arguments for ID I found that one way to contribute to a more informative presentation on amazon is to tick the tags that accurately represent the intent of this book - namely keeping america stupid, junk science, creationism, christian apologetics, psuedoscience, creationist, time-waster, fundamentalist christian apologetics, intellectual dishonesty, propaganda, neocreationism. There were a lot of critical tags that just seemed childish and inappropiate that i didn’t tick.

John Kwok -

FYI, I find your comments in this particular forum, to be on topic, highly informed, and often extremely helpful.

We have major political differences, and you seem to have generated substantial heat among fellow science defenders in other forums. I also think that you make far too many Klingon jokes. (You put up a lot of posts on this thread, but they were on topic and informative.)

Again, on the specific topics of biomedical science and the ID/creationist "literature", your contributions are appreciated here. You have an excellent grasp on biology and make an admirable effort to keep up with ID/creationist output, which you critique in an insightful way.

Since I really don't know what the issues others allude to actually are, this isn't an endorsement of or excuse for anything you may have done to tick people off in some other setting. Reasonable people seem to be upset at you. I have no knowledge of what all that may be about, and bluntly, the exact opposite of a desire to find out.

With regard to biomedical science versus ID/creationism, keep up the good work.

For those of you planning on reading and reviewing Meyer's book, don't. Save your $19.13. It's 624 pages of trash. Normally I would pirate these sorts of things, but Meyer's fanbase isn't even big enough to have a torrent or online server file set up for his works, and all subsequent searches came up for Twilight books and merchandise. It seems Stephanie Meyer is more important than Steve, and this is probably the first and last time I'd ever side with Stephanie Meyer.

So, I had to man up and pitch in twenty bucks just to torture myself.

It seems like some of you are writing Amazon reviews to help balance out the creotard voting machine and actually make the rating fair. I'll probably be doing so shortly as I've just recently finished it, and I intend on writing Amazon a letter too.

Fun fact: searching for "Signature in the Cell" on Amazon brings up Dembski's "End of Christianity" as the second billing. This should speak volumes about Disco.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=signature+in+the+cell&x=0&y=0

If you want to skip the reading, here is Meyer talking about his book on some TV show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU

Here is a general refutation by me of Meyer's (and ID's in general) religious nonsense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODwvMM8h2M&feature=PlayList&p=078B8F6FD329822E&index=0&playnext=1

harold said: John Kwok - FYI, I find your comments in this particular forum, to be on topic, highly informed, and often extremely helpful. We have major political differences, and you seem to have generated substantial heat among fellow science defenders in other forums. I also think that you make far too many Klingon jokes. (You put up a lot of posts on this thread, but they were on topic and informative.) Again, on the specific topics of biomedical science and the ID/creationist "literature", your contributions are appreciated here. You have an excellent grasp on biology and make an admirable effort to keep up with ID/creationist output, which you critique in an insightful way. Since I really don't know what the issues others allude to actually are, this isn't an endorsement of or excuse for anything you may have done to tick people off in some other setting. Reasonable people seem to be upset at you. I have no knowledge of what all that may be about, and bluntly, the exact opposite of a desire to find out. With regard to biomedical science versus ID/creationism, keep up the good work.

RDK said: For those of you planning on reading and reviewing Meyer's book, don't. Save your $19.13. It's 624 pages of trash. Normally I would pirate these sorts of things, but Meyer's fanbase isn't even big enough to have a torrent or online server file set up for his works, and all subsequent searches came up for Twilight books and merchandise. It seems Stephanie Meyer is more important than Steve, and this is probably the first and last time I'd ever side with Stephanie Meyer. So, I had to man up and pitch in twenty bucks just to torture myself. It seems like some of you are writing Amazon reviews to help balance out the creotard voting machine and actually make the rating fair. I'll probably be doing so shortly as I've just recently finished it, and I intend on writing Amazon a letter too. Fun fact: searching for "Signature in the Cell" on Amazon brings up Dembski's "End of Christianity" as the second billing. This should speak volumes about Disco. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=signature+in+the+cell&x=0&y=0 If you want to skip the reading, here is Meyer talking about his book on some TV show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavmzWVt8IU Here is a general refutation by me of Meyer's (and ID's in general) religious nonsense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODwvMM8h2M&feature=PlayList&p=078B8F6FD329822E&index=0&playnext=1

And to Kwok; I don't know if that jab up there was geared more towards me or Harold, but I don't in fact hate you. I find your shameless name-dropping and long-winded posts to be carbon-copies of the majority of ID supporters over at Uncommonly Dense, but other than that you seem like an okay guy and you are very knowledgeable on the evo / ID debate.

The only thing we disagree on is the Ken Miller thing, and I think at this point we can just agree to disagree. I admire Ken Miller, as do you; I just think he would be a much happier person if he stopped drinking the theistic evolutionist Kool-Aid.

harold,

Ken Miller understands and appreciates why I invoke Klingons. In fact, he told me once that he wished Michael Behe would write a textbook on Klingon biochemistry.

You might also say that I believe in using Monty Pythonesque humor to attack as viciously as possible, delusional IDiots like Stephen Meyer and Bill Dembski.

Cheers,

John

John Kwok -

I was more or less kidding about the Klingons :). I get your metaphorical intent, of course.

Well RDK, I like Ken for two reasons:

1) He is genuinely a very kind, decent, and humble person.

2) He got me started in fighting creos way back when I assisted him in his very first debate against a creationist, which was held at Brown University's hockey rink back in the Spring of 1981.

I don't share at all Ken's theistic beliefs nor do I approve of his espousal of a weak form of the anthropogenic principle, claiming that the Universe was "designed" somehow to anticipate humanity's arrival.

But I think you need to give Ken credit where credit is due. On two occasions in the last seven months I have heard him say in public that:

1) Those who subscribe to religious faiths that are hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths immediately.

2) As a practicing, working scientist, Ken recognizes that his religious views have no place at all when he thinks about scientific matters.... and if there is a conflict, then science must prevail (That, I might note, is in stark contrast to what Dishonesty Institute "scientists" like Behe, Dembski, Egnor, Minnich and Wells have contended.).

Unfortunately there is too much emphasis on Ken being a "tbeistic evolutionist" and not enough on how he regards himself, as a deeply religious man, should behave when working professionally as a scientist.

John Kwok said: Well RDK, I like Ken for two reasons: 1) He is genuinely a very kind, decent, and humble person. 2) He got me started in fighting creos way back when I assisted him in his very first debate against a creationist, which was held at Brown University's hockey rink back in the Spring of 1981. I don't share at all Ken's theistic beliefs nor do I approve of his espousal of a weak form of the anthropogenic principle, claiming that the Universe was "designed" somehow to anticipate humanity's arrival. But I think you need to give Ken credit where credit is due. On two occasions in the last seven months I have heard him say in public that: 1) Those who subscribe to religious faiths that are hostile to science should terminate their memberships in such faiths immediately. 2) As a practicing, working scientist, Ken recognizes that his religious views have no place at all when he thinks about scientific matters.... and if there is a conflict, then science must prevail (That, I might note, is in stark contrast to what Dishonesty Institute "scientists" like Behe, Dembski, Egnor, Minnich and Wells have contended.). Unfortunately there is too much emphasis on Ken being a "tbeistic evolutionist" and not enough on how he regards himself, as a deeply religious man, should behave when working professionally as a scientist.

I just think he would be a much happier person if he stopped drinking the theistic evolutionist Kool-Aid.

John Kwok said: ... his "straw men" of historical vs. experimental science (In the former he includes, for example biology and geology; in the latter, physics and chemistry.), claiming that historical scientists can never make "predictions" about events that have happened ...

Historical sciences focus on questions of the form, "What happened?" or "What caused this event or that natural feature to arise?" ...Those who postulate the past activity of an intelligent designer do so as an answer, or a partial answer, to distinctively historical questions.

TomS said:

John Kwok said: ... his "straw men" of historical vs. experimental science (In the former he includes, for example biology and geology; in the latter, physics and chemistry.), claiming that historical scientists can never make "predictions" about events that have happened ...

On page 408, he makes the distinction, writing, in part:

Historical sciences focus on questions of the form, "What happened?" or "What caused this event or that natural feature to arise?" ...Those who postulate the past activity of an intelligent designer do so as an answer, or a partial answer, to distinctively historical questions.

But does anything in the literature of ID make an attempt to say "What happened?" or "What caused this event (as distinguished from some other possible event) or that natural feature (rather than some other feature) to arise?" The "answer" that "something or other which is capable of doing anything at all could have done something which eventually resulted in this or that" does not tell us what happened, when it happened, etc.

I have two members of my family who are clerics, and both seem to be well-adjusted, extremely happy people (Though I will mention that, as a caveat, since one of them is a prominent Muslim - American who has been under government investigation, I can't really say if he is now truly happy.).
I would have to add Ken Miller to that list, as well as quite a few other religiously-devout scientists who seem to have happy, well-adjusted, normal lives.

One could argue persuasively, I believe, that some atheists need to stop "drinking the Kool-Aid" of non belief, especially in light of the substantial hostility I have seen from them in recent months; a degree of hostility that I thought previously existed solely within the hearts and minds of Xian and Muslim fanatics.

As I said yesterday, if Richard Dawkins can drop by NCSE headquarters and receive a favorable reception from Genie Scott and her staff (especially since he once attacked Genie as belonging to the "Neville Chamberlain School of Evolutionists"), then maybe some other militant New Atheists ought to profit by his example (And that, I might add, is a major reason why I made my offer to lend to PZ Myers my copy of "Signature in the Cell".). We need to remember that, of the lesser of two evils, the Fundamentalist Xian crypto-Fascist irrationalism emanating from the Dishonesty Institute and its "kin" is far more dangerous to America's economic, cultural and intellectual future (which, incidentally, both Ken Miller and Niles Eldredge have emphasized in two books of theirs published this decade) than worrying about whether religiously-devout scientists like Ken Miller can set aside their religious views when dealing with matters of scientific importance.

Can we just turn this entirely over to JK?

[assumes Terry Thomas accent] I mean, really!

For whatever it is worth -

I have noticed that Barnes & Noble keeps "Signature" in their Christian Reference section, not in their Science section. I guess someone in BN is displaying more sense than Amazon.

So, as stated by someone else earlier in the thread, only religiously inclined people will buy it. Not that this is a good thing but at least BN identifies the book for what it is - religion.

Kudos to BN.

Tupelo said: Can we just turn this entirely over to JK? [assumes Terry Thomas accent] I mean, really!

At 39 of 113 comments, Kwok is already > 34% there! Dave

In practice, I only review denialist books that are available in the library (cf. Ian Plimer's Heaven and Earth, one of Dembski's books) or with such large available samples (Ian Wishart's Air Con) that as much as I would have read of the book is available.

OgreMkv if a book is at all controversial* you cannot use the stars, at any rate, as any guide.

*Usually controversial books have mostly 1 and 5 star reviews.

RDK said: Too much caffeine today Kwok? DS and Harold: we are essentially in agreement here. Perhaps I was too quick to speak when I said that people such as the biochemist author of that critical article of Siggy in the Cell were unfit for positions in the sciences. While I'm still of the opinion that I'd rather have people like Ken Miller free from having to stretch credibility just to maintain Bronze-age mythology, so far there hasn't been reason to believe that Collins, Miller, and the like, are incapable of effectively doing science. The part that disturbs me is that they fully embrace these rules in a professional environment and then effectively betray the merits of naturalism in their personal lives. It's something I don't understand and probably never will. To me it is, at best, wishful thinking, and it is borderline creationist in its thinking; the idea that "okay, we're all on the same team here! We believe that the supernatural should be kept out of the scientific process......BUT I still think that there is a god that can neither be proven or disproven, and according to my theology you are going to hell because you don't believe what I believe despite us being in the same camp." For an example of what I'm talking about watch the video where Dawkins debates Father George Coyne about the very same topic we're discussing; it's cringe-worthy the way Coyne has to torture and twist and stumble over himself in order to reconcile his religious beliefs with his science.

Docosc said: ... to attack anyone in science who professes Christianity...

tomh: Why is it that Christians perceive everything as an “attack”?

I don’t care if you do great science at work; you’re still doing the moral equivalent of going home and sacrificing a gazelle to your sky daddy. Methodological naturalism and a belief in a personal god are mutually exclusive. Someone who holds such views is not fit for a position in science..."

The reason that the rate of evolution acceptence in the US has not changed is BECAUSE of religion and the influence that it has on American education.

In that respect, the elimination of religionous influence on politics, government, and education is a must if the US has a hope in hell of joining the rest of the world in science education, we have to get rid of the influence that's causing us (as a nation) to fail.

Dave Luckett said: The second prong is irrelevant to the debate and is in any case offensive and illiberal. There are many theists who do good science, and who do not allow their beliefs to affect that, and there's an end of it. Given that, attacking their private beliefs rather than their science is as irrelevant as attacking their skin colour or gender, and just as objectionable.

OgreMkV said: The reason that the rate of evolution acceptence in the US has not changed is BECAUSE of religion and the influence that it has on American education. In that respect, the elimination of religionous influence on politics, government, and education is a must if the US has a hope in hell of joining the rest of the world in science education, we have to get rid of the influence that's causing us (as a nation) to fail.

While I have no doubt that any actual science content distorts genuine science, leaves out any recent discoveries that offer evidence against his idea and makes unjustifiable leaps to unsustainable conclusions, and like everything else the DI puts out, that this is a thoroughly dishonest and disingenuous book, without reading it, I can't judge whether the specific criticisms in the two reviews mentioned are reasoned and accurate (or whether the critical responses are more fair), so to vote would be inappropriate.

I don't think there's any denying that most rejection of the Theory of Evolution is caused by beliefs that can be characterised as "religious". Yet most Christian churches, and all the mainstream ones, do not oppose evolution. 90% of American churchgoing Christians (not an identical population with Christian adherents) attend these churches, yet rejection of evolution among Americans in general is still running at about 40% of the whole, and about 20% more have doubts about evolution.

Further, while the proportion of Americans who profess no religion has nearly doubled in the last twenty years (from 8.5% of respondents in 1990 to 15% in 2008), the proportion denying or doubting evolution has hardly shifted in that time.

So there's something more complex happening than simply that religion denies evolution, and it would follow that campaigning against religion, per se, is not going to be the answer.

yet rejection of evolution among Americans in general is still running at about 40% of the whole, and about 20% more have doubts about evolution.

Richard said: For whatever it is worth - I have noticed that Barnes & Noble keeps "Signature" in their Christian Reference section, not in their Science section. I guess someone in BN is displaying more sense than Amazon. So, as stated by someone else earlier in the thread, only religiously inclined people will buy it. Not that this is a good thing but at least BN identifies the book for what it is - religion. Kudos to BN.

Alex H said: Borders files it under "Philosophy."

Richard said: For whatever it is worth - I have noticed that Barnes & Noble keeps "Signature" in their Christian Reference section, not in their Science section. I guess someone in BN is displaying more sense than Amazon. So, as stated by someone else earlier in the thread, only religiously inclined people will buy it. Not that this is a good thing but at least BN identifies the book for what it is - religion. Kudos to BN.

John Kwok said: More appropriately deserves to be listed as science fiction - dreadful science fiction - next to L. Ron Hubbard's work:

Alex H said: Borders files it under "Philosophy."

Richard said: For whatever it is worth - I have noticed that Barnes & Noble keeps "Signature" in their Christian Reference section, not in their Science section. I guess someone in BN is displaying more sense than Amazon. So, as stated by someone else earlier in the thread, only religiously inclined people will buy it. Not that this is a good thing but at least BN identifies the book for what it is - religion. Kudos to BN.

Alex H said: Right next to the Klingon Dictionary?

John Kwok said: More appropriately deserves to be listed as science fiction - dreadful science fiction - next to L. Ron Hubbard's work:

Alex H said: Borders files it under "Philosophy."

Richard said: For whatever it is worth - I have noticed that Barnes & Noble keeps "Signature" in their Christian Reference section, not in their Science section. I guess someone in BN is displaying more sense than Amazon. So, as stated by someone else earlier in the thread, only religiously inclined people will buy it. Not that this is a good thing but at least BN identifies the book for what it is - religion. Kudos to BN.

Just so we stay on topic, I am reposting this set of suggested guidelines (with ample thanks to OgreMkV for his additions):

Please contact Amazon.com Customer Relations, and write a polite, but strongly worded, letter that indicates these very points regarding Stephen Meyer's abysmal "Signature in the Cell":

1) I object to Amazon.com's recognition of "Signature in the Cell" as one of the best science books of this year.

2) Intelligent Design isn't science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the ‘scientists’ who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books.

3) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book.

4) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books.

5) The Discovery Institute has begun a campaign on behalf of Meyer's latest book in an effort to improve unfairly the books ratings with Amazon.

6) I strongly encourage you to revoke the science book status of “Signature in the Cell”. If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis as valid.

John Kwok said: If that is indeed the primary reason, OgreMkV, then one should explain why in the United Kingdom that more than 40% of the population rejects both Darwin's work and accepting evolution as scientific fact, even if, as a whole, the population is substantially less religious than the United States's:

OgreMkV said: Let me just say this... (BTW: This is anecdotal and all I really have to base my premise on.) Keep in mind that I come from South East Texas and there is a significant stripe of fundamentalism in this area. Religion seems to have a greater influence... on some subjects... than many people realize. Even in those that profess no religion or to be violently anti-religous, their upbringing in a religious setting has a significant impact on their beliefs when it comes to other things. In this particular class I was teaching there was a student with a child, a student who had fathered two children, two kids whose parents bought the booze for their parties, a mormon student (whom I would never have even guessed had seen a church before), and a variety of other students, most of whom, a trip to the principles office or juvenile detention was a right of passage rather than a motivator. Yet, each one of these students violently protested the teaching of evolution on religious grounds. One student even said, "I don't care how much evidence you have, I'm not going to believe in it." These are kids who would go to the principle and tell her that I was a racist if I tried to get them to do an assignment. But mention evolution and they went berserk. In fact, several of them went to the principle, who gave me a talking to before I could explain to her that 'evolution is in our state standards and I have to teach it'. I submit that this response is much more than just some students acting out. I submit that this response is because of the level of indoctrination in many (not all, and mostly in my area) churches. You don't hear about pre-marital sex or underage drinking in church, but you do hear about the evils of evolution.

John Kwok said: If that is indeed the primary reason, OgreMkV, then one should explain why in the United Kingdom that more than 40% of the population rejects both Darwin's work and accepting evolution as scientific fact, even if, as a whole, the population is substantially less religious than the United States's:

tomh said:

Docosc said: ... to attack anyone in science who professes Christianity...

Why is it that Christians perceive everything as an "attack"? Whenever someone gives an opinion, such as "To me it is, at best, wishful thinking", or, I don't understand how someone can hold one view in a professional life and an opposite one in private, it is immediately an "attack" to a Christian. Christians are so used to having their views, which they never hesitate to trumpet in public, being privileged and above all discussion or criticism that any mention is an "attack". How tiresome.

He's of the school that subscribes to the belief that it is a substantial contradiction in terms to be both a devoutly religious person and a credible scientist. No scientist I have known who was also religiously devout, forsook his or her obligations to science, and indeed, regarded them as far more important than their religious considerations (Regrettably the converse is true with those "scientists" affiliated with AiG, ICR or DI.).

Docosc said: Sounds like an attack to me. If I misinterpret, please enlighten me.

The creo comments to Amazon posts are hillarious. It's like they think a two sentence statement dissolves all counter arguments. I wish some of them would read instead of just spouting crap that has been dismissed a decade ago.

tomh, your attempt to fudge the meaning of the word "attack" so that it means only "assault with a deadly weapon" or "denial of liberty of conscience" or "an unlawful assault" is Humpty-Dumpty reasoning. As I thought, those were the words that Docosc objected to, and they were an attack by any reasonable definition of the word. I interpret them as such, and I'm neither a Christian nor a theist.

It is one thing to treat religion as a subject in the marketplace of ideas and quite another to imply, or as here, to outright assert, that theists are incompetent to practice science. The one is the stuff of rational discourse; the other is its sworn enemy: prejudice contradicted by observable fact.

“Methodological naturalism and a belief in a personal god are mutually exclusive. Someone who holds such views is not fit for a position in science, and it’s highly ironic that this guy thinks he can criticize Meyer about anything when, for all intents and purposes, he’s not too far out of the camp.”

I for one really don't get why you're so up in arms about this, RDK. I don't know if it was you but someone was on the same hobby horse about a year ago. It doesn't matter whether Miller prays to a god, knocks on trees, or carries a lucky rabbit's foot. And whatever reconciliation or compartmentalization Miller exercizes is really no-one's concern but his.

Dave Luckett said: It is one thing to treat religion as a subject in the marketplace of ideas and quite another to imply, or as here, to outright assert, that theists are incompetent to practice science. The one is the stuff of rational discourse; the other is its sworn enemy: prejudice contradicted by observable fact.

RDK said: I've already retracted my statement about theistic scientists not being fit for a position in science.

I do, however, still question the polarizing beliefs held by said people.

Yes, Kwok, I'm talking about Ken Miller, and I'm not sure how many more times I can say that I do respect the guy and think very well of him. I just don't see how he can be such a staunch proponent of good science and yet be a theistic evolutionist. I'd like to crack open his skull and look around inside, it would probably be interesting.

As for this:

“Methodological naturalism and a belief in a personal god are mutually exclusive. Someone who holds such views is not fit for a position in science, and it’s highly ironic that this guy thinks he can criticize Meyer about anything when, for all intents and purposes, he’s not too far out of the camp.”

Allow me to elaborate. I'd like some of the theist-minded people here to try and work out the implications of the first sentence in that quote of mine. Forget the part about not being fit to participate in science; that was out of line and of course I don't believe we should stop theists from doing science. I do want an answer to this question though. Theistic evolutionists: knowing fully well that methodological naturalism is the only rational way to approach science, and knowing that science is the vehicle through which we gather information about the world around us to better understand the nature of our existence, how can you be a scientist and still have faith - emphasis on faith - in a Bronze-age myth?

RDK,

In response to the Edwards vs. Aguilar case, one of my graduate school professors, ecologist Michael L. Rosenzweig, had an article published in a leading Jewish periodical explaining how he sees no conflict between his devout Conservative Judaism and his work as a theoretical and field evolutionary ecologist (The only time I talked to him about his faith was just before a religious holiday, and frankly, most of the time we talked about science or politics, not religious faith.). I wish I had that paper still filed somewhere. I have known many other scientists like both Ken Miller and Mike Rosenzweig who are both religiously devout and extremely dedicated toward their scientific work.

Again, twice in the last 7 months I have heard Ken Miller say in public:

1) Those who belong to religions intolerant of valid science should terminate their memberships in such faiths.

2) When there is a conflict between his religious beliefs and scientific knowledge, then his scientific knowledge trumps his religious beliefs, period (This was also echoed by planetary scientist and Vatican Astronomer (and Jesuit brother) Guy Consolmagno at the World Science Festival's Science Faith Religion panel discussion (which also included two atheists, including physicist Lawrence Krauss) here in New York City last June.

I don't share Ken's Roman Catholic beliefs and personally have no problem with them, except where he has espoused a very weak version of the Anthropic Principle. If you need to be concerned about a scientist's religious beliefs, look instead at those who reject evoluion as valid science, not at someone as credible as Ken Miller or Mike Rosenzweig.

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

P. S. I didn't mean to tar you in the same broad brush reply I wrote to Docsoc, but several others here have made some excellent comments about your views, and theirs are remarks that I do endorse.

tomh said:

Of course, your opinion on what constitutes rational discourse may not be the final word on the subject. Perhaps you should draw up a list so that people know just what opinions you think are rational, and thus allowed, and which ones should never be spoken. Because that's all that the statement was, an opinion. It may not be a sensible opinion, or a supportable opinion, but so what? Instead of refuting the content of the opinion, the Christian, in typical Christian fashion, whined and cried about being "attacked". A silly and ridiculous conclusion.

I shall do so, at your invitation: an opinion that amounts to a prejudice contradicted by observable fact is one that is unworthy of a rational being, and should not be uttered.

Dave Luckett said: I shall do so, at your invitation: an opinion that amounts to a prejudice contradicted by observable fact is one that is unworthy of a rational being, and should not be uttered.

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: I shall do so, at your invitation: an opinion that amounts to a prejudice contradicted by observable fact is one that is unworthy of a rational being, and should not be uttered.

Well, aren't we lucky to have you to tell us what is allowable opinion and what is not.

A lot of countries around the world agree with you and have passed laws saying just what can be criticized and what can not. Of course, it's usually religious beliefs that are immune from negative utterances. These laws haven't come to the US yet, but when enough people agree with you, they will.

RDK said: I'm talking about Ken Miller, and I'm not sure how many more times I can say that I do respect the guy and think very well of him. I just don't see how he can be such a staunch proponent of good science and yet be a theistic evolutionist. I'd like to crack open his skull and look around inside, it would probably be interesting. I heard he had a book out explaining how he reconciles his faith with his opinions on science, but I can't remember the name right now so if anybody has read that book and is willing to give a good review of it, be my guest.

Dan,

I would believe even PZ Myers would agree with the two public statements I heard from Ken Miller earlier last spring. I have repeated them several times for RDK's benefit here at this blog thread and he still doesn't get it (Which makes me wonder as to how many of Ken's detractors on the pro - science side have actually read his work.).

Sincerely,

John

You're dealing with a delusional militant atheist troll, Dave, and one who seems more impressed with how many times I have been posting here than whether or not what I have written is meaningful in any way.

RDK said: I'd like some of the theist-minded people here to try and work out the implications of the first sentence in that quote of mine. Forget the part about not being fit to participate in science; that was out of line and of course I don't believe we should stop theists from doing science. I do want an answer to this question though. Theistic evolutionists: knowing fully well that methodological naturalism is the only rational way to approach science, and knowing that science is the vehicle through which we gather information about the world around us to better understand the nature of our existence, how can you be a scientist and still have faith - emphasis on faith - in a Bronze-age myth?

The part that disturbs me is that they fully embrace these rules in a professional environment and then effectively betray the merits of naturalism in their personal lives. It’s something I don’t understand and probably never will.

"The part that disturbs you" may be entirely imagined by you. "Betrayal" is an act; in what way, specifically, is a scientist "betraying the merits of naturalism" merely by holding a not-quite-rational belief in some corner of his mind? If the scientist actually DID NOT BELIEVE any of the information obtained in his work, or advised others to reject such information for non-rational reasons, then you'd have something of a case. But having a not-quite-rational religious belief is not, by any stretch, the same thing as flatly rejecting the merits of naturalism. It is possible to have non-verifiable beliefs and still accept, in one's own heart, verifiable evidence and the conclusions to which they lead. And just saying "It seems strange to me" only makes you sound simpleminded. People are complicated. Deal.

Why is it that Christians perceive everything as an “attack”?

In this case, it's an "attack" because scientists who happen to be theists are having their basic integrity and trustworthiness questioned without reference to any specific evidence casting reasonable doubt on the scientists' character or quality of work.

And why the anger? We’re having a perfectly calm conversation.

That's what creationist liars say after pissing everyone else off with their lies, which they always spout in such a calm, polite and civil tone.

Again, not once am I advocating a purge of all theistic-minded scientists.

Because, beneath all your self-righteous digs at people who don't think the way you want them to think 24/7, you know damn well you have absolutely no real case to justify such a purge. End of argument.

Raging Bee said: "The part that disturbs you" may be entirely imagined by you. "Betrayal" is an act; in what way, specifically, is a scientist "betraying the merits of naturalism" merely by holding a not-quite-rational belief in some corner of his mind?

Dave Luckett said: When prejudice has to be dissembled and concealed for fear of the law, rather than of simple exposure in a public forum like this one,

The creationists are still saturation bombing Amazon.com with more positive reviews. If you've read the book, please write negative reviews, and please be sure to vote for mine and Donald Prothero's reviews.

Dan said: I recommend that you NOT read a review. Read the real things! (They're not hard.) You may then disagree, but your disagreement will then be based on knowledge rather than ignorance.

RDK said: There are more important things to discuss regarding science than the inner thoughts of theistic evolutionists.

Hey John Kwok,

Good news-- Ken Miller says he will write a review of Sig in the Cell. (Not sure when, but it's on his to-do list.) He's not sure where he will post it, however. I think posting it to several places would be a good idea. One thing we can be sure of is that it will be very good.

tomh said:

Dave Luckett said: When prejudice has to be dissembled and concealed for fear of the law, rather than of simple exposure in a public forum like this one,

Of course, that's the opposite of what you said above, when you wrote that there are opinions that, "should not be uttered." Now you want to expose them in a public forum which is difficult if such opinions can not be uttered. I'm of the opinion that any and all opinions, no matter how outlandish, should be allowed to be spoken. You disagree, but that's OK. Reasonable people can disagree.

Karen S. said: Hey John Kwok, Good news-- Ken Miller says he will write a review of Sig in the Cell. (Not sure when, but it's on his to-do list.) He's not sure where he will post it, however. I think posting it to several places would be a good idea. One thing we can be sure of is that it will be very good.

William A. Dembski has posted one of the latest 5 star reviews, mocking Don Prothero (I think it's interesting that he doesn't comment on my review, since my criticism of Meyer's rubbish is quite substantial.). Make sure to vote no on Dembski's review and yes on mine and Don's, and please ask others to do the same (Am surprised Dembski would have the chutzpah to reveal himself out in the open at Amazon.com, since he has been caught posting reviews using several "pen names" in the past.).

From William Dembski's review, which is a five star review entitled "If you only read one Intelligent Design book....":

... then let this be the one. Stephen Meyer frames this book as an intellectual odyssey, describing his growing skepticism of materialistic origin-of-life approaches and how he concluded that the information-rich structures inside the cell (notably DNA) constitute a signature of design. Meyer has for well over a decade been a leading light in ID. If you want to know the state of play, especially on the origin of life (which is the weakest link in the materialist arsenal), this is the place to start. Other books go more deeply into the nuts and bolts arguments for ID (e.g., Dembski and Wells' The Design of Life). But for the best overall sense of what's at stake, start here. Meyer does three things: (1) Lay out the dismal state of materialistic origin-of-life approaches (it's not fair to call them "theories" since they are so vague and speculative); (2) Indicate why the informational and engineering properties of the cell mirror human technology and thus are reasonably explained as a consequence of intelligence; (3) Describe the relevant philosophy of science revealing how attacks on ID as pseudo-science or religion are ultimately unsustainable (newsflash: the nature of science is not decided by science -- what scientific experiment shows how science is to be conducted or what modes of scientific explanation are legitimate?).

P.S. Ignore the the one star reviews, especially those coming after November 30th, 2009, which were prompted by Don Prothero, who got his hind end kicked by Meyer at the following debate (Prothero and his stooges are "gaming" the Amazon.com review system, writing reviews, even though they didn't read the book, and then voting up these bogus reviews)....

Where did he say that?

John Kwok said: P.S. Ignore the the one star reviews, especially those coming after November 30th, 2009, which were prompted by Don Prothero, who got his hind end kicked by Meyer at the following debate (Prothero and his stooges are "gaming" the Amazon.com review system, writing reviews, even though they didn't read the book, and then voting up these bogus reviews)....

Alex H.,

It gets better. Here's a review entitled "I actually read this book" by fellow Dishonesty Institue mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer (best known for his breathtakingly inane equation Darwin's thought = Hitler + Holocaust). Unfortunately, like the equally delusional Bobby Jindal, he is a fellow alumnus of mine and Ken Miller's undergraduate alma mater:

...unlike, it sure does seem, most of those "reviewers" who have attacked Meyer here while giving no evidence of being familiar with what he says. Well, so it goes in the Darwin debate. Yet in a way I don't blame the Darwinist faithful, with their minds firmly closed, for not reading Signature in the Cell, since its argument, lucidly expressed and readily graspable, is really unanswerable by them. Meyer powerfully challenges the materialist religion, which can't survive close scrutiny in any case.

(EDITORIAL NOTE: Make sure to vote no on Dembski's and Klinghoffer's reviews and to vote yes on mine and Don Prothero's... and urge others to do so.).

Meyer powerfully challenges the materialist religion, which can’t survive close scrutiny in any case.

I just added this to my Amazon.com review:

(EDITORIAL NOTE 12/16/09: Maybe the Discovery Institute ought to heed the pledge made by the principal of New York City's Stuyvesant High School - widely regarded as the foremost American high school devoted to the sciences, mathematics and technology - before an alumni audience in the Fall of 2005 that never, ever, would Intelligent Design be taught, since it is not scientific.)

I was there when a fellow alumnus had asked the school's principal whether Intelligent Design would ever be taught, and in reply, the principal said that it would never be taught as long as he continued serving as its principal (which, I might add, he is to this very day).

Am sure you realize the significance of what was said by Stuyvesant's principal, but that's a distinction that's been lost by the Pharyngulite crowd that stops by here occasionally, who, in their warped minds think that I spend all my time thinking about the school and one of my former teachers, a certain bestselling Irish-American memoirist (Not really, since I have substantially more important things to deal with.).

Karen S. said:

Meyer powerfully challenges the materialist religion, which can’t survive close scrutiny in any case.

Gee, I thought those guys weren't interested in pathetic levels of detail.

Wait, I'm confused, John Kwok. Are we supposed to vote no on your and Prothero's reviews, and yes to Dembski's, or was it the other way around?

Ben W said: Wait, I'm confused, John Kwok. Are we supposed to vote no on your and Prothero's reviews, and yes to Dembski's, or was it the other way around?

Well, so far, I've gotten two "bacteria to fruit flies arguemtns". A series on "specified complexity", and a bunch of "I don't see how evolution can do it"

Yet, no one can answer any questions I'm asking about ID. Funny that.

As one in accord with Jerry Coyne and Dawkins against creation evolution, I join with creation evolutionists against these mountebanks of nescience= ignorance. Gish and Dembski are dumber and dumb.
We who are in agreement with Pharyngula find such as these two warped in obfuscation.

Speaking of Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers, the latest agit-prop e-mail edition of the Dishonesty Institute e-mail newsletter features some astute commentary about both from my dear fellow Brunonian, Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographr David Klinghoffer, who concludes his latest literary gem with this:

Alas, carelessness and dishonesty are hallmarks of the Darwinian propagandists. Hordes of whom, by the way, have been trying to overwhelm Signature’s Amazon page. They post abusive “reviews” making, again, little pretense of having turned a single page even as they then try to boost their own phony evaluations by gathering in mobs generated by email lists and clicking on the Yes button at the question, “Was this review helpful to you?” Per Amazon’s easily exploited house rules, this has the effect of boosting the “review” to enhanced prominence. It’s a fraudulent tactic, and sadly typical.

John, did you write to Amazon and include a copy of the e-mail from the DI?

I'm just curious if anyone has heard anything back. It's been almost a week and I haven't heard anything.

Question guys. I got this response from a guy on Amazon about "What is science". It really sounds like Behe's version of science where everything is allowed. I just thought i would share and maybe get some feedback on this.

THIS IS NOT MY WORK... THIS IS FROM ANOTHER PERSON I'M TALKING TO AT AMAZON.COM

"Michael JR Jose says:
Kevin,

SCIENCE, THE DEFINITION
Science is not knowledge, in Latin scientia is a verb `to know', but in English we use the word knowledge.

Science is not the only way of knowledge, this is but an old heresy against the human race, it is called scientism. Before there was science there was art, law, morality, politics, honour and shame, praise and worship, music and literature. These things contain their own knowledge, these things require their own knowledge, they are not science themselves, they do not need to contain science - but they may, in the degree they so choose.

Science is the objective study of how things work in the natural world. Science is the study of cause-and-effect in the material world. Science is the theoretical and practical knowing of the mechanisms known by the senses, it is not determined by the individual subjective view, it must be objectively known and knowable. Science is the methodical study of the universal mechanisms of the material world, therefore a scientist is a mechanic. The scientist in his capacity as a scientist is the most sophisticated mechanic, no mere grease monkey, but just a mechanic. Science is how things work. Technology is the appliance of science. Computer `science' is a technology, and a form of methodology, which means the study of methods of computing, eg algorithms.

The meanings of things are all held by the humanities, these include all the arts such as story, song, and the reality of right and wrong, justice and injustice, hope and faith and progress. None of these things require science, science is their servant, or it is nothing at best, and a menace at worst. No Man is a mere scientist, he must be a Man first. The Man brings the meaning to the science, not the other way around.

The methods of science are not science any more than the methods of cooking are cooking. You may bake or fry or roast or invent a new method of cooking, but baking, frying, and roasting are not cooking. Cooking is the preparation of food for eating. Science is not deduction, and it is not induction, and it is not calculation or observation or experiment. You may calculate, observe, or experiment, or think logically, but these are not science. They existed before science, they exist on their own and in combination, but they are themselves and are not science, they may be its methods, or may not be.

Biology is the science of life. It touches other branches of science, eg, in biochemistry, biophysics, and bioinformatics.

Chemistry is the science of the behaviour of the elements of the Periodic Table, how atoms and molecules and compounds may be built.

Physics is mechanics at its most fundamental level of building blocks. The mechanics of motion and energy are covered at all levels, cosmological, quantum, and the everyday.

Combined sciences are often the most interesting and may pop in and out of existence with a thought. For instance, geology and the earth sciences in general combine with astronomy, biology, and chemistry to give an account of climate change over the millennia, bringing together the interactions of the sun, the sun's magnetosphere, galactic cosmic rays, low cloud cover on earth, the control of incident sunlight on the earth, the climate and its temperature changes, the carbon cycle, the hydrological cycle, and many other factors. New types of combined science often appear by a form of evolution known as Intelligent Design, also known as Progress. There is some randomicity seen in this process, but it is not very important in the overall scheme of things. "

OgreMkV said: John, did you write to Amazon and include a copy of the e-mail from the DI? I'm just curious if anyone has heard anything back. It's been almost a week and I haven't heard anything.

Much of that is hot air, some of it is nonsense, quite a bit of it is addled, and some of it is actually incoherent.

Science is the close, rigorous, systematic and objective observation and measurement of nature by empirical means, the proposal of causal explanations (hypotheses) for these observations, and the testing of those explanations by further observations independently obtained, but with the same rigor. Hypotheses that survive that process become theories. That is, science is a process, a method.

Intelligent design is not science, and it is not "a form of evolution". It isn't an observation, for it has never been observed in nature. It isn't a theory, for it explains nothing. It isn't even a hypothesis, for it cannot be tested. It is an assertion, nothing more, and it is an assertion for which evidence is completely lacking. It has nothing to do with progress, capitalised or not. It is in fact a giant leap backwards to a pre-scientific world.

It's plain that the writer has no idea what he's talking about - apparently his knowledge of chemistry stops with Mendeleev and his physics with Newton. He spends much space pontificating on what science is not, but he gives no definition of what it is. And he shows a deep distrust of science and scientists - "nothing at best, and a menace at worst".

The last paragraph appears to be a vague imputation that science is a succession of fashionable fables, with an even vaguer imputation that nature is designed, but without the faintest suggestion of evidence.

In other words, it's poorly conceived, wretchedly written, and profoundly ignorant tosh.

I agree. Apparently the writer is a British (or at least European) Psychologist who hasn't read Meyer's book either. I think I'm makig some headway with him, but I may be deluding myself.

Dave Luckett said: Much of that is hot air, some of it is nonsense, quite a bit of it is addled, and some of it is actually incoherent. Science is the close, rigorous, systematic and objective observation and measurement of nature by empirical means, the proposal of causal explanations (hypotheses) for these observations, and the testing of those explanations by further observations independently obtained, but with the same rigor. Hypotheses that survive that process become theories. That is, science is a process, a method. Intelligent design is not science, and it is not "a form of evolution". It isn't an observation, for it has never been observed in nature. It isn't a theory, for it explains nothing. It isn't even a hypothesis, for it cannot be tested. It is an assertion, nothing more, and it is an assertion for which evidence is completely lacking. It has nothing to do with progress, capitalised or not. It is in fact a giant leap backwards to a pre-scientific world. It's plain that the writer has no idea what he's talking about - apparently his knowledge of chemistry stops with Mendeleev and his physics with Newton. He spends much space pontificating on what science is not, but he gives no definition of what it is. And he shows a deep distrust of science and scientists - "nothing at best, and a menace at worst". The last paragraph appears to be a vague imputation that science is a succession of fashionable fables, with an even vaguer imputation that nature is designed, but without the faintest suggestion of evidence. In other words, it's poorly conceived, wretchedly written, and profoundly ignorant tosh.

Dave Luckett said: Intelligent design is not science, and it is not "a form of evolution". It isn't an observation, for it has never been observed in nature. It isn't a theory, for it explains nothing. It isn't even a hypothesis, for it cannot be tested. It is an assertion, nothing more, and it is an assertion for which evidence is completely lacking. It has nothing to do with progress, capitalised or not. It is in fact a giant leap backwards to a pre-scientific world.

TomS said: ...ID makes a point of avoiding (neither affirming nor denying) the few positive claims which YEC makes, most notably about when and who, while keeping to the widespread creationist silence about what, where, why, and how. This lack of substance seems to be maintained in Meyer's book

I wrote to Amazon today to complain that their description of Meyer's book (which was, incidentally, almost certainly provided by Meyer's Publisher) is a pack of lies.

Why don't we start a campaign to get Amazon to re-classify the book as religion/politics?

I wrote a two-page letter that spells this out in a nice polite way to Amazon. If enough of you bother Matt about it perhaps we can get him to post the instructions (how to complain to Amazon) and my letter to make iot easier to copy?

How about the basic elements in a detective story: Motive, Opportunity, and Means?

Have you read christian fiction? Missing some fundamental plot elements just means its equals Left Behind in terms of literary merit.

If enough of you bother Matt about it perhaps we can get him to post the instructions (how to complain to Amazon) and my letter to make it easier to copy?

Go to: www.amazon.com Sign In (top of page) Click: Help (small blue text link near top right) In the right-hand column (far right of screen), under Self Service, click the button: Contact Us Click the tab: E-mail (up and left of center) Leave the field Order # blank Write in the free text field and click: Send E-mail

Matt,

With ample thanks to OgreMkV, here are the revised guidelines regarding how one should write to Amazon.com's Customer relations:

Please contact Amazon.com Customer Relations, and write a polite, but strongly worded, letter that indicates these very points regarding Stephen Meyer’s abysmal “Signature in the Cell”:

1) I object to Amazon.com’s recognition of “Signature in the Cell” as one of the best science books of this year.

2) Intelligent Design isn’t science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the ‘scientists’ who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books.

3) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book.

4) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books.

5) The Discovery Institute has begun a campaign on behalf of Meyer’s latest book in an effort to improve unfairly the book's ratings with Amazon.

6) Moreover, several Discovery Institute staff, most notably Senior Fellows David Klinghoffer and William Dembski, have written 5 Star reviews. Their reviews should be considered solely as Discovery Institute propaganda and should be removed by Amazon.

7) I strongly encourage you to revoke the science book status of “Signature in the Cell”. If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis as valid.

Stephen,

Thanks. I haven't written yet mainly because I didn't want to be seen as the one responsible for getting the ball rolling. I would encourage everyone to follow the guidelines I suggested (see above in my reply to Matt Young's comment), write one star negative reviews (BUT IF AND ONLY IF they have read Meyer's book) and vote favorably on the two reviews which are probably the best critiques of Meyer's mendacious intellectual pornography; mine and Donald Prothero's.

Sincerely yours,

John

I understand Matt's reluctance to post my draft letter (and it is only my draft - you can cut and add folks), we want people to feel comfortable with what they are writing. Also, boiler-plate, has a way of turning people off.

On the other hand ... it took me the best part of 90 minutes to come up with something factual, diplomatic, satirical, referenced (i.e. with links to facts), and so on.

So, at the risk of rubbing Matt up the wrong way, here is what I said. But please change ANYTHING YOU DON'T LIKE:

Dear Amazon,

I strongly object to Amazon's product description for the book:
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

Author: Stephen C. Meyer

Amazon’s description states:
"One hundred fifty years ago, Charles Darwin revolutionized biology, but did he refute intelligent design (ID)? In Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer argues that he did not."

This is a lie. Based on his discovery of incalculable numbers of examples of the process of transmutation of species, Charles Darwin's great scientific work, On The Origin Of Species, presented his thesis that the (then current) belief that species were unchanging parts of a designed hierarchy was discredited.

On The Origin Of Species presents the founding facts on which many new areas of scientific enquiry are based. Daily, scientists today make discoveries that underpin new understanding and success in human endeavours as varied as history, medicine, agriculture and biology. These scientific discoveries and technologies would simply not be possible without Darwin’s discovery of the facts of evolution by natural selection.

Amazon’s description also states:
“Much confusion surrounds the theory of intelligent design. Frequently misrepresented by the media, politicians, and local school boards, intelligent design can be defended on purely scientific grounds in accordance with the same rigorous methods that apply to every proposed origin-of-life theory.”

This is also a lie. Judge John E. Jones, was very succinct and clear in his Conclusion to the case that he heard [Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.]. He wrote:
" ... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents ... "

This view is also the most widely held view in the scientific community. The following link will refer you on to the majority scientific views:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#cite_note-unscientific-12

Whatever Signature in the Cell is, it is not the work of science its author claims. Amazon's classification, presentation and description of this book are based on falsehoods.

I have no objection to Mr. Meyer, or his book. He is perfectly entitled to disseminate his personal religious, philosophical and political opinions, and it must continue to be listed on Amazon.

However, your customers deserve better. The listing of Signature in the Cell should reflect its religious and political nature.

May I suggest a description along the following lines?

150 years ago Charles Darwin revolutionized science through his discovery of evolution by natural selection.

In Signature in the Cell Stephen Meyer makes a comprehensive case for his philosophical hypothesis that the theory of intelligent design can be based upon recent discoveries in DNA, and cellular biology – and that this supports his fundamental objections to the adequacy of all purely naturalistic or materialistic descriptions of the natural, physical, world in which we live.

Meyer embarks on an investigation of DNA and evolution from the foundation of his own beliefs. He concludes that current evolutionary theories are lacking, and he reflects on the evidence that he presents and the arguments that, ultimately, led him to support intelligent design (ID).

Clearly defining his meaning of what ID is and is not, Meyer attempts to demonstrate that the minority argument for intelligent design theory is not based on ignorance or "giving up on science," but instead upon our growing scientific knowledge of the information stored in the cell.

A leading proponent of intelligent design (a presentation of the mature theories of creationism and the teleological arguments for Theism), Meyer presents a compelling case that will generate heated debate, and command attention, from deists and theists around the world.

The Author, Stephen C. Meyer, Ph.D., is Director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle. The Discovery Institute actively pursues religious, cultural, and legal missions.

Please make the necessary changes.

Kind regards,

Happy hunting!

No, I've never read "Christian fiction", so I'm not qualified to judge. But I can see that "design theory" doesn't measure up, not just to the standards of the expository essay, but doesn't even work as ordinary imaginative prose, lacking plot, characterization, development, motivation, ...

TomS said: The problem doesn't lie in the lack of evidence, but in the more basic problem that there is no assertion, nothing that evidence could conceivably relate to.

Stephen,

Great job. Hope Amazon appreciates your sarcasm.

Best,

John

Anyway, here is Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer Paul Nelson's "review":

Signature in the Cell (SITC) is its own best defense: engaging, thorough, insightful, with suggestions about where to go next with the idea of intelligent design. A word of advice, however, to the one-star reviewers (well, most of them, anyway; a handful appear actually to have read the book). If you see someone reading SITC, and she finds out you gave the book one star without reading it -- walk away swiftly, or run like hell. Because SITC won't suffer for it. Your credibility will.

Apropos of that, there is something very odd about Donald Prothero's Nov 30 one-star "review," posted here. Monday 11/30/09 was the same night Prothero debated Steve Meyer and Rick Sternberg in Los Angeles. Prothero's review discusses the Cambrian Explosion, which he denies was an explosion; but the Cambrian Explosion is a topic SITC mentions only briefly. As is the case with most of the other one-star reviews, Prothero says next to nothing about the real content of SITC. Rather, he bashes Steve Meyer personally (and inaccurately, incidentally), and then replays issues from the LA debate. Prothero says that "Cambrian Explosion" is an obsolete term, but just a few weeks earlier, Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris published an article in Current Biology (3 Nov 2009, pp. R927-31), arguing that the explosion WAS real - "sounds like an `explosion' to me," he writes. As Conway Morris explains, "This is because if there is anywhere the sage of Down [Darwin] loses the plot it is on the topic of the Cambrian `explosion' - the seemingly sudden appearance in Cambrian strata of fossils of representatives of many of the still-extant animal phyla as well as a bevy of bizarre forms....As Darwin himself had to admit this biological revolution jarred with his entire theory of evolution."

The term "Cambrian Explosion" will be with us for a long time, because the pattern it describes is real (however one explains that pattern). In any case, as so many others have noted in this growing pile of SITC reviews, here's an old-fashioned idea. Try READING a book before posting an opinion about it.

Not that I want to pat myself in the back, but I wonder why Klinghoffer, Dembski and now, Nelson, go after Don's review, but ignoring my own substantial critique which questions Meyer's abysmal, most inane, assertion that Intelligent Design is capable of making "scientific" hypotheses suitable for a "scientific research" program. I'd like to say that it's because they can't refute that or my observation that Meyer has created "straw men" in his falsely conceived dichotomy of historical vs. experimental sciences.

John Kwok said: John Kwok replied to comment from John Kwok Not that I want to pat myself in the back, but I wonder why Klinghoffer, Dembski and now, Nelson, go after Don's review, but ignoring my own substantial critique which questions Meyer's abysmal, most inane, assertion that Intelligent Design is capable of making "scientific" hypotheses suitable for a "scientific research" program. I'd like to say that it's because they can't refute that or my observation that Meyer has created "straw men" in his falsely conceived dichotomy of historical vs. experimental sciences.

Tony M,

The main "scientific" point about Meyer's scientific "testability" is the "Cambrian Explosion", period. They are still claiming that they "beat" Don at that debate in Los Angeles on November 30th. Take away an Intelligent Design "explanation" for it, and there is simply no case to be made for Intelligent Design as a "credible" alternative. They want a gullible public to believe that skeleonized metazoan life appeared "suddenly" in a "Cambrian Explosion", but decades of excellent field paleontological research have shown that isn't the case.

As for your absurd claims about me, that's a contention not supported by most of those commenting on this thread (e. g. read Dave Luckett's comments for example, or OgreMkV). Still, I did raise two valid points in my Amazon.com review which the DI hasn't contended with:

1) false dichotomy between "experimental" and "historical" sciences as constructed by Meyer for the very reason that in a "historical" science like evolutionary biology, there have been many well-conceived, well-executed experiments in both the laboratory (e. g. Lenski's classic ongoing work on E. coli) and in the field (e. g. Endler's experiments on guppy pigmentation being changed by Natural Selection in response to the introduction of predators) that merely reaffirm the importance of Natural Selection as the "mechanism" for "descent with modification".

2) Meyer's inane assertion that there are testable "hypotheses" for Intelligent Design. He claims that the fossil record shows a "top down" level of organization that infers Design. Not so, and this is especially true in response by metazoans (not only them, but protists and plants) in "recolonizing" vacant niches in the aftermath of a mass extinction like the terminal Permian or the terminal Cretaceous. And then of course is his equally inane assertion that, somehow, one could test how far organizms have "imperfection" in their "designs". What quantative scale or objective, rational standard could be use to make such inferences? Of course the answer is none.

And if you think I am still a "narcissist" for "patting myself in the back", then you are quite simply as delusional as the creos and certain others lurking here.

Dave Luckett said: The reason it is insubstantial is precisely that no evidence exists to substantiate it. All the evidence available is to the contrary - that all features of all living things are the result of the emergent properties of evolution.

TomS said:

Dave Luckett said: The reason it is insubstantial is precisely that no evidence exists to substantiate it. All the evidence available is to the contrary - that all features of all living things are the result of the emergent properties of evolution.

I would say, rather, that nobody can imagine what might count as evidence to the contrary. An advocate of design can always say that whatever you and I point to as evidence for evolution has been designed that way. What we are supposed to do is to point to something which could not have been designed, and how can we do that? And what I am saying is not only that we don't know what would count as evidence against design. We also don't even have hypothetical examples of things that aren't designed, something that we can compare with real things, so we can tell the difference. The closest that I've seen as to a "definition" of design is a privative: "design is something which doesn't happen by chance or by regularity". And my complaint is not only that privative definitions are faulty, this particular attempt, if it isn't just plain nonsense, doesn't describe anything. In brief, while I agree that advocates of design do make grammatically correct statements using the word "design", they do not tell us anything about design.

Could you give us an idea what "design" is, how it differs from non-design, some examples of things which are not designed, what sort of thing is designed (individuals, organ-types, species, ecological systems, ...), what happens when a design takes place, ... Anything at all about design? Or, at least, give some references where someone discusses such things?

TomS wrote:

"An advocate of design can always say that whatever you and I point to as evidence for evolution has been designed that way."

Sure they can. But what they can't do is tell you how or why. So their "explanation" is nothing more than wishful thinking. It leads to no testable predictions. It is not even potentially falsifiable. It can never be science. It is, quite simply, worthless.

How can you explain why things are "designed" to appear as though they were actually produced by random mutation and natural selection? How can you explain why the supposed "design" show absolutely no signs of foresight or planning? How can you explain the patterns that are indicative of evolutionary processes? Why would you hypothesize a deceitful designer who wanted you to believe in evolution?

When we actually discover something that evolution cannot explain, then we will require another explanation. Until then, we have no need of any design hypothesis.

DS, I think that we are in agreement.

What I've been saying is that they can't (or won't) tell "how" or "why". Or "where" or "what". Nor, in the case of the ID variety, "who" or "when". It doesn't come up to the standards of a secondary-school expository essay, much less getting around to "deep stuff" like evidence and explanatory power and tests and falsifiability.

I haven't thought much about this, but it even looks like ID doesn't work as fiction: no plot, no characters. Certainly not a detective story: no opportunity, no motive, no means.

What it does look like is an advertising campaign. It has a "concept": "evolution is yucky". Negative campaigning is effective, so it seems, in politics.

TomS said: DS, I think that we are in agreement. What I've been saying is that they can't (or won't) tell "how" or "why". Or "where" or "what". Nor, in the case of the ID variety, "who" or "when". It doesn't come up to the standards of a secondary-school expository essay, much less getting around to "deep stuff" like evidence and explanatory power and tests and falsifiability. I haven't thought much about this, but it even looks like ID doesn't work as fiction: no plot, no characters. Certainly not a detective story: no opportunity, no motive, no means. What it does look like is an advertising campaign. It has a "concept": "evolution is yucky". Negative campaigning is effective, so it seems, in politics.

What I’ve been saying is that they can’t (or won’t) tell “how” or “why”. Or “where” or “what”. Nor, in the case of the ID variety, “who” or “when”. It doesn’t come up to the standards of a secondary-school expository essay, much less getting around to “deep stuff” like evidence and explanatory power and tests and falsifiability.

Karen S. said:

What I’ve been saying is that they can’t (or won’t) tell “how” or “why”. Or “where” or “what”. Nor, in the case of the ID variety, “who” or “when”. It doesn’t come up to the standards of a secondary-school expository essay, much less getting around to “deep stuff” like evidence and explanatory power and tests and falsifiability.

Yes, and just try to get an explanation of what ID research looks like!

The Emperor's New Research Lab. :-)

fnxtr said: The Emperor's New Research Lab. :-)

John Kwok said: When they are pressed, leading ID advocates will admit that the "Designer" is the Christian God (or rather, their peculiar Xian version of it, not the long-established Judeo-Christian conception.).

TomS said:

John Kwok said: When they are pressed, leading ID advocates will admit that the "Designer" is the Christian God (or rather, their peculiar Xian version of it, not the long-established Judeo-Christian conception.).

Did Ayala and Miller and other scientists also admit this, when they "acknowledged that we must accept the reality of design"?

John Kwok said: No, of course not. Only the delusional intellectually-challenged mendacious intellectual pornographers from the Dishonesty Institute. Ayala and Miller have never said anything remotely resembling what Meyer, Dembski, Nelson or Behe have admitted:

In recent years both Francisco J. Ayala and Ken Miller have been among the few notable voices in the real scientific community who have acknowledged that we must accept the reality of design as it pertains to living organisms. However, as Dave has noted succinctly, both have stressed that design is an emergent property of evolution, and have - especially in Ken’s case - noted that it is something that can be expected, whether one looks at computer simulations or living organisms:

TomS said:

John Kwok said: No, of course not. Only the delusional intellectually-challenged mendacious intellectual pornographers from the Dishonesty Institute. Ayala and Miller have never said anything remotely resembling what Meyer, Dembski, Nelson or Behe have admitted:

I didn't think so. But then I don't understand the relevance of your earlier remarks:

In recent years both Francisco J. Ayala and Ken Miller have been among the few notable voices in the real scientific community who have acknowledged that we must accept the reality of design as it pertains to living organisms. However, as Dave has noted succinctly, both have stressed that design is an emergent property of evolution, and have - especially in Ken’s case - noted that it is something that can be expected, whether one looks at computer simulations or living organisms:

John wrote:

"(I put random in quotation marks merely to note that mutations occur in response to environmental pressures, not because they occur blindly, due to per chance, as the creationists - including Intelligent Design advocates - would wish for us to believe.)"

John, is this really what you wanted to say? It sounds backwards to me, unless I am not understanding what you are trying to say.

"They have said this to counter Intelligent Design advocates who insist that because Design does occur naturally, then this presupposes that there must be a Designer"

I'm afraid I don't understand this either. If something occurs "naturally", doesn't that imply that no supernatural designer is necessary? Or are they trying to claim that the designer is an alien, I guess a "natural" alien?

DS said: John wrote: "(I put random in quotation marks merely to note that mutations occur in response to environmental pressures, not because they occur blindly, due to per chance, as the creationists - including Intelligent Design advocates - would wish for us to believe.)" John, is this really what you wanted to say? It sounds backwards to me, unless I am not understanding what you are trying to say. "They have said this to counter Intelligent Design advocates who insist that because Design does occur naturally, then this presupposes that there must be a Designer" I'm afraid I don't understand this either. If something occurs "naturally", doesn't that imply that no supernatural designer is necessary? Or are they trying to claim that the designer is an alien, I guess a "natural" alien?

DS,

As for a "natural" alien, I believe the answer is obvious. The Klingons "DID IT", seeding the primordial Earth with microbes billions and billions of years ago. Of course Dembski doesn't recognize this - especially since he is so busy serving his real "master", Lucifer - and i have no doubt that a horrific fate awaits for him in Gre'thor (Klingon Hell).

Qap'la,

John

John Kwok said: DS, Thanks for proofreading. I stand by what I said with regards to mutations, since creos insist that mutations occur by pure random chance or blind luck, whereas such mutations are in response to environmental pressures affecting the population undergoing selection.

John, at this point I have to admit that I don't understand at all what you are talking about, or how it has any relevance to what I was saying. I'd second what DS and Richard are saying.

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: DS, Thanks for proofreading. I stand by what I said with regards to mutations, since creos insist that mutations occur by pure random chance or blind luck, whereas such mutations are in response to environmental pressures affecting the population undergoing selection.

Everything I have seen about the occurrence of mutations indicates that this is completely wrong, unless you are trying to say that under certain circumstances the mutation rate increases. Do you have any references to support your assertion?

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: DS, Thanks for proofreading. I stand by what I said with regards to mutations, since creos insist that mutations occur by pure random chance or blind luck, whereas such mutations are in response to environmental pressures affecting the population undergoing selection.

Everything I have seen about the occurrence of mutations indicates that this is completely wrong, unless you are trying to say that under certain circumstances the mutation rate increases. Do you have any references to support your assertion?

DS,

See my comment above in reply to Richard Simons.

Having been out of the field of evolutionary biology for nearly two decades, I am surprised that I still know or remember a lot. But I was trained in paleobiology, especially invertebrate paleobiology, and evolutionary ecology, not in genetics, so I am willing to admit in advance any mistakes I may have made with regards to my understanding of genetics.

Sincerely,

John

John Kwok said: I am not by training either a geneticist nor a population geneticist, so I won't even discuss how mutations emerge and disperse within populations from a rigorous, quite quantitative, genetic perspective:

John Kwok said: DS, See my comment above in reply to Richard Simons. Having been out of the field of evolutionary biology for nearly two decades, I am surprised that I still know or remember a lot. But I was trained in paleobiology, especially invertebrate paleobiology, and evolutionary ecology, not in genetics, so I am willing to admit in advance any mistakes I may have made with regards to my understanding of genetics. Sincerely, John

John,

Perhaps I am still not understanding what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could say what specific environmental conditions are supposed to have been responsible for producing exactly what mutation. Perhaps you could also describe the mechanism by which the environmental conditions produced the specific mutation. Perhaps you could quote from the mosquito paper exactly how this mechanism is described. I must confess that nothing remotely like this comes to mind. Is it possible that you might be mistaken?

John,

Please check with Ken Miller on this. I think he mentioned something similar, but I can't remember when. (It would have been on an online video, as I've only heard him live 2 times.)

DS said: John, Perhaps I am still not understanding what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could say what specific environmental conditions are supposed to have been responsible for producing exactly what mutation. Perhaps you could also describe the mechanism by which the environmental conditions produced the specific mutation. Perhaps you could quote from the mosquito paper exactly how this mechanism is described. I must confess that nothing remotely like this comes to mind. Is it possible that you might be mistaken?

Karen S. said: John, Please check with Ken Miller on this. I think he mentioned something similar, but I can't remember when. (It would have been on an online video, as I've only heard him live 2 times.)

DS,

You are laboring I think under the assumption that there is one set of environmental conditions that fits all. Clearly that isn't the case for a metazoan population existing within the Sahara Desert or at the great depths of the Mid Atlantic Ridge system or at the base of the Himalayas. Clearly the range of biologic interactions present for desert mice in the Sahara, tube worms inhabiting thermal vents in the Mid Atlantic Ridge, or sheep grazing at the foothills of the Himalayas - as well as purely physical environmental factors - would be substantially different. Yet they do independently are responsible for Natural Selection acting on these populations and the potential emergence of beneficial mutation(s) that could lead to speciation.

John Kwok said: That is why no mutation or set of mutations would ever yield an oddity as bizarre as a crocoduck.

John,

I don't know ho to make this any clearer. The issue is NOT selection. The issue is the origin of the mutations. You have not described any specific environmental condition. You have not described any specific mutation. You have not described any mechanism other than selection. Selection is NOT responsible for producing mutations.

The fact that the mosquito had to find a new food source did absolutely nothing to affect it's DNA. If you claim that the mutations were an "accident", exactly how could they be produced by the environment? No beneficial mutations are required for speciation. Indeed, no specific mutations are required for speciation.

Unless you can provide some evidence for your claims, or at at least a comprehensible explanation, I will have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. I know I certainly don't.

DS said: John, I don't know ho to make this any clearer. The issue is NOT selection. The issue is the origin of the mutations. You have not described any specific environmental condition. You have not described any specific mutation. You have not described any mechanism other than selection. Selection is NOT responsible for producing mutations. The fact that the mosquito had to find a new food source did absolutely nothing to affect it's DNA. If you claim that the mutations were an "accident", exactly how could they be produced by the environment? No beneficial mutations are required for speciation. Indeed, no specific mutations are required for speciation. Unless you can provide some evidence for your claims, or at at least a comprehensible explanation, I will have to conclude that you don't know what you are talking about. I know I certainly don't.

TomS said:

John Kwok said: That is why no mutation or set of mutations would ever yield an oddity as bizarre as a crocoduck.

See Anatosuchus.

DS,

The London Underground mosquito species had to find a food source that was biochemically quite different than what its above ground ancestors feasted on. Surely there was some kind of biochemical adaptation made brought on by a suite of mutations that allowed the new species to consume an entirely new source of food.

John wrote:

"Mutations are the “source material” that can be driven by Natural Selection. How mutations arise is due to selective pressures acting on a population, which, as I have noted beforehand, can be either physical or biological in its origin (and more likely both). Am I saying that we understand well how mutations arise in populations? No. I’ll leave that to geneticists, especially evolutionary and population geneticists to answer. But there is obviously circumstancial evidence that would lead one to suspect that mutations arise due to the environmental interactions I have written about, of which the most famous example is the “jury-rigged” thumb that is found in the “hands” of the Giant Panda:"

Sorry John, but you are indeed absolutely wrong. Mutations do NOT arise due to selection pressure, period. We do indeed understand exactly how mutations arise, the molecular mechanism are understood in great detail. I can list dozens of well understood mechanisms if you want, none involve selection pressures or interactions with then environment. In fact, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that any specific mutations arise due to environmental interactions. Even the vertebrate immune system doesn't work that way. What part of "RANDOM MUTATIONS" don't you understand?

The thumb of the giant panda did NOT arise due to selection pressure. It arose from RANDOM MUTATIONS that had nothing whatsoever to do with the environment, the needs of the Panda or selection. Once the mutations arose, they did undergo selection, since they happened to provide a useful function in that particular environment. But that was only AFTER they had arisen.

If you disagree, once again, please show exactly how the presence of specific food items in the environment affected exactly the precise nucleotides that needed to change in order to produce the functional "thumb" structure. Exactly how did the environment Know which nucleotides to change? Exactly how did selection act to bring about the required mutations before they had actually occurred? You do know that selection only acts on phenotype, right? You do know that phenotypic plasticity does not produce phenotypic variation due to new mutations, right?

Your ideas sound just like the animistic nonsense espoused by creationists. You aren't a John Kwok impersonator are you? You haven't used the term "mendacious intellectual pornographers" in any of the last few posts, why is that? You didn't think that no one would object to your ideas if they thought you were John Kwok did you? You don't want to perpetuate misconceptions about molecular genetics do you?

John Kwok said: DS, The London Underground mosquito species had to find a food source that was biochemically quite different than what its above ground ancestors feasted on. Surely there was some kind of biochemical adaptation made brought on by a suite of mutations that allowed the new species to consume an entirely new source of food.

John Kwok said: DS - Mutations are the "source material" that can be driven by Natural Selection. How mutations arise is due to selective pressures acting on a population, which, as I have noted beforehand, can be either physical or biological in its origin (and more likely both).

Dear DS,

Provide me with relevant examples from the literature then that would demonstrate your contention that mutations have nothing to do with Natural Selection.

Tell me really how different what I said here about the mosquitoes:

"Surely there was some kind of biochemical adaptation made brought on by a suite of mutations that allowed the new species to consume an entirely new source of food."

From what you said here:

"There was a biochemical adaptation that allowed the new species to utilize a new food source, but the pathway did not create the mutations, the mutations created the pathway. How could a digestive pathway change the nucleotides required to produce the enzymes?"

I didn't say that the pathway was responsible for the mutations, BUT the other way around as you've indicated. Are you merely interested in playing a game of semantics?

I agree with you that we have, at a gross level, a very good understanding about mutations and how they can effect biochemical and other genomic changes that are manifested in the creation of new physiological or morphological traits or allow pre-existing ones to have another kind(s) of function(s) (which is what was described originally by two paleontologists, Stephen Jay Gould and Elisabeth Vrba, when they coined the term "aptation" in a classic Paleobiology paper from the 1980s). But I certainly don't think we know enough about mutations in the protista, metaphyta and metazoa to say that we know exactly which mutations led to certain aptations for each and every living taxa.

While I admit my own deficiencies in molecular biology and genetics, I will not refuse any opportunity to castigate creationists - and I believe correctly - in assuming that mutations arise solely from pure dumb luck. There are pre-existing geneaological (phylogenetic) and genomic constraints that will not produce mutations resulting in "hopeful monsters" of any kind, especially something as ludicrous as a crocoduck.

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: DS - Mutations are the "source material" that can be driven by Natural Selection. How mutations arise is due to selective pressures acting on a population, which, as I have noted beforehand, can be either physical or biological in its origin (and more likely both).

As DS has said repeatedly, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim I've highlighted. Mutations happen. Selection plays a role in determining whether or not the mutations are perpetuated.

I think you need to emphasize here that Natural Selection plays a role in ensuring that beneficial mutations are passed through the population in question:

"....Mutations happen. Selection plays a role in determining whether or not the mutations are perpetuated."

DS,

One more point about the mosquitoes. Apparently they had to find a new food source or else the London Underground population(s) would have become extinct (if my recollection of that paper's abstract is correct).

Richard Simons said:

John Kwok said: DS - Mutations are the "source material" that can be driven by Natural Selection. How mutations arise is due to selective pressures acting on a population, which, as I have noted beforehand, can be either physical or biological in its origin (and more likely both).

As DS has said repeatedly, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim I've highlighted. Mutations happen. Selection plays a role in determining whether or not the mutations are perpetuated.

John wrote:

“Surely there was some kind of biochemical adaptation made brought on by a suite of mutations that allowed the new species to consume an entirely new source of food.”

But John also wrote:

"Mutations are the “source material” that can be driven by Natural Selection. How mutations ARISE is due to selective pressures acting on a population, which, as I have noted beforehand, can be either physical or biological in its origin (and more likely both)." (Emphasis mine).

These two statements are in direct opposition to each other, at least as far as I can tell.

I don't have to provide any evidence for the basic mechanism of RNADOM MUTATION and natural selection. If you are indeed denying this basic mechanism, once again, the burden of proof is entirely on you. Are you denying that mutations arise randomly with respect to the environment or not? Are you saying that selection is responsible for producing specific mutations or not? Are you proposing a novel mechanism of mutation or not? Do you have any evidence or not? Last chance.

"One more point about the mosquitoes. Apparently they had to find a new food source or else the London Underground population(s) would have become extinct (if my recollection of that paper’s abstract is correct)."

Yes of course. My point was that they could have indeed become extinct. There was no NEED whatsoever for them to do anything else. They just did. That's how evolution works.

"... you don’t have any single mutation (or suite of mutations) that could yield a “hopeful monster” like a crocoduck. Mutations are constrained by the phylogenetic history of the population that is being selected:"

Absolutely agree.

John wrote:

"I agree with you that we have, at a gross level, a very good understanding about mutations and how they can effect biochemical and other genomic changes that are manifested in the creation of new physiological or morphological traits or allow pre-existing ones to have another kind(s) of function(s)..."

For the very last time, the effect of mutations is not the issue here. The issue is the mechanism by which mutations are produced. I am telling you, in on uncertain terms, that we have a very good understanding of how mutations ARISE, as well as their effects. Do you agree or not?

John Kwok,

Are you referring to stress-induced mutagenesis?

DS said: John wrote: "I agree with you that we have, at a gross level, a very good understanding about mutations and how they can effect biochemical and other genomic changes that are manifested in the creation of new physiological or morphological traits or allow pre-existing ones to have another kind(s) of function(s)..." For the very last time, the effect of mutations is not the issue here. The issue is the mechanism by which mutations are produced. I am telling you, in on uncertain terms, that we have a very good understanding of how mutations ARISE, as well as their effects. Do you agree or not?

SWT said: John Kwok, Are you referring to stress-induced mutagenesis?

John wrote:

"Of course I agree, DS. But you’ve missed my point that I believe we still don’t know as much yet regarding how mutations may have been responsible for new (or reused) biochemical pathways for aptations in most of the known millions and millions metazoans and metaphytes. Eventually we will know, but I will not concede any ground to any creationist who would make an “argument from ignorance” or “God of the Gaps” argument with regards to evidence for “Intelligent Design” or the existence of a Creator:"

Absolutely. We don't know many of the mutations, or even the pathways, responsible for many adaptations. We do however know many of the mechanisms by which mutations arise. That was my only point. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that we know nothing.

"I don’t think so, but I will plead ignorance here, and certainly I would never advocate looking at stress-induced mutagenesis from a Neo-Lamarckian perspective:"

As I stated earlier, stress induced mutagenesis is no help for the argument that the environment specifically induces beneficial mutations. Once again, it increases the overall mutation rate, and thus the ABSOLUTE rate of beneficial mutations, but it does not affect the RELATIVE rate of beneficial mutations. It can't, it didn't, it won't.

DS said: John wrote: "Of course I agree, DS. But you’ve missed my point that I believe we still don’t know as much yet regarding how mutations may have been responsible for new (or reused) biochemical pathways for aptations in most of the known millions and millions metazoans and metaphytes. Eventually we will know, but I will not concede any ground to any creationist who would make an “argument from ignorance” or “God of the Gaps” argument with regards to evidence for “Intelligent Design” or the existence of a Creator:" Absolutely. We don't know many of the mutations, or even the pathways, responsible for many adaptations. We do however know many of the mechanisms by which mutations arise. That was my only point. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean that we know nothing. "I don’t think so, but I will plead ignorance here, and certainly I would never advocate looking at stress-induced mutagenesis from a Neo-Lamarckian perspective:" As I stated earlier, stress induced mutagenesis is no help for the argument that the environment specifically induces beneficial mutations. Once again, it increases the overall mutation rate, and thus the ABSOLUTE rate of beneficial mutations, but it does not affect the RELATIVE rate of beneficial mutations. It can't, it didn't, it won't.

Just reposting this as a reminder for anyone who hasn't visited this thread before:

With ample thanks to OgreMkV, here are the revised guidelines regarding how one should write to Amazon.com’s Customer relations:

Please contact Amazon.com Customer Relations, and write a polite, but strongly worded, letter that indicates these very points regarding Stephen Meyer’s abysmal “Signature in the Cell”:

1) I object to Amazon.com’s recognition of “Signature in the Cell” as one of the best science books of this year.

2) Intelligent Design isn’t science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the ‘scientists’ who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books.

3) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book.

4) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books.

5) The Discovery Institute has begun a campaign on behalf of Meyer’s latest book in an effort to improve unfairly the book’s ratings with Amazon.

6) Moreover, several Discovery Institute staff, most notably Senior Fellows David Klinghoffer and William Dembski, have written 5 Star reviews. Their reviews should be considered solely as Discovery Institute propaganda and should be removed by Amazon.

7) I strongly encourage you to revoke the science book status of “Signature in the Cell”. If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis as valid.

Under no circumstances would I even think of stress-induced metagenesis as being responsible from an environmental perspective in causing mutations.

But you can not deny that there are both environmental and phylogenetic constraints that would prevent any mutation or set of mutations to transform a population rapidly from an ordinary looking duck into a crocoduck.

Constant Mews said: You [John Kwok] appear to be genuinely confused about what you're saying;

Constant Mews,

Again, I am not a molecular biologist nor geneticist nor was I ever trained as such. But I was trained as a paleobiologist, recognizing that mutations can't create - even if we could find a suitable biochemical pathway at the most reductionist level - a "hopeful monster" of the kind suggested by a "crocoduck". Nor can we expect that mutations might produce the same biochemical pathway that would lead to, for example, the development of wings in organisms as dissimilar as insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. Instead, mutations created different pathways that led eventually to different biochemical and anatomical solutions to the problem of achieving self-propelled powered flight.

I agree with DS that mutations occur all the time. But it is only those which are beneficial to a given population that will eventually be passed on to their descendants (And by beneficial I am referring to those that will ensure the reproductive success of the population in question), which is what we would expect under Natural Selection.

If you're confused, I think it's because you've ignored or discounted substantially the significance of a population's prior genealogical history (or to be more precise, its phylogenetic history). And may I suggest that is the same error which Meyer makes repeatedly in his conception of Intelligent Design as a "testable" scientific theory capable of producing hypotheses.

Constant mews wrote:

"But stress-induced metagenesis does cause mutations. That’s the point."

Indeed that is the very point I was trying to make. It is a point that John still doesn't seem to grasp. In any event, I don't know if we are really disagreeing here as much as talking at cross purposes. I keep trying to talk about the mechanisms by which mutations are produced, John keeps trying to talk about the fate of mutations. These are two separate issues, perhaps that is where the confusion comes in.

John wrote:

"I agree with DS that mutations occur all the time. But it is only those which are beneficial to a given population that will eventually be passed on to their descendants (And by beneficial I am referring to those that will ensure the reproductive success of the population in question), which is what we would expect under Natural Selection."

Once again, I hate to disagree, but this is just not correct. All types of mutations are passed on to descendants, deleterious, neutral and beneficial, with the majority probably being neutral. Drift is primarily responsible for the fate of most mutations, even beneficial ones, initially. DIfferential transmission due to selection can act and often does, but that is not usually the most important mechanism controlling the fate of most mutations, at least initially. Also, no mutation can ensure reproductive success of an individual or a population. No matter what your genotype, you can still die without reproducing. Fitness is a relative concept, at least in practical terms. I don't know why John keeps reminding us that he is not an expert and then keeps making inaccurate statements. Perhaps I am just being too picky.

Of course john is absolutely right about the importance of phylogenetic history in determining the types of mutations that will most likely occur. On that we can agree.

DS said: Constant mews wrote: "But stress-induced metagenesis does cause mutations. That’s the point." Indeed that is the very point I was trying to make. It is a point that John still doesn't seem to grasp. In any event, I don't know if we are really disagreeing here as much as talking at cross purposes. I keep trying to talk about the mechanisms by which mutations are produced, John keeps trying to talk about the fate of mutations. These are two separate issues, perhaps that is where the confusion comes in. John wrote: "I agree with DS that mutations occur all the time. But it is only those which are beneficial to a given population that will eventually be passed on to their descendants (And by beneficial I am referring to those that will ensure the reproductive success of the population in question), which is what we would expect under Natural Selection." Once again, I hate to disagree, but this is just not correct. All types of mutations are passed on to descendants, deleterious, neutral and beneficial, with the majority probably being neutral. Drift is primarily responsible for the fate of most mutations, even beneficial ones, initially. DIfferential transmission due to selection can act and often does, but that is not usually the most important mechanism controlling the fate of most mutations, at least initially. Also, no mutation can ensure reproductive success of an individual or a population. No matter what your genotype, you can still die without reproducing. Fitness is a relative concept, at least in practical terms. I don't know why John keeps reminding us that he is not an expert and then keeps making inaccurate statements. Perhaps I am just being too picky. Of course john is absolutely right about the importance of phylogenetic history in determining the types of mutations that will most likely occur. On that we can agree.

John wrote:

"DS, contrary to some rumors you may have heard, I usually try to confess to my mistakes and to admit my errors. That unfortunately are traits we have yet to see from such “eminent” Dishonesty Institute “scholars” like Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski or Stephen Meyer."

Thank you sir. You are indeed a gentleman and a scholar. And I'm not just saying that because you agree with me.

John Kwok said: Constant Mews, Again, I am not a molecular biologist nor geneticist nor was I ever trained as such. But I was trained as a paleobiologist, recognizing that mutations can't create - even if we could find a suitable biochemical pathway at the most reductionist level - a "hopeful monster" of the kind suggested by a "crocoduck". Nor can we expect that mutations might produce the same biochemical pathway that would lead to, for example, the development of wings in organisms as dissimilar as insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. Instead, mutations created different pathways that led eventually to different biochemical and anatomical solutions to the problem of achieving self-propelled powered flight. I agree with DS that mutations occur all the time. But it is only those which are beneficial to a given population that will eventually be passed on to their descendants (And by beneficial I am referring to those that will ensure the reproductive success of the population in question), which is what we would expect under Natural Selection. If you're confused, I think it's because you've ignored or discounted substantially the significance of a population's prior genealogical history (or to be more precise, its phylogenetic history). And may I suggest that is the same error which Meyer makes repeatedly in his conception of Intelligent Design as a "testable" scientific theory capable of producing hypotheses.

Constant Mews said: The only thing has been confusing are the numerous errors concerning genetics and evolution that you have been making in thi thread; errors which you apparently still continue to harbor. Your inability to clarify your points is proof that your thinking on these topics is confused. I suggest that you undertake some remedial education in genetics and evolution before you embarrass yourself in print. Sorry John, but you've made some truly egregious errors on this thread. Why is that?

John Kwok said: Constant Mews, Again, I am not a molecular biologist nor geneticist nor was I ever trained as such. But I was trained as a paleobiologist, recognizing that mutations can't create - even if we could find a suitable biochemical pathway at the most reductionist level - a "hopeful monster" of the kind suggested by a "crocoduck". Nor can we expect that mutations might produce the same biochemical pathway that would lead to, for example, the development of wings in organisms as dissimilar as insects, pterosaurs, birds and bats. Instead, mutations created different pathways that led eventually to different biochemical and anatomical solutions to the problem of achieving self-propelled powered flight. I agree with DS that mutations occur all the time. But it is only those which are beneficial to a given population that will eventually be passed on to their descendants (And by beneficial I am referring to those that will ensure the reproductive success of the population in question), which is what we would expect under Natural Selection. If you're confused, I think it's because you've ignored or discounted substantially the significance of a population's prior genealogical history (or to be more precise, its phylogenetic history). And may I suggest that is the same error which Meyer makes repeatedly in his conception of Intelligent Design as a "testable" scientific theory capable of producing hypotheses.

John Kwok said: Constant Mews, I suggest you should read what I said to DS, AND WHAT HE SAID in reply to my latest reply to him:

John wrote:

"Constant Mews, I suggest you should read what I said to DS, AND WHAT HE SAID in reply to my latest reply to him:"

I wrote that you are a gentleman and a scholar. I did not write that you are a molecular biologist, geneticist or population geneticist.

When discussing science, it is important to be technically accurate. However, it is even more important to be willing to admit mistakes. No one is perfect, but someone who will not admit a mistake is twice wrong.

I appreciate your efforts to defend good science. That is certainly more important than any minor technical errors. Still, the fact remains that several of your statements were technically inaccurate. I have tried to set the record straight to the best of my ability. I hope that in so doing I have not given offense. That was not my intention.

DS said: John wrote: "Constant Mews, I suggest you should read what I said to DS, AND WHAT HE SAID in reply to my latest reply to him:" I wrote that you are a gentleman and a scholar. I did not write that you are a molecular biologist, geneticist or population geneticist. When discussing science, it is important to be technically accurate. However, it is even more important to be willing to admit mistakes. No one is perfect, but someone who will not admit a mistake is twice wrong. I appreciate your efforts to defend good science. That is certainly more important than any minor technical errors. Still, the fact remains that several of your statements were technically inaccurate. I have tried to set the record straight to the best of my ability. I hope that in so doing I have not given offense. That was not my intention.

I recommend you read what DS has said in his two most recent posts, most notably this:

"When discussing science, it is important to be technically accurate. However, it is even more important to be willing to admit mistakes. No one is perfect, but someone who will not admit a mistake is twice wrong."

And you may have forgotten this:

"Of course john is absolutely right about the importance of phylogenetic history in determining the types of mutations that will most likely occur. On that we can agree."

Too often in the past I have encountered graduate students and even professional biologists who have forgotten how and why their work has any relevance to understanding some aspect of the phylogenetic history of the organisms being studied. This is the same error which Meyer displays not just once but several times in his risible effort at pretending that Intelligent Design could be a viable scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory.

John Kwok said: I recommend you read what DS has said in his two most recent posts, most notably this: "When discussing science, it is important to be technically accurate. However, it is even more important to be willing to admit mistakes. No one is perfect, but someone who will not admit a mistake is twice wrong." And you may have forgotten this: "Of course john is absolutely right about the importance of phylogenetic history in determining the types of mutations that will most likely occur. On that we can agree." Too often in the past I have encountered graduate students and even professional biologists who have forgotten how and why their work has any relevance to understanding some aspect of the phylogenetic history of the organisms being studied. This is the same error which Meyer displays not just once but several times in his risible effort at pretending that Intelligent Design could be a viable scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory.

John Kwok said: I recommend you read what DS has said in his two most recent posts, most notably this: "When discussing science, it is important to be technically accurate. However, it is even more important to be willing to admit mistakes. No one is perfect, but someone who will not admit a mistake is twice wrong."

And you may have forgotten this: "Of course john is absolutely right about the importance of phylogenetic history in determining the types of mutations that will most likely occur. On that we can agree."

Too often in the past I have encountered graduate students and even professional biologists who have forgotten how and why their work has any relevance to understanding some aspect of the phylogenetic history of the organisms being studied. This is the same error which Meyer displays not just once but several times in his risible effort at pretending that Intelligent Design could be a viable scientific alternative to modern evolutionary theory.

Constant Mews, I've corrected my errors. If I didn't DS would have reminded me of that. Instead, IMHO, this is what you are:

"Utterly irrelevant." (Your words, not mine BTW.)

BTW, do you accept mine and DS's conclusion that phylogenetic history in determining "the types of mutations that will most likely occur"? If you don't then you're no better than the typical clueless, and quite delusional, creo posting here.

Let me rephrase that:

Do you accept mine and DS's conclusion that phylogenetic history is very important in determining the types of mutations that are most likely to occur?

Since we've been a bit sidetracked here, I am reposting this as a reminder for anyone who hasn’t visited this thread before:

With ample thanks to OgreMkV, here are the revised guidelines regarding how one should write to Amazon.com’s Customer relations:

Please contact Amazon.com Customer Relations, and write a polite, but strongly worded, letter that indicates these very points regarding Stephen Meyer’s abysmal “Signature in the Cell”:

1) I object to Amazon.com’s recognition of “Signature in the Cell” as one of the best science books of this year.

2) Intelligent Design isn’t science since it has not been formally proposed, tested, or published in any reputable scientific publications. Furthermore it has been shown in every court case that intelligent design or creationism has been involved in that neither is science. When the ‘scientists’ who publish these books start publishing in peer reviewed journals, then you can make these science books.

3) Stephen Meyer lacks the professional credentials or experience necessary for him to write a science book.

4) His publisher, HarperCollins, opted to publish the book under its HarperOne imprint, which it reserves solely for its religious - NOT SCIENCE - books.

5) The Discovery Institute has begun a campaign on behalf of Meyer’s latest book in an effort to improve unfairly the book’s ratings with Amazon.

6) Moreover, several Discovery Institute staff, most notably Senior Fellows David Klinghoffer and William Dembski, have written 5 Star reviews. Their reviews should be considered solely as Discovery Institute propaganda and should be removed by Amazon.

7) I strongly encourage you to revoke the science book status of “Signature in the Cell”. If you choose not to, then I would ask the person who makes this decision to point out one testable hypothesis made by Meyer in this book and the results of the test Meyer did to show his hypothesis as valid.

PS: I encourage anyone who has read Meyer's abysmal nonsense to write a one star negative review at Amazon.com. Please also vote in favor of mine, Don Prothero's and other harshly negative, but quite accurate,reviews of Meyer's absurd, "doorstop" manifesto.

John Kwok said: Let me rephrase that: Do you accept mine and DS's conclusion that phylogenetic history is very important in determining the types of mutations that are most likely to occur?

BioLogos has just posted a review of Sig in the Cell here. I think it's significant when scientifically-literate Christians reject ID claims.

Thanks and I just tried to post this over at that blog in reply, but my comment was too long:

Darrel,

I stumbled upon your review by accident, after receiving a tip from someone else who comments often over at Panda's Thumb. Yours may be the best written and most thoughtful critique of Meyer's book that I have encountered anywhere online. However, I don't share your desire that there should be some kind of rapproachment between ID supporters and those who are professional scientists working within the mainstream scientific community.

First, Intelligent Design isn't valid science, period. While I understand and appreciate philosopher Philip Kitcher's observation that Intelligent Design is "dead science" - merely since it was once an important philosophical construct that guided scientific research from the 16th through 18th centuries - it was rejected a long time ago by science. That Meyer and his Discovery Institute "colleagues" insistance that it deserves a place at the scientific "round table" is not one borne of sincerity, but instead, out of duplicity, which they have demonstrated countlessly ever since Intelligent Design was proclaimed by Philip Johnson and William Dembski, among others, to be an important "challenge" to evolution; a challenge that has no merit whatsoever simply because Dembski, Meyer et al. have refused to subject it to scientific peer review or even try to do any scientific research that could demonstrate that Intelligent Design is valid science.

So what have Dembski and Meyer and their Discovery Institute "colleagues" done to demonstrate Intelligent Design's scientific viability? Absolutely nothing, but engage in a myriad examples of intellectual dishonesty, ranging from misquoting published scientific research to other, more blatant acts of duplicity, up to and including bearing false witness against eminent scientists (Dembski reported eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka to the Federal Department of Homeland Security nearly four years ago, after hearing of Pianka's controversal address before the Texas Academy of Sciences, in which Pianka observed that Earth's biosphere might be better off if humanity became extinct from an Ebola-like plague; Pianka was questioned either by the FBI or Homeland Security thanks to Dembski's "tip".), and stealing and plagiarizing the work of others (which, again, Dembski all but admitted to when he was confronted elsewhere online, admitting that he had "borrowed" a Harvard University cell animation video that was used by him during his Fall 2007 lectures, and which he may have also "lent" to Premise Media, the producers of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"). Given the most un-Christian behavior exhibited by Meyer and his colleagues, do you still think that one should seek any reasonable dialogue with Intelligent Design advocates (most of whom are Fundamentalist Protestant "Christians".)? I sincerely hope that you will agree with me that the answer must be most certainly, "No!".

Sincerely yours,

John Kwok

John K,

If you'll break up your post into several pieces you'll be able to post it on BL one chunk at a time.