(Note: I got off on some tangents in this post -- big tangents, not having written a Luskin-rebuttal in awhile. In some cases -- most of them, probably -- I may be the only person in the world who would bother to rebut these points. But, hey, everyone needs a summer vacation, and Luskin usually takes lack of response as evidence that he must be right. This is hilarious, but it's funniest when he relies on an argument for many years, getting more and more confident in it. But, eventually someone has to pop the bubble. I really have to stop now so please point out errors, which must exist, and I will fix when I get a chance.)
Casey Luskin
has responded to my recent article "
The Evolution of Creationist Movements" in
Evolution: Education and Outreach. My article is freely online, so you should read it and all of the other great pieces in that issue, which was
a festschrift for Eugenie C. Scott (only a few of the articles are currently open access, however).
Luskin raises 3 issues. I will answer in 3 parts:
Part 1: Luskin claims I only "sneer" at the information argument:
Pop quiz: Did the following quote come from (A) Panda's Thumb, or (B) An article in a scholarly journal published by Springer science publishing?
"An especially good example of silliness is the ID assertion that natural processes cannot create new genetic information. ID advocates have recently been pushing this line heavily as of late (Meyer 2009)..."
If you answered (A), then...
...you're wrong. It came from a recent article former by NCSE staff-member Nick Matzke in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach -- an NCSE-aligned outfit, where apparently such language passes for scholarly argument. In the words of Jay Richards "a sneer is not an argument."
Hmm. Well, in the first place, my article was primarily a work of history, and an attempt to correct some mis-perceptions about the history and character of the ID movement that are ubiquitous among ID advocates and somewhat common even amongst pro-evolution writers, journalists, historians, scientists, and other commentators. It was explicitly
not an attempt to give detailed rebuttal to ID arguments. Instead, I referred readers to numerous other works. As I did in the very passage Luskin partially quotes as being a sneer:
An especially good example of silliness is the ID assertion that natural processes cannot create new genetic information. ID advocates have recently been pushing this line heavily as of late (Meyer 2009), even in the science standards of some states (see Matzke and Gross 2006, for discussion and refutation of the information argument),
Whoops! Just read the next line, Luskin!
Now, Luskin may be annoyed because Matzke & Gross (2006) primarily relies on Long et al. (2003), a long review in
Nature Reviews Genetics handily entitled
"The origin of new genes" (free online in many places). The article is handy because Table 1 lays out the various mutational mechanisms that copy and rearrange DNA, and Table 2 lists dozens of examples known in 2003 (many more are known now) where publications in the literature reconstructed the origin of various "young" genes.
It's a great article, and we've been pummeling the ID movement's information argument with it ever since it came out. You can see some discussions using it on PT (for example in "
Meyer's Hopeless Monster" in 2004), it was cited in 2005 by
expert testimony in
Kitzmiller v. Dover (with no rebuttal whatsoever from the ID side -- your fault, ID fans, not ours!), it was officially entered into the court record as
exhibit P-245, and was subsequently cited in the
decision.
As far as I know, despite all of us using Long et al. (2003) as a club with which to beat the helpless baby seal that is the ID "evolution can't produce new genetic information!" argument, no ID advocate ever even acknowledged the
existence of the article, much less the entire subfield of research which it reviewed, until 2006, when Luskin finally got around to realizing what a huge problem it was. Even then, his only response -- from 2006 until 2010! -- was to complain that the word "information" doesn't appear in the article, as if that was a response which should be taken seriously. ID advocates have yet to provide any objective definition of "genetic information" -- a crashing, horrific, scandalous, head-exploding flaw in their argumentation, given just how much they love to talk about "information" -- but if we know only one miniscule thing about what ID advocates mean when they the words "genetic information", they mean that functional gene sequences contain information. They say that gene sequences contain information
all the time, every chance they get. And if this is true, then new gene sequences with new functions contain new information. It's simple deduction, it's as crashingly obvious as that, and any response to Long et al. or similar works that relies on hairsplitting like "but the word 'information' wasn't used!" is just not serious. [1]
Luskin has, very recently, finally at long last realized that a more serious response to Long et al. is needed, and has produced
some huge document arguing that every single example in Long et al. actually fails, for various randomly chosen and inconsistently-applied reasons. He's not even willing to concede that high sequence similarity implies copying, not even in overwhelmingly obvious cases like the below example of
Sdic, aka Sperm dynein intermediate chain of Drosophila, and he's not even willing to concede the high plausibility of selection for something like a sperm dynein intermediate chain, nor the wildly impressive evidence for natural selection (in the form of a selective sweep). So it's hard to see what the point is in even arguing with him. It's easier to just put up the detailed scientific explanation of the origin of
Sdic (see graphic below) and tell ID to put up or shut up and give us a better explanation.
An explanation of the origin of
sdic that, I'm sure, is "not detailed enough" for IDists:
Fig. 6. Model for the evolution of the Sdic gene cluster. (1) In the ancestral situation, Cdic and AnnX genes were adjacent. (2) A first duplication event duplicated both Cdic and AnnX while maintaining their original orientation. (3) Several deletions occurred in the duplicated region and the new chimeric gene Sdic was formed; around this time a retrotransposon was inserted upstream of the Sdic gene. (4) A second duplication event duplicated both the new gene and the intergenic region between Sdic and Cdic; the two copies of Sdic diverge. (5) A third duplication event duplicated the whole cluster in which the two existing Sdic genes and the intergenic region between them and Cdic was duplicated. (6) The four Sdic genes diverged by point mutations and deletions becoming distinguishable Sdic genes.
From: R Ponce, DL Hartl (2006). "The evolution of the novel Sdic gene cluster in Drosophila melanogaster." Gene 376(2), 174-183.
Evidence of selective sweep:
From: D Nurminsky, DD Aguiar, CD Bustamante, DL Hartl (2001). "
Chromosomal effects of rapid gene evolution in Drosophila melanogaster."
Science.
Part 2: Luskin says I garbled a quote from Meyer's 2009 book:
But exactly how does Meyer allude to the "purpose-driven life"? Matzke's paper garbles a passage from Signature of the Cell (SITC) as follows:
As a teenager in the mid-1970s, I sensed this absence of meaning in modern life...What heroism, thought or feeling, labor, inspiration, genius, or achievement will last, if impersonal particles are all that ultimately endure? ...Though the theory of intelligent design does not identify the agent responsible for the information--the signature--in the cell, it does affirm that the ultimate cause of life is personal...The case for intelligent design challenges the premise of the materialist credo and holds out the possibility of reversing the philosophy of despair that flows from it. Life is the product of mind; it was intended, purposed, "previsioned." Hence, there may be a reality behind matter that is worth investigating.
If the conscious realities that comprise our personhood have no lasting existence, if life and mind are nothing more than unintended ephemera of the material cosmos, then, as the existential philosophers have recognized, our lives can have no lasting meaning or ultimate purpose. Without a purpose-driven universe, there can be no "purpose-driven life." (Meyer 2009)
Using Matzke's quote as a guide, the second paragraph in this quote is extremely difficult to locate in SITC because it appears two pages before the first paragraph. Of course, this reflects the fact that Matzke took the liberty of engaging in a significant amount of re-arranging of Meyer's words, leaving out much context.
Here I have to plead a little bit guilty. Somewhere between my final draft and the proofs, Springer's copy-editors (I think) took out all of the page numbers -- which I had originally included for every single quote in the article. Either that or I got the idea somewhere that this was the house style and re-ran the Endnote formatting without page numbers. All of the involved files exist in multiple version, most with file save times of approximately 6 a.m. (which for me, means that was about when I went to bed). Anyway, this then left these two paragraphs, each with a (Meyer 2009) reference. In another round of editing, the first (Meyer 2009) was helpfully (@#$*!) copy-edited out as redundant, producing an apparent two-paragraph quote with the paragraphs out of order. For good measure, here's screenshots from the different drafts, so you can see them:
Anyway, for the interests of posterity,
I've put up a PDF of my plain-text final draft, formatted with page numbers. This is not quite identical to the published version since there were copy-edited and an abstract added. But it is useful if anyone wants the page numbers.
But, it should be pointed out that (a) nothing hangs on the order of the two paragraphs, and I didn't imply anything based on the order -- they are just two striking examples from this section of Meyer's book; and (b) Luskin's actual complaint is that I nefariously left out a relevant passage:
Had Matzke continued with the actual context after the first paragraph, as his quote wrongly implies the second paragraph ought to be, one would have discovered the following prose from Stephen Meyer:
These implications of the theory are not, logically speaking, reason to affirm or reject it. But they are reasons--very personal and human reasons--for considering its claims carefully and for resisting attempts to define the possibility of agency out of bounds. (p. 451)
The context of Meyer's discussion indicates that he's is talking about the larger implications of ID, and not the arguments for ID. But Matzke's argument implies that discussing larger philosophical or theological implications or alluding to religious topics is inappropriate for "any standard scientific book on the origin of life." Ironically, Matzke is doing exactly what Meyer warns against: trying to define ID as "out of bounds" without actually addressing the argument. Hence, Matzke is reduced to calling SITC's arguments "silliness" and making irrelevant complaints about Meyer's discussion of theological implications.
But I didn't allege that Meyer said these were logical reasons to affirm ID. I said, quite specifically: "Finally, it doesn't take much looking before virtually any ID advocate will let down their guard and admit that the real point of studying ID is to return God and purpose to the culture." Thus, I quoted from the concluding section of Meyer's book -- the one right before "Conclusion", explicitly entitled "Why It Matters" -- and even noted that "Why It Matters" this was the section heading! (Actually, looking at the book now, "Why It Matters" is the heading on each page of the section, and "It Gets Personal: Why It Matters" is the full title of the section. Even better, for my point.)
It's not like I'm misrepresenting Meyer. Meyer is proud of his motivations for studying ID -- justifiably so, from his perspective -- and he owns his concerns about religion and purpose, and he says them again in the last two paragraphs of the "Why It Matters" section:
These implications of the theory are not, logically speaking, reasons to affirm or reject it. But they are reasons -- very personal and human reasons -- for considering its claims carefully and for resisting attempts to define the possibility of agency out of bounds. Is intelligent design science? Is it religion? Perhaps these are not the right questions. How about, "Is there evidence for intelligent design?" "Is the theory of intelligent design true?" And, if so, "What does it imply?"
Indeed, for me, far from wanting to avoid the philosophical or theological questions that naturally arise from a consideration of the evidence for intelligent design, these questions have done much to sustain my long interest in the scientific controversy surrounding the origin of life. And why not? If there is evidence of design or purpose behind life, then surely that does raise deeper philosophical questions. Who is the designer, indeed? Can the mind that evidently lies behind life's digital code be known? Can we as persons know something of the agent responsible for the intricacies of life? Is there a meaning to existence after all? I have asked these questions for many years. What excites me about the theory of intelligent design and the compelling evidence now on display in its favor is not that the theory answers these questions, but instead that it provides a reason for thinking that they are once again
worth asking. (Meyer 2009, p. 451)
Whether or not having these kinds of motivations is a bad thing is a different question, one I don't address at length in the article. I was primarily trying to give readers insight into creationist history and the creationist mind, and thus was mostly being descriptive. I do think that the idea that science can give proof of the existence of God and show that there is a purpose to life is tremendously seductive. (Just imagine for a moment that you are a scientist in some science fiction movie, and you discover deep in your lab proof positive of the existence of alien life, good enough that it ought to convince all the skeptics. Now replace "aliens" with "God." Throw in the scene where Indiana Jones finds the Holy Grail and you're there. That's what I mean by seductive.) I do think that the seductiveness of this kind of finding, both to ID leaders and their worshipful, noncritical fans and funders, is a large part of the reason why creationists/IDists are so amazingly sloppy with their science. But to make this argument rigorous would require a detailed demonstration of huge flaws in ID's arguments about evolution, which I didn't do here. Such arguments are found in, let's see, most of my other friggin' publications and posts about ID, many of them cited in the E:EO piece -- but oh well, Luskin forgot about those.
Final thought: This kind of thing is one of the common ways that quotes -- both creationist quote mines and other quotes -- evolve over time. Quote metadata seems to be highly vulnerable to loss...
Part 3: Luskin cites a bunch of popular-science books by the likes of Sagan and Hawking making metaphysical-ish statements in their concluding pages. He then accuses me of using a double standard. Apparently I was supposed to review the history of everything anyone had ever said that was vaguely connected to science or evolution. But no, my article had a specific topic: creationists. If you want to learn something about creationists and why they think and act like they do, despite the scientific dubiousness of their arguments (which, as I said, I just assume for the purposes of this article; see my other articles for why creationist arguments are scientifically silly), then read my article. If you want to learn about evolutionists, read something else.
I also didn't say that all evolutionists were as pure as snow in keeping metaphysics out of their science. For what it's worth, my considered position is that popular science books, or I guess really a certain subgroup of popular-science books (written by "scientific visionaries") are rife with metaphysics, most of which ranges from poorly-supported argumentation connected to the scientific facts through some form of emotion-based free-association, all the way over to sheer delusion and future worship. I'm a fan of Mary Midgley and her books
Evolution as a Religion and
Science As Salvation, for chrissakes (these books examine some of silly, even crazy stuff that gets written at the end of certain popular-science works).
And if I'm talking about it, I might as well give my opinion, which is that we'd be better off with less of that kind of thing, and if everyone had a lot more humility about drawing any kind of metaphysical or moral conclusions from scientific facts about the Universe, evolution, etc.
However, there are some key distinctions between this sort of stuff and ID/creationism metaphysical motivations:
(1) Evolution has a vast professional scientific literature, almost entirely devoid of metaphysical concerns (annoyingly, not quite entirely devoid of it, thus giving the Luskins of the world a job), whereas ID/creationism is just about the opposite (mostly metaphysics, with occasional scattershot collections of random objections to evolution, and very very occasionally some very simplistic and silly attempt at a positive empirical argument)
(2) Prominent evolutionary scientists come from all over the map, from atheists to traditional Christians, whereas ID figures are almost all conservative theists, and the vast majority of them are conservative evangelicals)
(3) Most importantly, there is a world of difference between those who start from diverse metaphysical perspectives and really genuinely put the data and the biology and the empirical work and the testing of hypotheses first and leave the metaphysics out of it (the vast majority of scientists and evolutionary biologists, I would say) -- versus those who begin by saying there is a life or death (or eternal fate or Meaning Of Life!) question in the balance, and one of the answers (evolution) means meaninglessness and despair and falsity of their whole worldview (e.g. the Biblicist Christian worldview). The latter is extremely problematic.
Another way to say it:
* With evolution, there is a vast community of thousands of scientists doing biology every day, a few of whom end up becoming popularizers, and some of those become advocates of atheism, omega man, or whatever.
* With creationism, there is a vast community of (millions!) of believers who are deeply disturbed by challenges to Biblicist/literalist Christianity. Supporting/defending/being funded by that community of millions is a subgroup of thousands (literally) of professional apologists, apologetics groups, and ministries devoted to defending this worldview. Within that there are maybe a hundred who have specialized on the science/evolution issue full time (if we count the YECs and IDers together), and they serve as a resource to the wider community of apologists and ministries that have to deal with evolution along with abortion, homosexuality, and everything else (there are similar evangelical specialists for each of these), and they serve as the primary authorities on the evolution issue in the world of conservative evangelical/fundamentalist schools, home-schooling, radio shows, magazines, conferences, TV, etc. It's not an exageration to say that creation science & ID are fingers on the apologetics arm of the body of fundamentalist Christianity.
(Occasionally members of this group get confident enough to think they can take on the science/education establishment, and then we have the news stories and court cases and other fun. Eventually it becomes evident that they can't really compete in the big leagues: they weren't really trying to do science in the first place, after all, so they aren't very good at it -- and eventually, so far at least, they are defeated, go back to home turf, and the cycle repeats. Although a few of them, like Casey Luskin, keep trying to re-fight the old battles. ;-) )
Final thought: It appears that my article has struck a chord with the IDists. So far we've had outraged responses from
Cornelius Hunter and Casey Luskin. The Hunter thread has gotten 482 comments. Interestingly, neither of them makes major counterarguments, rather both of their responses amount to "but you evolutionists do it too!", and then accuse me of hypocrisy. I think this is pretty good evidence that I've got a bead on creationist history and motivations.
I will re-post
my comment on Hunter's thread on my article, which is a good summary of my feelings about IDist discussions thus far:
Well, this is quite a thread. I'm not sure what Hunter's objection to my article was, he doesn't seem to disagree with my statements about creationists, he just seems to be saying "evolutionists do these [presumably bad?] things too!"
I would disagree that this is true as a general matter -- evolution as a science relies on no religious assumptions not also used throughout science, including many sciences Hunter and other creationists completely accept. It is true that some popularizers and creationism-rebutters argue against creationism by taking the *creationists'* assumptions about God's actions and showing evidence that doesn't comport with these ideas. This is a legitimate activity as long as those ideas are in circulation; but they are not a necessary part of the argument for evolution. But, if you don't like such assumptions, you can also declare that you have no idea how God would do things, and then note that "God did it but we can say nothing about how/why/when/etc." is completely worthless as an explanatory hypothesis, whereas evolutionary hypotheses have provoked and survived all kinds of research and tests, and made many successful predictions. And that's why evolution is science, and "God did it" ain't.
But my paper wasn't about evolutionists, it was about creationists, and I'm gratified to see apparent agreement from the creationists about my summary of what the real issues are.
For example, this thread is a particularly strong confirmation of one of my summary points:
"The definition of creationism that focuses on divine intervention is the fairest and most accurate representation of not only the historical meaning of the term, but also predominant present meaning. Most importantly, the focus on divine intervention best captures what people have been and are still fighting over."
Cheers, Nick
Notes
[1] When he's having a good day, Luskin will remember to connect his "Long et al. didn't use the word 'information'" argument to one of the arguments made in
Kitzmiller that Plaintiffs made about Behe & Snoke's 2004
Protein Science article (
comprehensively rebutted on PT here), namely that Behe & Snoke (2004) didn't use the words "intelligent design".
Luskin says, OK, not using the word "information" isn't a good argument against Long et al. (well, except when it is; if someone really wanted to, we could use the magic of google to
survey the DI blog and
the rest of the internet on '
Luskin "the word information"' and count the times Luskin thinks it's a bad argument (like
here on the DI blog on July 6, 2010) and the times he thinks it's a great argument (like
here in the Luskin's March 2, 2010 defense of Explore Evolution from
NCSE's critique of Explore Evolution. But even I have limits.)
But, says Luskin, if using the word "information" isn't necessary for Long et al., then using the words "intelligent design" shouldn't have been a damning point against Behe & Snoke 2004, and Judge Jones back in
Kitzmiller should have admitted that a scientific article supporting ID existed. Here's
this version of Luskin's argument:
In his ruling, Judge Jones repeatedly (and wrongly) claimed that ID had not published peer-reviewed scientific articles. A variety of these peer-reviewed scientific articles were documented to him during the course of the trial, including a 2004 paper that Darwin-doubting scientists Michael Behe and David Snoke published in the journal Protein Science. That paper cast doubt on the ability of gene-duplication to produce new functional protein-protein interactions. But Judge Jones dismissed Behe and Snoke's article paper because "it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID."
While Judge Jones is correct that their article does not contain those words, the article does bear directly on those topics as it tests the complexity inherent in enzyme-substrate interactions. Even an anti-ID article in Science acknowledged that the evolution of protein-protein interactions bears on the question of irreducible complexity and the ID argument (See Christoph Adami, "Reducible Complexity," Science, Vol. 312;61-63 (Apr. 7, 2006).) By Judge Jones's standards, the lack of the exact phrases "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" should preclude one from arguing that the paper supports ID or irreducible complexity. But Judge Jones doesn't hold evolutionists to the same standard.
What makes this ironic is that Judge Jones claimed that the review paper by Long et al., "The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses From the Young and Old," accounted for "the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes" in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Yet the body of this article does not even contain the word "information," much less the phrase "new genetic information." The word "information" appears once in the entire article -- in the title of note 103. This reveals a double standard applied by Judge Jones to pro-evolution versus pro-ID papers as regards peer review.
I'm perfectly comfortable with someone citing Long et al. regarding the origin of new genetic information, even though it doesn't contain the word 'information." Consistently, I think that Judge Jones' accusation against Behe and Snoke's paper is fallacious. I'm trying to be fair, and the fact that Long et al. does not contain the word "information" should NOT preclude it from bearing on the topic. Thus, I didn't dismiss Long et al. but posted a lengthy 10,000+ word analysis of the paper. Wesley Elsberry attacks me for allegedly committing what he considers to be a hasty dismissal of this paper -- but why doesn't he jump on Judge Jones for wrongly dismissing Behe's paper?
Major problems with this include:
* The word "information" in Long et al. is not something that should be expected. Molecular and evolutionary biologists do not primarily use "information" terminology -- it's not terribly useful in most situations, since crucial biological distinctions, like coding vs. noncoding, selected vs. neutral, and functional vs. nonfunctional, are meaningless in mathematical information theory (I mean real information theory, not woo-based creationist information theory). Biologists have perfectly good words, like "sequence" and "gene", that they will usually use instead of "information." Only IDists/creationists obsess about lathering their discussions of biology with nearly meaningless info-babble (which is the result of their having no actual rigorous definition of what they mean by "information") -- biologists are not required to do so.
Nevertheless, as I mentioned in the main post, it is totally impossible to argue that Long et al. does not directly address the evolutionary origin of new genetic information, since the origin of new genes with new functions *is* the origin of new genetic information, since IDists themselves say again and again that functioning gene sequences contain information.
* Furthermore, no one at trial tried to challenge Long et al. by making the "but it doesn't use the word information!" argument. Probably because these sorts of arguments only seem convincing when you are sitting inside the Discovery Institute offices in Seattle.
* On the other hand, the scientific status of "intelligent design" was definitely a key issue throughout the trial. If the Defense could show that ID was good science, then they might be able to argue that there was an overriding secular purpose and effect of teaching ID in the biology classroom. One way to show that ID was good science would be to enter into evidence support for ID in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The Plaintiffs definitely entered into evidence articles in places like
Nature that supported evolution.
Thus, it really was important whether or not the articles the ID side introduced into evidence used terms like "irreducible complexity" and "intelligent design." If they don't, well then, these concepts don't have support in the scientific literature. Someone could still argue that ID should be considered science
despite its lack of literature support -- argue that peer-review is a conspiracy, that scientific consensus should be ignored, yadda yadda -- and the Defense did this somewhat -- but these are tougher arguments to make, and put the court in the position of having to disregard widely-accepted scientific standards in order to rule in favor of ID.
(And mostly, the important term is "intelligent design." "Irreducible complexity" has numerous inconsistent definitions, and some of them are uncontroversial and boring, like the idea that some biological systems break if you knock out parts. Luskin tries to argue that Minnich discussing knockout experiments = irreducible complexity = unevolvable irreducible complexity (the interesting kind, if it existed) = support for ID in the scientific literature. But this is a chain of argument (a) not really made at trial (at least not the part about knockout experiments being literature support for ID), and (b) disputing the last two parts of this chain of inference was one of the major points of Plaintiffs' scientific experts, and of the cross-examinations of Behe and Minnich. To accept this Luskin sub-argument, the Court would have had to agree with Behe & Minnich that "irreducible complexity = unevolvable irreducible complexity (the interesting kind, if it existed) = support for ID" -- but it didn't. The Court found the Plaintiffs' experts more convincing. And the Court even explicitly concluded in its decision that these two steps of the argument didn't work, and explained in some detail why not. Tough shakes.)
* Regarding Behe & Snoke (2004), an additional point is worth making, besides the one about not mentioning ID. Luskin says:
Judge Jones repeatedly (and wrongly) claimed that ID had not published peer-reviewed scientific articles. A variety of these peer-reviewed scientific articles were documented to him during the course of the trial, including a 2004 paper that Darwin-doubting scientists Michael Behe and David Snoke published in the journal Protein Science. That paper cast doubt on the ability of gene-duplication to produce new functional protein-protein interactions. But Judge Jones dismissed Behe and Snoke's article paper because "it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID."
This isn't quite the whole story. Behe & Snoke 2004 was the best article the ID side could come up with at trial -- the other articles Luskin thinks Judge Jones should have considered mostly weren't even entered into evidence. As the best article available (cited by both Behe & Minnich), the Plaintiffs didn't just dismiss it based on it lacking the words "intelligent design" -- rather, they subjected it to a detailed cross-examination, and got key admissions from Behe on the stand. See footnote 17 of the Kitzmiller decision:
17. The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).
Whoops! A whole chunk of the Behe cross was devoted to the Behe & Snoke's article, it's online
here. Given what the Court concluded about the best article the ID guys could muster, why should anyone think additional articles would help?
* As for the other scientific articles Luskin thinks Judge Jones scandalously ignored -- what evidence was there for them in the trial? Luskin has scoured the entirety of the testimony and evidential exhibits put before the Judge at trial, and
the very best thing he could come up with was this quote from Minnich's testimony:
I think yesterday there was, as I mentioned, there were around, between, I don't know, seven and ten. I don't have the specific ones. But Dr. Axe published one or two papers in the journal Biological Chemistry that were specifically addressing concepts within intelligent design. Mike Behe had one. Steve Meyer has had one. So, you know, I think the argument that you're not publishing in peer reviewed literature was valid. Now there are a couple out there. How many do we have to publish before it is in the literature and being evaluated? I mean, do we have to have 25? 50? I mean, give me a number.
(Minnich Testimony, Day 21, AM, pg. 34)
...and that's it. The IDists
own witness could do no better than making a vague reference to "between...seven and ten. I don't have the specific ones", and then only vaguely listing 4, one of which was either Behe's philosophy article or the Behe & Snoke 2004 article, two were Axe articles that don't mention ID articles either, and one was Meyer (2004). Neither the Axe articles, nor the Meyer 2004, were ever entered as exhibits and subjected to cross-examination. Compare this to the Plaintiffs' experts, who cited things like cover-article Nature articles, put them into evidential exhibits, and quoted them into the record, making strong, unambiguous pro-evolution statements; and did similarly with numerous scientific societies condemning the validity of ID.
Luskin seems to think that Judge Jones should have given these articles strong consideration. But there were colossal problems with asking the court to do this.
* Most of Luskin's alleged pro-ID scientific articles were not actually entered into evidence, and thus were (a) not even citable in the decision, if the judge had wanted to (he didn't have the references in the exhibit list!), and (b) were not opened up to cross-examination during sworn testimony, like all evidence should be at trial. Articles not entered into evidence include Meyer 2004, Axe's articles, and Jonathan Wells's
Rivista di Biologia article -- if I recall correctly, the only alleged pro-ID articles entered into evidence were the Behe & Snoke 2004
Protein Science article, and Behe's pieces in philosophy journals). If they had been entered into evidence, the Plaintiffs would have been happy to rebut them -- since none of them except Meyer 2004 actually constitute an instance of an (allegedly) peer-reviewed article that actually concludes ID is correct.
* Meyer 2004, if it had been introduced into evidence, had numerous problems, including:
- a statement of lack of support from the very journal that published it;
- the fact that it wasn't a research article or even a review of pro-ID research, instead it was a review of pro-evolution research that attempted to spin out of that a case for ID;
- entering the article into evidence would have opened up the process by which it was published to things like subpoenas, which many of us strongly suspected would have revealed fishy business
- Stephen Meyer himself had been signed up as an expert witness, and then withdrew, thus avoiding the cross-examination which all of testifying experts were subjected to
- Meyer and the DI attempted to get Meyer's evidence and the list-of-allegedly pro-ID publications into the court's back door via a friend-of-the-court brief which initially included Meyer's expert witness report. This was a sneaky manuever, and just made the court mad.
* Minnich's only published "pro-ID" piece was Minnich & Meyer 2004, a conference proceedings article which Minnich himself admitted during deposition was not submitted to standard peer-review, because it was a conference proceedings submission. And didn't mention ID explicitly either.
* On top of all this, we had Behe's devastating admission:
Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
A. That is correct, yes.
(Behe Testimony, Day 12 AM, pg. 22-23)
* Finally, friend-of-the-court briefs, even if they don't attempt sneaky things like the Discovery Institute did, are going to be much less influential that courtroom testimony subjected to cross-examination. Anyone can say anything they want in such a brief, without fear of contradiction or informed criticism. So Luskin's argument that the publications were found in the DI's amicus brief is also not very credible, even apart from the problems with the publications themselves.
As an aside: throughout his posts over the 5 years since the
Kitzmiller trial, Luskin again and again fails to realize that court decisions are based on what evidence is entered at trial, where both sides have equal opportunity to enter evidence and testimony, and subject it to cross-examination. This is really surprising, considering Luskin is supposed to be a lawyer. Decisions are not based on things not entered into evidence, dreamed up via obsessive wishful thinking long after the trial, published by witnesses who withdrew from the trial and thereby avoided cross-examination, or published in friend-of-the-court briefs which are also not subject to cross-examination. I don't want to help Luskin, but given Luskin's belief in the credibility of the allegedly "pro-ID" articles that should have been entered into evidence, he would be better off arguing that the Defense did a bad job defending ID, than he would be arguing that the Court should have made a different decision, given the actual evidence actually put before it.
I don't think that argument would be much better, of course: the Defense actually followed the ID literature closely, talked to its biggest experts, and got ID's two most credible academics to testify. They did a credible job presenting ID as it was available "off the shelf" in 2005. But there just wasn't that much on ID's shelf, especially compared to evolution's shelf -- heck, evolution had a bigger shelf devoted just to the single topic of the
evolution of the vertebrate immune system!
Everything I've said above is made even worse by the fact that the issue at trial was not "is there some marginal chance that ID might have the tiniest smidgen of credibility, if you squint just right, if you ignore everything inconvenient, and if the wind is blowing the right direction and the moon is in the correct phase." Rather, the issue was "is this ID stuff on the level of what is typically expected to be taught in public school biology classrooms and textbooks?"
279 Comments
robert van bakel · 13 July 2010
This is why I come to PT. My degrees are in History and Politics, but with a eclectic mix of interests well beyond these humanities.
When I read about actual scientists negating this crap I am instinctively warey of, I feel the world hasn't quite gone to hell in the proverbial 'handcart.' Thanks Nick, RBH and others for making science accessible. Something liars are incapable of. If I had a penny for all the misleading, psuedo-scientific claptrap I have read at UD, AIG, and CMI I would have $4.75:)
I can, just, follow the science here, and that to me is as it should be; knowledge, specifically knowledge which is of relevance to humanity as a whole, should be accessible, understandable. I have now become anaesthetized to ID jargon, and, ever since I could identify it, have come to loath its erzatz science.
How will Luskin respond to this science based example, easy, with a predictable mish-mash of scientese, and jargon, half truths, lies of ommission, lies and statistics. Or as the great British PM Disreali said with, 'Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.'
robert van bakel · 13 July 2010
Sorry! Benjamin Disraeli.
John Kwok · 13 July 2010
Nick,
Excellent summary and overview of creationism in the USA and where it might be leading. Wish that entire issue was available for public access, merely as a pedagogical tool I could have used last night when I met two young supporters of Ken Ham on the subway, apparently visiting New York City on some Christian youth movement. Had an interesting chat in which I politely, but firmly, explained why evolution is scientifically valid and creationism, especially Intelligent Design, isn't.
Joe Felsenstein · 13 July 2010
Let me mildly dissent on one point. You don't need to show new genes arising to show evolution putting new adaptive information into the genome. In Meyer's (and Dembski's) terms new “specified information” can be put into the genome by natural selection choosing a better allele out of those available in a population. If we have (say) 4 alleles, A, C, G, and T, at one site in a DNA sequence, and each is equally frequent, and their fitnesses are equal, except for one which has a higher fitness, then natural selection in a large population will preferentially pick the good one and fix it.
The result is an increase in the genome of precisely the kind of “specified information” Meyer is talking about, an increase in fitness, in the degree of adaptation. (To the local Information Police, let me add that we don't necessarily have to relate this to either the Shannon or the Kolmogorov definitions of information, if instead we just talk about whether the population has increased its degree of adaptation, i.e. its fitness). That is really the point at issue in Dembski's and Meyer's arguments -- can natural selection increase fitness and make the organism better adapted?
I gave exactly such an example in my article (which you can see here) 3 years ago (see the section on Generating Specified Information). It is unfortunate that so many biologists miss the point -- they implicitly concede the point that if no new locus arises, new information cannot have arisen. They should not concede that -- it isn't true.
BTW note that I have phrased this as natural selection “putting information into” the genome to avoid getting tangled in the later Dembski/Marks disputation about whether the information is really new, or whether having the four alleles have different fitnesses means that the information is somehow already there lying around in the shape of the fitness surface. That is in any case not really the issue.
MrG · 13 July 2010
Oh no, the return of the Luskito ... a creature with the body of an insect and the head of a creationist.
For once I am impressed with creationists, since we have proof that they have developed a matter transporter.
Tulse · 13 July 2010
The Curmudgeon · 13 July 2010
A most excellent article. I'm in awe of the effort that went into it. I always take the easy way out and ignore Casey's more convoluted postings because: (a) from long experience I'm confident they're worthless; (b) it's way too much work to dig in and refute them; and (c) only creationists pay attention to his writings anyway.
Still, it's very good to have a professional take-down. Well done!
Steve P. · 13 July 2010
Nick, your article kinda reminds me of the Clinton Whitehouse.
madbat.089 · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
One of the problems with "specified information" -- there are many -- is that it is possible to identify information associated with a function, but not so easy to identify information without knowing what the function is.
For example, a file of 100 numbers. Specified information? On the fact of it, one might say yes. If it is then explained that the 100 numbers were all randomly generated, would it no longer be specified information? One might agree. However, if it was then said that the file was a test set to exercise a number-crunching routine
-- I used to produce such files to validate routines I wrote for customers -- then would it be specified again?
But in any case, would there be anything in the file to distinguish it from a "real world" data set? No, it would still be a file of a hundred numbers.
And, following the creationist argument, if the dataset was from a natural phenomenon, would the specified complexity argument hold that it is intelligently designed? MEANING that it is unexplainable by science, it's just "magic pooferism" at work? And that would cover ANY natural phenomenon.
The specified complexity argument has no core and so it can be used to make any point desired.
TomS · 13 July 2010
My take on "specified" is that it was introduced to avoid the "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" (see the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy). That allows the ID advocate to say that he's taken that into account - without having to go through the work of taking that into account.
Les Lane · 13 July 2010
It's worth noting the number of articles that use "evolution" as a keyword. This obviously dwarfs intelligent design publications. I might point out that over 700 articles use the key phrase "cold fusion."
midwifetoad · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
As far as I've seen, there's only one rule, the "Law of Conservation of Information", though it gets manipulated in different forms -- always ending up as "only an intelligence can create information."
It is no more than a rephrasing of the Paley fallacy: "complexity equals Design".
midwifetoad · 13 July 2010
I've seen it expressed as "random mutation plus natural selection cannot crete complex specified information."
I forget why. I suspect it's just because.
MrG · 13 July 2010
It comes in many forms. "But if it can't, then what can?"
"Only an intelligence!"
Oh, silly me, I did have to ask.
Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2010
One of the more enlightening questions that can be asked of ID/creationists is if “information” interacts with matter. Does it form mutual potential energy wells with other information or with matter? Can it scatter off matter? Can particles of information form orbits around matter, or vice-versa?
In other words, how does information influence or determine the spatial arrangements of matter?
MrG · 13 July 2010
MrE, useful but maybe a bit too arcane for them.
Personally, I've got quite a bit of mileage in asking them how I would calculate the "information" in an arbitrary computer program.
So far the response has been sheer RESENTMENT. I'm catching them flat-footed -- they haven't been able to get their heads together and come up with a baloney answer yet, so they just cry "UNFAIR!"
madbat.089 · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
Change the smiley from ":o)" to ":poe)".
madbat.089 · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
How about "loki troll"?
midwifetoad · 13 July 2010
Poe's law (religious fundamentalism) — "Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humour, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
Wikipedia
MrG · 13 July 2010
And Loki troll: prankster postings, named in honor of the Norse trickster demigod Loki.
madbat.089 · 13 July 2010
thanks - I'm with the Poes and Lokis!
Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2010
madbat.089 · 13 July 2010
Science Avenger · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
Nick (Matzke) · 13 July 2010
Joe Felsenstein · 13 July 2010
Nick, I too don't want to quibble about what is “information”. In effect Dembski and Meyer are putting forward a theorem saying that natural selection cannot account for the high degree of adaptation we see in real organisms. Dembski's “Explanatory Filter” detects a degree of (in effect) adaptation so high that pure random mutation (without selection) could never produce it even once in the history of the universe. He calls this Design Detection only because he believes that he also has a theorem (his Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information) that shows that natural selection cannot increase fitness by anything like that much.
But in fact Dembski's LCCSI theorem is wrong, even if you leave aside the issue of whether he has got the concept of “information” right. Jeffrey Shallit showed that Dembski violated his own assumptions, and I have shown that, even if Dembski's LCCSI theorem were correct, to rule out adaptation it would have to define the Specification the same way before and after natural selection acts, which it does not. So it is the wrong theorem anyway, to be able rule out natural selection as the explanation of adaptation. And when you try to set up a conservation theorem that does the job, you can instantly see that it is false.
Dembski is saying that even in constant environments his LCCSI shows that adaptation by natural selection cannot explain the degree of adaptation that we see. He is wrong, and as he has not refuted any of the criticisms of his LCCSI, he may be tacitly admitting that he is wrong. In which case he might ultimately have to admit that his Design Detection is most likely detecting ... (ta da!) ... natural selection.
I am glad that you agree that we don't necessarily need to talk about origin of new genes to show that Dembski and Meyer are wrong about natural selection not being able to account for adaptation. However innumerable ID and creationist proponents are busy quoting some mysterious unnamed theorem that supposedly shows that natural selection and mutation cannot account for "new information". I think most likely they are quoting Dembski, but they are unaware (or unwilling to admit) that Dembski's LCCSI Design Detection argument against the efficacy of natural selection is dead.
raven · 13 July 2010
SteveF · 13 July 2010
Nick,
There was a long discussion of the Hartl and Ponce paper at a discussion board I moderate. It was between a creationist and some reality based posters. Interestingly, however, the creationist pointed out a significant error in the paper. I didn't follow things particularly closely and can't remember the exact details, but apparently a sequence alignment was done incorrectly and a frameshift wrongly inferred (Fig 3 maybe). I think. Supposedly Dan Hartl has acknowledged this (according to the creationist who got in touch with him - wouldn't necessarily believe that). The entire discussion is here:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=19016
I can't find the precisely relevant part I'm afraid. And it's a loooooong thread. But possibly worth checking into if you're interested in this particular paper (try signing up and PMing Voxrat, he was closely involved in the debate and knows his stuff).
PS, by coincidence, this particular creationist claims to have been in contact with Joe Felsenstein. Something to do with a program or other IIRC:
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=483724&postcount=225
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=743492&postcount=440
Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2010
MrG · 13 July 2010
There seems to be a hefty argument over the connection between information theory and thermodynamics. Some claim there is a connection; others that simply Shannon's definition of "entropy" (more "quantity of information after compression") simply resembles the definition of entropy under statistical mechanics, and that information theory really doesn't bring much to the thermodynamic party.
Creationists love the word "entropy" and I somehow suspect it was Shannon's use of the term that led them to information theory -- no way of blaming Shannon for that of course. Anyway, they found it a mother lode of obfuscation.
Creationist information theory is a patchwork monster -- they made up their own definitions (which seem to fluctuate) and their own laws (which always boil down to the "law of conservation of information").
robert van bakel · 13 July 2010
Information to a laymen appears to be passive. That is it exists whether or not there is someone/thing to interpret it. Much like the old Buddist riddle,'if there is no one to hear, does a tree make a sound as it falls in the forrest?' To me, obviously yes, it does. Just like information, the sound exists because of clear correlations in physics between matter and motion. This being the case, the concept in ID of giving information an alsmost 'active' quality seems absurd.
Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 13 July 2010
There is another problem with the use of the word "information" also.
When that word is used, it is too difficult to distinguish it from the word “meaning.”
I am pretty sure that is the reason that Clausius and others adapted and modified words from ancient languages such as Greek. There would be fewer problems with conflation if the newly invented word had no psychological baggage attached to it.
SWT · 14 July 2010
Michael J · 14 July 2010
What is the difference in CSI between a cell and a cell with a point mutation that instantly kills it?
Michael Roberts · 14 July 2010
Ichthyic · 14 July 2010
throughout his posts over the 5 years since the Kitzmiller trial, Luskin again and again fails to realize that court decisions are based on what evidence is entered at trial, where both sides have equal opportunity to enter evidence and testimony, and subject it to cross-examination. This is really surprising, considering Luskin is supposed to be a lawyer.
this brings up a question I've had for a while now.
Luskin is supposed to indeed be a lawyer.
has he actually tried any cases in the last 5 years?
Frank J · 14 July 2010
John Kwok · 14 July 2010
John Kwok · 14 July 2010
Don't think people use the phrase "mendacious intellectual pornography" enough IMHO. And yes, I did refer to ID and other forms of cretinism as such when I spoke to those two young Ham acolytes on the subway. I was polite, but I still insistent that that's what cretinism is.
harold · 14 July 2010
It's important to understand the actual goal of creationist "information" arguments.
The idea is to tell rubes that "biologists are wrong about evolution because some even superior group of scientists has proven that evolution is 'theoretically impossible'; therefore there is no need to even understand or consider the evidence for evolution."
It probably reflects an unconscious acknowledgement that some of the evidence for evolution is more accessible to lay audiences than a thorough knowledge of information theory or thermodynamics.
Creationist claims about "information" are typically so wrong or irrelevant that any reference to any rigorous treatment of information theory instantly disproves them.
Sometimes even that isn't necessary. For example, I've seen creationists respond to gene duplication by arguing that photocopying a sheet of paper doesn't produce new information. Neither photocopiers nor DNA replication produce exact copies to begin with. But even if they did, it more or less amounts to a claim that 1 = 11. It literally ignores that fact that features like position and copy number contain information, and implies that only symbol identity has any information (while ignoring the fact that symbol identity sometimes changes during DNA replication).
raven · 14 July 2010
I looked at Dembski's ramblings once and decided it looked like gibberish and bafflegab.
Then, read some other explanations from people who should know such as Victor Stenger and decided it was gibberish and bafflegab.
Wherever ID theories make actual claims about the real world, they end up being quickly and easily falsified.
It's bafflegab, words strung together that might mean something but don't.
It is also too esoteric and opaque to work for the faithful who aren't known for their education or critical thinking skills. They will take something understandable like goddidit and Noah had a boatload of dinosaurs much more readily.
harold · 14 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 14 July 2010
Frank J · 14 July 2010
Nick (Matzke) · 14 July 2010
There is some creationist who goes around submitting papers to journals and getting rejected, and then declares bias/oppression etc. I think lots of people/journals have been hit. Maybe this is the same guy as "Atheistoclast."
It looks like the claimed errors in Hartl & Ponce's paper are listed here:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=19016&page=25
...I'd have to read through the rest of the thread carefully to evaluate, I'll try when I have the time.
MrG · 14 July 2010
Nick (Matzke) · 14 July 2010
More through here:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=19016&page=28
...but you gotta be very careful interpreting alignments. The one posted there:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=19016&page=28
...has some obvious problems, looks like the result of some automated program applied to Cdic/Sdic which have some unalignable regions. But if this is not over-interpreted that's not a problem.
Nick (Matzke) · 14 July 2010
omg... http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=19016&page=33
SteveF · 14 July 2010
MrG · 14 July 2010
MrG · 14 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 14 July 2010
Nick (Matzke) · 14 July 2010
Looking at Figure 3a -- SDIC3 shows a frameshift & truncation, no problems there. Ah -- SDIC1 has an alleged frameshift truncation but it looks like the alignment has an error and the C-term of the sequence actually is alignable if you put in an indel.
harold · 14 July 2010
Mike Elzinga -
Yes, as far as I could tell from skimming that thread, this atheistoclast has some partial knowledge of AA and nucleotide sequences, but a very, very poor understanding of probability, or at least, of what expected values mean.
He has also, in true crackpot style, named a "law" after himself. As always, the "law" is stated so poorly as to be almost impossible to evaluate (I'm sure they do that on purpose), but seems to be wrong under any reasonable attempt at interpretation.
However, unlike almost all other creationists, he may have done something useful, and caught an error that deserved to be caught.
The error does not change the fundamental conclusions of the research that has understandably deeply upset him. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18587654 etc.
Nevertheless, if he has indeed caught a relatively inconsequential but real error, one which deserves to be corrected for the sake of consistency and accuracy of the scientific record, then this may indeed be the greatest ID/creationist contribution to science ever.
John Kwok · 14 July 2010
SteveF · 14 July 2010
He's quite an entertaining character. Has been positing some of the reviewers comments for some of the papers he has submitted. He gets some dismissive reviews, some mildly positive ones, but as of now nothing actually published. Here are a few examples:
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=954074&postcount=891
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=928402&postcount=57
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=916841&postcount=1308
http://talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=961411&postcount=905
He had an abstract in at this years Evolution meeting but I doubt he turned up. There has been some suggestion that it is a very elaborate troll and that he doesn't believe a word of what he writes (it has been argued that he is Ghost of Paley, who used to frequent these parts). But that theory has fallen away, he does appear to be serious.
JohnK · 14 July 2010
SteveF · 14 July 2010
W. H. Heydt · 14 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 14 July 2010
MrG · 14 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 14 July 2010
MrG · 14 July 2010
A guy named Wheels who hangs around here said arguing with creationists was a hobby, like trainspotting, or more like spotting train wrecks.
I do sympathize. Right now I'm working on the JFK assassination story for my blog. Imagine a story which ends up being quite literally ten times bigger than it needs to be because 90% of the narrative is sorting out all the baloney people have piled up on it.
Mike Elzinga · 14 July 2010
MrG · 14 July 2010
JohnK · 14 July 2010
Registered User · 14 July 2010
Whatever happened to "rising star" Hannah Maxson? Is she back from brainwashing South Koreans or whatever she was doing?
SteveF · 14 July 2010
John Kwok · 14 July 2010
MrG · 14 July 2010
John Kwok · 14 July 2010
Robert Byers · 15 July 2010
The last point of the author here is full of error.
Is I.D or biblical creationism on the same level as evolution in biology class.
YES.
Thats the point.
Biology class where evolution kicks in indeed is successfully challenged in presumptions by the creationism(s).
The people of America and creationists say so.
Who says no with trumping opinion?
Creationism is ancient , historic, and prevalent.
in advocating its positions or attacking evolution and friends it is rock solid .
Evolution is mere speculation on biological processes never wiutnessed.
No origin subjects are science.
When banning creationism the state is banning christianity or god belief and general opinions of the people.
let the people decide through the legislature whether creationism has won its spurs and whether evolution has.
Faith in the people is better then in small group of special people.
Origin issues is everyones heritage and everyuones right to draw ones own conclusions and see those conclusions not overridden by others conclusions in the same country.
Frank J · 15 July 2010
John Kwok · 15 July 2010
TomS · 15 July 2010
MrG · 15 July 2010
Keelyn · 15 July 2010
Reply is on the BW (appropriately) - page 216
Michael Roberts · 15 July 2010
harold · 15 July 2010
RWard · 15 July 2010
Michael, I suspect that for Robert Byers, and many others like him, you are an apostate. I find the diversity of belief within the Faith to be one of it's endearing qualities but that diversity isn't appreciated by the more fundamentally minded Christians. For these folks you're a greater danger than P. Z. Myers or Richard Dawkins.
John Kwok · 15 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 15 July 2010
MrG · 15 July 2010
Frank J · 15 July 2010
John Kwok · 15 July 2010
John Kwok · 15 July 2010
JDE · 16 July 2010
derwood · 16 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 17 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 17 July 2010
Nice post Richard. In total agreement. As you know I move in history of science circles and most know I am a clergyman . I cannot think of one example of hostility - except from creationists. I could give lots of examples of friendship advice and support from those who do not share my religious beliefs.
fnxtr · 17 July 2010
Well done, Mr. Blinne. Well done, sir.
John Kwok · 17 July 2010
John Kwok · 17 July 2010
Apparently some of your fellow Fundamentalist Evangelicals have become interested in conservation biology, seeking to preserve GOD's Creation. Know that E. O. Wilson has sought to build bridges to them. Maybe you and your colleagues at ASA might render some useful experience.
Mike Elzinga · 17 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 17 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 18 July 2010
- The desire to mix science and apologetics.
- Choosing the wrong experts for areas outside of our expertise.
Organizations like RTB work harder to get the science right than DI and will accept the mainstream conclusions more readily. However, the tight coupling with apologetics that Hugh Ross seeks can cause a circling of the wagons when the science changes. Case in point, when the best science went from no intermixing of Neanderthal to slight intermixing. Since RTB came from an astronomical background they should have taken Father Georges LeMaitre to heart. He was alarmed by Pope Pius XI using his so-called Big Bang theory as an apologetic prop. He noted: Another effect of the the desire to use science as an apologetic is that evangelicals seek out scientific experts who are not domain experts such as in biology and geology, let alone in genetics and paleontology. Evolutionary Creationism does not have a built-in apologetic like Intelligent Design and where it does it usually imports that apologetic from weak ID, e.g. the fine tuning argument. Note the ASA poll that I recently analyzed. In it I found a distinct tendency for the domain experts to be more likely to accept mainstream science in their own area but less likely in others. The reason why I looked for this effect is the large number of people associated with the ASA who are biologists/geologists and also evolutionary creationists. Just off the top of my head: Francis Collins, Steve Matheson, Davis Young, Terry Gray, Richard Colling, Keith Miller, and Karl Gilberson. Even if evangelicals want to limit themselves to fellow evangelicals they would be well served if they chose experts with the appropriate scientific expertise. Because of the anti-science poisoning effect of the Intelligent Design Movement they by and large have not.Paul Burnett · 18 July 2010
TomS · 18 July 2010
It sounds like a mammoth undertaking to me, just to list all of the misconceptions.
Are you thinking of something like what Mark Isaak did, in his book and at talkorigins.org?
I would suggest that Misconception Number 1 is "There is an alternative to evolution." (That somebody has an explanation for some of the most complex patterns in the world of life, such as taxonomy, which does not involve descent with modification; a description of "what happened and when".)
John Kwok · 18 July 2010
John Kwok · 18 July 2010
John Kwok · 18 July 2010
Frank J · 18 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 18 July 2010
Paul Burnett · 18 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 18 July 2010
Robert Byers · 18 July 2010
Stanton · 18 July 2010
Robert Byers: Creationism is dishonest as it requires upholding dogma by lying about and denying reality. It is also rubbish as it can not, does not, and does not bother to explain anything.
Ergo, "Creationism is dishonest rubbish" is a very accurate statement.
Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 19 July 2010
Our Byers troll has presented the standard creationist shtick about studying the past. Nobody was there; therefore it is all speculation, and what you believe depends on “which philosophical glasses you put on.” But creationists claim to have the word of someone who was there.
This is a pretty good epistemological misconception to start with. And you will note that none of the “how do you know?” questions ever apply to creationists.
So the question one could start with is asking how something that was initialized in the past could harm you in the future (e.g., a rocket launched 10 minutes ago could kill you 10 minutes from now). Or how a gamma burst that took place thousands of years ago could wipe out life on this planet a hundred years from now.
If you throw away causal history of the past, where is the cut-off for allowing the use of causal chains of events when it is convenient for you to do so? Define your cut-off.
This also relates to the problem of solipsism. Ultimately you have to behave as though everything is real. Fundamentalists attempting to reject science are quite good at contorting themselves into philosophical knots until their “philosophy” no longer works in the real world.
Michael Roberts · 19 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 19 July 2010
Rolf Aalberg · 19 July 2010
Any attempt at dialogue with Robert Byers is useless. It is like I'd talk to a Chines in my language, and he would respond in his language: 100% non-dialogue, zero intelligibility.
Leave him alone with his 100% rubbish. He is incapable of understanding that he is living in a world of realities outside of his convoluted mind.
Michael Roberts · 19 July 2010
Just testing. My comments disappear
Michael Roberts · 19 July 2010
But then they appeared!!!!
MrG · 19 July 2010
Paul Burnett · 19 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 19 July 2010
MrG · 19 July 2010
There's another aspect to this game -- "GOOD SCIENCE
BAD SCIENCE":
"If science can produce demonstrable benefits like vaccines and moon shots and genetic engineering, that's GOOD SCIENCE ..."
"... and don't ask if creationism can match it, the answer is too obviously not YES ... "
"... but if science can be judged merely hypothetical or theoretical (were you there did you see it) then that's BAD SCIENCE ..."
"... and creationism is EVERY BIT AS GOOD!"
Stanton · 19 July 2010
John Kwok · 19 July 2010
John Kwok · 19 July 2010
TomS · 20 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 20 July 2010
John Kwok · 21 July 2010
Rich,
I think there are fundamental, substantial differences between Ken Miller and Steve Matheson's approach (which, as you noted earlier, has been echoed by E.O. Wilson, especially in his "Creation") and that of Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson. If anyone should be condemned for being "accomodationist", then clearly such condemnation should be reserved only for Falk and Giberson, since they have often been too conciliatory and too deferential to creationists, and I am utterly mystified in understanding how they think there are some at the Discovery Institute who could be persuaded to discard their Intelligent Design mendacious intellectual pornography.
IMHO it's unfortunate that Ken has been lumped in with the likes of Falk, Giberson and Collins, since there are substantial differences in their respective approaches.
As for the New Atheists they've injected too much invective IMHO, and, regrettably, have made it all too easy for some of your fellow religious compatriots to conclude that "belief in evolution means denial of GOD". But I understand to a certain extent where they are coming from, and must view with some skepticism the ongoing effort at religious outreach from AAAS courtesy of ample financial support from the Templeton Foundation (I regard myself as an agnostic with the Templeton's funding of scientific research and public outreach efforts like AAAS's, but am aware that their record is far better than what I have read or heard from some prominent New Atheists.).
Rich Blinne · 22 July 2010
John Kwok · 22 July 2010
Rich,
I don't know, but I think Steve has lost patience with the Dishonesty Institute and its shameful promotion of that mendacious intellectual pornography known as Intelligent Design creationism in that open letter to Stephen Meyer:
http://sfmatheson.blogspot.com/2010/06/open-letter-to-stephen-meyer.html
Here's some relevant quotes which, I believe, reflect how far Steve has moved philosophically from what he wrote in 2008 (Steve, if you are reading this, please accept my apologies if you think I am quote mining. That, I can assure you, is not my intent.):
"Right now, I don't see how you could be a thoughtful contributor to such an effort. It's not because you're stupid, or because you have 'bad relationship skills,' and it's not because you prefer ID-based explanations for biological phenomena. It's because you seem to have abandoned scholarship and the intellectual community, and instead embraced apologetics and political persuasion. As near as I can tell, you've almost completely isolated yourself from science and from scholarship, and this means you have no future as a contributor to the consideration of design in biology. That strikes me as a sad waste; hence my letter to you."
Later on, he lists four key points regarding Meyer's "research" as well as "unsolicited advice". In this point his attitude isn't different from mine (though I admit that I am a bit heavy in my sarcasm with references to mendacious intellectual pornography and to "Star Trek" if you have seen my prior postings here and elsewhere):
"3. Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement's critics, and there's something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It's clear that you have a cadre of attack dogs that do this work for you, and some of them seem unconstrained by standards of integrity. I can't state this strongly enough: the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect, both because of its unyielding commitment to dishonesty and because of its creepy mission to undermine science itself. I'd like to see you do better, but I have no such hope for your institute. It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about."
I agree with Steve. The Discovery Institute must be destroyed by any legitimate means. This attitude is CONTRARY to Falk and Giberson's efforts at appeasement and reconciliation with some at the Discovery Institute, simply because they are "fellow brothers in Christ". While I don't speak for Ken Miller - who is a friend BTW - I am reasonably certain that he does endorse Steve's view of the Discovery Institute.
Back in 2008 I might have agreed with your assessment Rich. Sadly, I can't today.
Sincerely,
John
Michael Roberts · 22 July 2010
Meanwhile think of me as I am trying to work out how to tackle an infection of YEC in the Church of England. If I do something it will cause friction.
Please say a prayer for me - even to Darwin:)
Michael Roberts · 22 July 2010
In the daily articles for Answers in Genesis today Ken Scam shreds Dembski for accepting an ancient earth
Nice piece of creationist nastiness, - not that Dembski is any better
MrG · 22 July 2010
John Kwok · 22 July 2010
John Kwok · 22 July 2010
You should be aware that there are several prominent Republicans and Conservatives who have been quite important in condemning and fighting Intelligent Design creationists; biologist Paul R. Gross, co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" (with philosopher Barbara Forrest) and Federal Judge John Jones who ruled against the Dover Area School District board at the close of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.
It is simply too easy to lay blame for creationism's popularity solely with Republicans and Conservatives, since polls conducted for decades would show a substantially higher portion of the United States population accepts evolution as valid science. Unfortunately, we haven't seen such a trend. So it is reasonable to realize that evolution denialism is accepted by many who would regard themselves as Democrats and Independents (A classic example is recounted by physicist Lisa Randall, who encountered an Obama supporting creationist - college educated in molecular biology no less - on an Los Angeles-bound flight immediately after Obama's inauguration in January 2009:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html#randall
In her own words, she notes:
"But at this point the conversation rounded a bend. His proposed curriculum would include at least one course on religion. I was surprised—this bright young man had studied biology and in all other respects seemed to have opinions and attitudes grounded in the type of education everyone responding to this question is familiar with. But religion has been a big part of his life and he sensibly said the worst thing that happens in his schools would be that people learn about religion and make their own judgements.
But he himself believes in Man descending from Adam as opposed to ascending from apes. I didn't get how someone trained as a biologist could not believe in evolution. He explained how he could learn the science and understand the logic but that it is simply how Man puts things together. In his mind that's just not the way it is.")
Sincerely,
John
P. S. I would not put much stock in the ranting and raving of lunatic atheist fanatics who have conjured a most absurd picture of me (There is one in particular who has accused me of being "crazy", but coming from him, that's a compliment considering his own sordid history - well documented by others - of words and deeds designed to sow substantial rifts between scientists and religious leaders interested in meaningful dialogue.). If that was true, I am sure that neither Nick Matzke nor his formmer NCSE colleagues nor others would regard me as someone worth replying to, whether it was here or via private e-mail correspondence, or more importantly, allowing me to post here at Panda's Thumb.
SWT · 22 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 23 July 2010
John Kwok · 23 July 2010
Rich,
As you may very well know already, the "dialogue" between Meyer and Matheson and Hunt was discussed extensively here at Panda's Thumb not so long, with ample discussions from Hunt's blog entry (Steve Matheson hadn't posted much yet then if my memory is correct.). I wouldn't attribute Steve's hostility toward that one quote you've highlighted in bold. I believe he had such hostility for a much longer period than that, and certainly the recently orchestrated attacks on him from Meyer's Dishonesty Institute colleagues didn't help matters much (I don't think you referenced Ayala's comments over at BioLogos, since the DI did go ballistic response mode soon after it was posted.).
As for Ken Miller, you're not aware of his longstanding conflicts with the Dishonesty Institute, which began when he raised notworthy objections to DI mendacious intelllectual pornographer Michael Behe's assertion that eukaryotic cells are irreducibly complex, which was stated in Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". For years Ken has used as a prop, an ingenous demonstration refuting Behe's contention that mouse traps are irreducibly complex (I think Ken does have some video clips commenting this over at his web page:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km
So no, Ken's disgust with the Discovery Institute was apparent years before the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial (Think you and your ASA colleagues need to dig deeper and I commend the online resources too of NCSE for this very reason as well:
http://www.ncse.com
If I may, our discussion is starting to sound all too much like an episode from Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels". I think we should just agree to disagree respectively with each other's interpretation. Nothing you have said has persuaded me that there is merely a difference in style and tone between Steve Matheson and Ken Miller's view of the Discovery Institute and those of BioLogos's chief executive officers, Darrel Falk and Karl Giberson, simply because neither Darrel nor Karl has come to the realization that the Discovery Institute must be condemned in the strongest terms possible, and that there isn't any hope for any peaceful reapproachment. We are engaged in a war, in, as Ken has noted in his latest book, a "battle for America's soul", and under no circumstances do I wish for the winner of such a battle to be the Dishonesty Institute and its intellectually inane allies (and foes) in what they regard as "scientific creationism".
It will be a dark day for America's intellectual, political and economic future if the Dishonesty Institute triumphs. Steve recognizes it. So does Ken. But neither Darrel nor Karl are fully cognizant as to what they are dealing with in the Dishonesty Institute. I just hope you and your ASA colleagues don't make the same mistake as those at BioLogos are doing now.
Sinceerely,
John
Steve Matheson · 23 July 2010
Rich and John--
I wouldn't say that there's a fundamental distinction between the BioLogos leaders and me. I'm quite sure that they find the behavior of the DI to be unacceptable, and I doubt that they see any realistic possibility of a change in the tactics or goals of the DI. It's an outfit built on dishonesty. Anyone who understand the science knows that. Darrel and Karl know it.
One key difference, I think, is that Darrel views peace or "rapprochement" as a goal unto itself. And I don't. Like Rich, I think that should be filed under "stylistic" divergence, but that's just my opinion.
But John is right that my position against the DI (and RTB) has hardened considerably in the last two years. The Biola thing and its aftermath was indeed significant: watching Steve Meyer engage in such brazen dishonesty was both illuminating and deeply troubling, and watching his network go into attack mode was an unexpected shock to what I thought were my well-insulated sensibilities. I concluded that dialogue with the DI is foolish at best.
John Kwok · 23 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 23 July 2010
John Kwok · 24 July 2010
John Kwok · 24 July 2010
John Kwok · 24 July 2010
John Kwok · 24 July 2010
Steve,
Since you have my contact information courtesy of you know where, then don't hesitate to reach out to me. I am bogged down with personal work probably through mid August but should be free afterwards. And if Rich Blinne decides to continue this conversation by contacting you directly, then you have my permission to share my contact information with him.
John
Rich Blinne · 24 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
Rich,
You claim to be familiar with NCSE's documentation. Here's a brief introduction to the ridiculous claims promoted by Klinghoffer, Weikart and Wisker that "Darwinism" was responsible for the Holocaust and promoting eugenics:
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth/hitler-eugenics
Here's some thoughtful commentary from fellow conservative John Derbyshire, writing in The National Review, in which he condemns both Klinghoffer's thinking and Ben Stein's involvement in the "documentary" "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed":
http://article.nationalreview.com/355594/a-blood-libel-on-our-civilization/john-derbyshire
And speaking of Klinghoffer (who is unfortunately a fellow alumnus of mine and Ken Miller's undergraduate alma mater, Brown University), he's been quite busy promoting his "Darwin = Hitler" canard, having recently been granted a platform at that great "conservative" online journal, The Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-klinghoffer/the-dark-side-of-darwinis_b_630627.html
Not surprisingly, The Huffington Post was condemned for giving Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographer David Klinghoffer an online venue to state once more his pernicious lies about Darwin, Hitler and the Holocaust. Uncharacteristically, it opted to act just like the Dishonesty Institute, by editing criticism of Klinghoffer even from its own columnists as noted here by Huffington Post columnist Eric Michael Johnson (also formerly of Science Blogs):
http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/2010/07/huffington_post_is_afraid_of_c.php
After reading these links devoted primarily to my "dear" fellow Brunonian Klinghoffer (who has referred to me in third person at one of his Dishonesty Institute blog entriesd as an "obsessed Darwinist"), can you still stand by this absurd observation of yours:
"I have no relationship with anyone in DI. Because of this and unlike Steve I cannot accurately pass judgment on their motivations."
I sincerely hope not. Because if you do and are unwilling to inform your fellow Evangelical Christians of the gross lies, character assassinations and even theft committed by the likes of Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers Bill Dembski, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, and yes, even Stephen Meyer, then I don't see a dime's worth of difference between you and Darrel Falk, Karl Giberson and Paul Enns of BioLogos. You must tell them that these are Nazis pretending to be devout Jews and Christians, willing to subvert the Bible as a means of working toward their own nefarious - even and I dare say it Satanic - objectives against the educational, intellectual, cultural, and most importantly, political, future of the United States.
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
Here's a brief outline of Dembski's misdeeds which have been posted here and elsewhere online by me and others:
1) Dembski committed the legal equivalent of grand theft larceny against the Dover (PA) school board, by charging them $20,000 for "services rendered" as a potential defense witness in the Spring of 2005, then declining to serve as such when he could not have his private attorney represent him during the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial.
2) Dembski had a clip of someone farting associated with his online essay critical of Judge John E. Jones after Jones' historic ruling at the end of the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial.
3)Dembski contacted the U. S. Department of Homeland Security four years ago, requesting that they investigate eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka as a "potential bioterrorist", after hearing from fellow creationist Forrest Mims regarding Pianka's lecture at the Texas Academy of Sciences (in which Pianka regrettably observed that Earth's biodiversity might be better off if humanity became extinct due to an Ebola viral-like plague.).
4) Dembski orchestrated with Mims a "death threat" campaign against eminent University of Texas ecologist Eric Pianka and the Texas Academy of Sciences.
5) Dembski, along with his fellow intellectually-challenged Uncommon Dissent pals (including Mike Behe) held an online "roasting" of Johns Hopkins biochemist David Levin at Dembski's Uncommon Dissent website (actually Uncommon Descent, but am being sarcastic), simply because Levin had spotted some errors in Behe's "research" and decided to contact Behe via e-mail as one professional scientific colleague to another (This occurred sometime in the Fall of 2007 if my memory serves right. Levin would later write a harsh, but accurate review of Behe's "The Edge of Evolution" published by Reports of NCSE, the NCSE journal.).
6) Dembski made a rather crude, quite despicable, comparison of notable University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne with Herman Munster at Uncommon Dissent in 2007.
7) Dembski followed up this bizarre display of infantile behavior with another Uncommon Dissent comparison of distinguished University of California, Berkeley paleobiologist Kevin Padian with Archie Bunker, "rhetorically" asking whether Padian was the "Archie Bunker of evolutionary biology".
8) Dembski has admitted at Uncommon Dissent - with ample malicious intent - that he stole a Harvard University cell animation video made by the Connecticut-based video production company XVIVO (Richard Dawkins posted an open letter from David Bolinsky, XVIVO's president, "thanking" Dembski for admitting to that theft over at Dawkins's website.). The cell animation video was also "lent" by Dembski to the producers of the "documentary film" "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" and appeared in early production release, before an online uproar forced them to substitute that footage with their own home-grown (and much cruder) rendition.
9) In December 2007, Dembski tried to exercise a crude form of censorship against yours truly by asking Amazon.com (USA website) to delete my harsh, but accurate, review of Bill's latest published example of mendacious intellectual pornography, otherwise known as "The Design of Life" (which I did read excerpts of, but won't admit how I obtained a copy). He also organized an online smear campaign against me.
10) In early May 2008, at Uncommon Dissent, Dembski had the gall to whine and to moan about "rich Darwinists" like Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, Francisco Ayala and Ken Miller for "making money" off of evolution. He also made the inane observation that we ought to support Intelligent Design since it is a "middle class" idea, whereas evolution is an "upper class" idea. Bill also made the absurd claim that he is a member of the middle class, when the real truth is that he is a graduate of a prestigious Catholic boarding school (Portsmouth Abbey), and had, growing up, a childhood that was far more "upper class" than either mine or Ken Miller's.
So much for honest, decent, "Christian" behavior from devout "Christian" Bill Dembski, right? These aren't the acts of someone who truly abides by Christ's teachings, but rather, Lucifer's.
Rich, can you still claim with all due seriousness, "“I have no relationship with anyone in DI. Because of this and unlike Steve I cannot accurately pass judgment on their motivations.”
I fully expect you to inform your ASA colleagues and your fellow Evangelical Christians that Bill Dembski is, for all practical purposes, a Nazi interested only in subverting education (and eventually even politics) in the United States so that this subversion will add to his twisted agenda that is a gross abuse of whatever Christian theology and values he learned supposedly at Princeton Theological Seminary while working towards a master's degree in divinity there.
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
Rich,
You should adhere to the tone (and hopefully substance) of Ken Miller's Boston Globe condemnation of "Expelled":
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/08/trouble_ahead_for_science/
and film critic Roger Ebert's condemnation of both Ben Stein and of the film itself:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/12/win_ben_steins_mind.html
Sometimes the truth hurts. But I think it's better to have you and your ASA colleagues speak up about the Nazi-like activities of the Dishonesty Institute, instead of leaving the "playing field" for the likes of Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, who are making it too easy for Intelligent Design creationists and other creationists to argue that "believing" in evolution means denying a belief in GOD, especially the Judeo-Christian GOD.
Rich Blinne · 25 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
Rich,
Of all days I don't wish to indulge in criticizing you, especially since I recognize the importance of Sunday to millions of devout - but also rational - Christians such as yourself (I might also add that I have members of my own family who are Evangelical Protestant Christians, as well as other Christians, such as a favorite uncle who is a retired Methodoist minister, Jews, Buddhists, and even a few Muslims (of which the most noteworthy is my first cousin former United States Army Chaplain James Yee). While I forsook Christianity a long time ago for something that I find far more rewarding spiritually (Deism), I can not nor will not cast judgement on others, especially members of my own family. However, having said this, I think you just proved my point with respect to Schloss's review. We need to turn the tables on the Dishonesty Institute. If they wish to wage blitzkrieg on us, then we must do the same. If they choose to use their metaphorical version of thermonuclear warfare, then we must respond in kind. And if that means you have to alert your fellow ASA members, and in general, your fellow Evangelical Christians that the Dishonesty Institute is a crypto-Fascist organization whose intellectual "ancestors" are diabolical Nazis like Josef Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler, then I believe you should, lest you be drowned out by those, such as PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, who would regard you as silly, anachronistic, and maybe, even crypto-creationists in disguise.
You need to remind them of David Klinghoffer and Bill Dembski's mendacious intellectual pornography and that of their Dishonesty Institute colleagues, including the likes of Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson and Jonathan Wells. For starters, you can use the list of offenses committed by Bill Dembski - and what I have listed is merely the tip of the iceberg since I am certain Nick Matzke and his former colleagues at NCSE can provide you with many, many more - if only to force your fellow co-religionists to come to the realization that, despite his "Christian" credentials, Dembski is really acting more like a devout servant of Lucifer than of Christ's. You also need to make them aware of simple, but succinct, online resources such as the "Expelled" Exposed website created by NCSE to rebut the lies and distortions stated by Ben Stein and his Premise Media colleagues in their so-called "documentary" film. If you reject my advice, then quite frankly, what is the difference between ASA and BioLogos with respect to how one should view the Dishonesty Institute? Sure you may claim substantial rhetorical differences, but, when the chips are down, the result would stil be the same: ABSOLUTELY NONE.
Respectfully yours,
John
Michael Roberts · 25 July 2010
MrG · 25 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
MrG · 25 July 2010
Mr. Kwok, you say a great number of things, few of which make much sense if there was reason to make sense of them. But there is not, never has been, and almost certainly never will be any reason to do so.
Game over.
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 25 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
John Kwok · 25 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 25 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 26 July 2010
Sadly in the UK many do not realise how vicious ID is and regard it as a wiser alternative to YEC.
"Design" is presented as a sound view and many fall for it.
This is the position in the more mainstream churches like mine - the Church of England
Robert Byers · 26 July 2010
Michael Roberts · 26 July 2010
Robert
I have yet to read a creationist work which is not chockablock full of misquotes misrepresentations and the like.
Just take a paper by Woodmorappe in 1978 in CRSQ on radiometric age dating. He gave 700 alleged bad dates. On my bookshelves I had many of the references and checked out 100 . All were serious misquotation.
Another classic is the sketch on "polystrates on p83 of Ackermann's It is a young earth after all.
That and all the misquotes in writers like Morris, Parker, Andrews McIntosh Monty White and the rest can only lead to one conclusion
LIES
As for the science it is plain wrong or else nonsense
Apart from that all geology points to a very ancient earth
Further traditionally for 2000 years the Bible has not been interpreted literally by the majority of Christians
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
My dear delusional Booby -
I personally saw Henry Morris have his head handed to him by Ken Miller back in the Spring of 1981 when I helped organized a campus creationist debate (I was the sole "evolutionist" and skeptic) sponsored by the "Origins Committee" of the campus chapter of the Campus Crusade for Christ (Ken still has a poster from that event.).
Live Long and Prosper (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),
John Kwok
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
Rich,
For the very reasons you have stated here - "I also plan on distinguishing between ID as a concept and ID as a political movement. Even if my friends might believe ID is correct they would be appalled at the unchristian behavior of the political movement." - you need to tell them not only about Dembski and Klinghoffer but even how the Dishonesty Institute agit-prop "machine" went into full attack mode recently in response to Steve Matheson's thoughtful - if at times, harsh - open letter to Stephen Meyer urging him to forsake both ID and the Dishonesty Institute.
If you can attain these goals you will be substantially far more credible than BioLogos has been and also much harder for the New Atheist fanatics - like those here and at Pharyngula, for example - to condemn.
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
Rich,
"In Only A THeory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", Ken Miller argues eloquently that Intelligent Design is far more dangerous than other, more traditional, forms of creationism since what it seeks is nothing more than a radical overthrow of traditional scientific methodology - "methdological naturalism" - replacing it with a kind of pernicious "relativism" - as documented in Allan Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" - which we see all too often in the arts, humanities and social sciences now. That is why Intelligent Design is dangerous.
Since its inception Intelligent Design has sought to be both a successful philosophical - if not scientific - concept and a political movement. You can't distinguish between the two. You need to frame your arguments to your ASA colleagues and friends by noting how serious the threat is from Intelligent Design as both a concept and a political movement (the latter as expressed in "The Wedge Document").
Rich Blinne · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
Rich · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
Rich · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 26 July 2010
Does Ronald Numbers agree with you that YEC is essentially a fifty year-old phenomenom? I knew it got its modern start via Henry Morris's "The Genesis Flood" published back in 1961 or 1962, but it's clearly much, much older. As for OEC, that's also old too, in the sense that many of the great European naturalists from the late 18th and early 19th centuries were OECs based on what they regarded as the valid scientific data of the time, not on their religious beliefs (since many were also clergy). Too bad none of today's "scientific creationist" entities can arrive at similar conclusions.
Rich Blinne · 26 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 26 July 2010
John Kwok · 27 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 27 July 2010
John Kwok · 27 July 2010
Rich Blinne · 28 July 2010
John Kwok · 29 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Nick Matzke,
Intelligent Design does NOT make the argument that "evolution can't produce new genetic information".
You are a liar.
The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch and cannot increase information once information arises.
IOW Nick all YOU can do is erect and attack a strawman.
You must be very proud...
MrG · 30 July 2010
Cubist · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
I'm STILL not sure that Joe G is just a Loki troll -- I haven't noticed him before -- but he may mean that NickM didn't specify SCIENTIFIC evolution, y'know the evolution the science community favors, as opposed to MARVEL COMICS evolution.
NickM was being sloppy. I mean, if you say "geology", how does anyone know it means "round Earth geology" instead of "flat Earth geology". We have to be precise here.
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus,
ID is not anti-evolution.
The argument is that blind, undirected processes cannot produce information from scratch and cannot increase information once information arises.
What part of that don't you understand?
Joe G · 30 July 2010
John Kwok · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
fnxtr · 30 July 2010
??
Okay, so:
IF
1) ID is not anti-evolution,
AND
2) The argument is that blind undirected processes cannot produce/increase information, et cetera,
THEN:
either the argument is that evolution is not a blind undirected process,
OR:
the argument is that evolution cannot produce/increase information.
is that what you're saying, Joe?
Henry J · 30 July 2010
All of which would depend on what one means by "blind", "undirected", and "information".
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
My apologies for the double post.
I would also agree that a coherent, workable definition of information needs to be supplied by the ID advocates before any actual discussion can begin. I have never seen one provided. Ever.
MrG · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
fnxtr · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Ah, yes, Creationist Information Theory -- "CIT", pronounced with a VERY soft "C".
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
fnxtr · 30 July 2010
Okay, then, let's say you're right. Evolution is directed.
What directs evolution, Joe?
How is evolution directed? Dembski says ID "is not a mechanistic theory", so is there a directing "mechanism"? If not, how does the directing work?
How can we detect this directing? I'm not asking for a definition of "information" or a measure of "specified complexity".
I want to know how you tell when the act of directing is occuring. How do we observe it? What tools do we need to see it happening?
Thank you for your explanation.
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Information the "I" in CSI:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009/07/information-i-in-csi.html
What is ID:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/06/intelligent-design-just-as-i-have-been.html
Biological evolution- what is being debated:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2009/06/biological-evolution-what-is-being.html
MrG · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
fnxtr · 30 July 2010
Heh. I just thought of the old game show "What's my line?"
"Will our Mystery Guest enter and sign in please!"
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Wesley R. Elsberry · 30 July 2010
Some people might be interested in a longish response I made to Joe G. when he was trying to defend Dembski's EF and CSI as an approach to information.
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus,
Elesberry is wrong. You are wrong.
You both think that your ognorance is meaningful discourse...
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Malchus · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Joe G · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Mike Elzinga · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
ben · 30 July 2010
Joe G applies simliar "reasoning" to determining the CSI of a cake:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2008/12/csi-of-baseball.html#c1414639926971061841
No, really.
ben · 30 July 2010
And argues that hail is not made of water:
http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2010/03/when-weight-determines-size-exposing.html#c9206231609160977717
fnxtr · 30 July 2010
Wesley R. Elsberry · 30 July 2010
If I'm wrong, Joe G. has yet to demonstrate in what particular I may be wrong. In my experience, Joe G. is long on bluster and short on argumentation, what we in Texas called "all hat and no cattle", an aphorism that also applies well to Joe G.'s hero, Bill Dembski.
I'm all for error correction -- I've corrected a bunch of Joe G.'s bits of ignorance concerning what is actually in Dembski's argumentation so far, to no particular effect I can see. He's a cheerleader for a position he can't even accurately paraphrase, much less comprehend.
MrG · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Gone quiet. I don't know if he's regrouping, or if he's just going to back to his blog and vent.
In the end, sooner or later, that is what he is going to do, and he will unilaterally declare victory.
socle · 30 July 2010
Joe, here's a question for you: Which has more information, Ø or {Ø}?
MrG · 30 July 2010
I went over to his blog. He's already denouncing NickM.
"You can't say Creationism and ID are the same thing."
Hmm, same core arguments, same core tactics, close association under the "Big Tent": "Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck -- might be a duck."
The difference is that ID is a lot more evasive.
DS · 30 July 2010
Joe G wrote:
"Not by my definition- and you do not know if a gene duplication is a mindless process."
RIght. If you claim that gene duplication is directed process, then all you have to do is demonstrate that it requires a guiding intelligence in order to occur. Show how slipped strand mispairing requires an intelligence. Show how unequal crossing over requires an intelligence. Show why these processes occur at exactly the rates and in exactly the sequences that are predicted if the processes are completely random.
While you are at it, you can describe the mechanism for intelligent falling as well.
MrG · 30 July 2010
ben · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
MrG · 30 July 2010
Oh, I was poking around a bit more on his blog. He was attacking ...
... radioactive dating. "Oh no, ID isn't creationism." Looks like a duck ...
May I compliment all on not calling him names? I think that would have seriously detracted from the ruthlessly efficient slapping around he got.
John Kwok · 30 July 2010
John Kwok · 30 July 2010
Wesley R. Elsberry · 30 July 2010
Anybody can correspond with Dembski.
Get him to admit an error? That's really rare.
Michael J · 30 July 2010
Michael J · 31 July 2010
John Kwok · 31 July 2010
John Kwok · 31 July 2010
Wesley R. Elsberry · 31 July 2010
John Kwok · 31 July 2010