Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience

In the spring of 2011, a diverse group of scientists gathered at Cornell University to discuss their research into the nature and origin of biological information.

I expect they were hoping that no one would know what "telic" meant (actually, the whole summary screams "ID", but you have to have been in this business a while to recognize the code words).

Man I would sure like to see the data set that was used to generate those graphs. In particular, I would be interested in seeing exactly why the guy thinks that the explanatory power of ID has increased and exactly why he thinks the explanatory power of evolution has decreased. Perhaps he missed the entire "modern synthesis" thing, it doesn't seem to show up on the graphs. Perhaps he missed the entire Evo-devo thing, it seems to not have affected the graphs at all. It's almost like he just made the whole thing up. But it is published by a good firm, so how could that be?

Oh well, it looks like he just ignored all of the two million Google hits and all of the other literature as well. Didn't the guy know anything? Didn't he try to learn anything? Wait ... what? Oh. Never mind.

I have had a very pleasant time publishing papers on evolutionary biology with Springer-Verlag and Elsevier:

Natural selection as a paradigm of opportunism

http://www.springerlink.com/content/q767h613177m34r1/

An ancient frame-shifting event in the highly conserved KPNA gene family has undergone extensive compensation by natural selection in vertebrates

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303264711000797

I hope to do more of the same thing over the years.

He he!

Sanford of “genetic entropy fame. Sewell of second law of thermodynamics fame. Dembski & Marks of “endogenous, exogenous, and active information fame. Abel of “spontaneous molecular chaos” and “Shannon uncertainty" fame.

These characters are so easy to take down. These papers will die where they lie; and lie they do.

ID/creationist authors may discover that getting what they wish for may not be as sweet as they think. Once that junk is out there, more scientists with knowledge will notice just how bad it is.

I notice that the cost of the Springer volume is a mere $179. At that price they won't get too many individual sales, but university libraries will be pressured to buy the book. Springer seems to package sets of journals and volumes and offer them as blocks, so this one may be sold that way. My university's library seems to be in some standoff with Springer, refusing to buy some of these packages. Unfortunately the result is that the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach is one of the ones we don't subscribe to right now.

I do think our library should buy this volume. However I'd hope they catalog it under "theology". (They probably won't catalog it that way).

How convenient that their graphs depict an inverse relationship for science versus idiotic design. I wonder who drew thought that one up and how they substantiate the supposed data as well as the exponential rise in biological "information" that requires explaining! And yet the ID folks still have never defined their "theory."

DavidK said: How convenient that their graphs depict an inverse relationship for science versus idiotic design. I wonder who drew thought that one up and how they substantiate the supposed data as well as the exponential rise in biological "information" that requires explaining! And yet the ID folks still have never defined their "theory."

Joe Felsenstein said: I notice that the cost of the Springer volume is a mere $179. At that price they won't get too many individual sales, but university libraries will be pressured to buy the book. Springer seems to package sets of journals and volumes and offer them as blocks, so this one may be sold that way. My university's library seems to be in some standoff with Springer, refusing to buy some of these packages. Unfortunately the result is that the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach is one of the ones we don't subscribe too right now. I do think our library should buy this volume. However I'd hope they catalog it under "theology". (They probably won't catalog it that way).

Historian Ronald Numbers has an account of Flood geology 'pioneer' George McCready Price having one of his papers published in the journal Pan-American Geologist during the 1930s. The Pan-American Geologist later went belly-up, with some feeling this demise was partly due to opening up to an armchair 'scientist' like Price.

DS said: Man I would sure like to see the data set that was used to generate those graphs. In particular, I would be interested in seeing exactly why the guy thinks that the explanatory power of ID has increased and exactly why he thinks the explanatory power of evolution has decreased.

You know what convinces me of the veracity of the graphs presented above? The obviously scientific, and independently measurable, metrics HI and LOW.

How telling is it that in the first graph, the line representing "Common Descent" intersects the line representing "Inheritance Laws" at a point that can only be interpolated as "Medium!"

Of course, the Darwin line STARTS OUT at Medium, then goes, according to the graph, "Hi"-er, then drops to Medium again, while the Mendel line starts "Low", hits the Darwin line at "Medium" around 2010, then according to whatever "best guess" mathematical interpolation algorithm was used, scoots asymptotically to "Hi." At the rate it's going, it will pass "Hi" sometime around the letter "N" in "Now" and touch the face of God around the end of the upcoming election cycle. Can't wait!

I notice that the cost of the Springer volume is a mere $179.

harold said:

I notice that the cost of the Springer volume is a mere $179.

The goal of the authors here is undoubtedly to put creationism into a science-y looking package, with the overall objective of encouraging right wing politicians to keep writing anti-evolution bills. The goal of Springer is to make money. The logically expected bulk orders from right wing think tanks will make this a relatively big seller, at least compared with superficially similar volumes.

DS said: Man I would sure like to see the data set that was used to generate those graphs.

duane.cynosure said: You know what convinces me of the veracity of the graphs presented above? The obviously scientific, and independently measurable, metrics HI and LOW. How telling is it that in the first graph, the line representing "Common Descent" intersects the line representing "Inheritance Laws" at a point that can only be interpolated as "Medium!" Of course, the Darwin line STARTS OUT at Medium, then goes, according to the graph, "Hi"-er, then drops to Medium again, while the Mendel line starts "Low", hits the Darwin line at "Medium" around 2010, then according to whatever "best guess" mathematical interpolation algorithm was used, scoots asymptotically to "Hi." At the rate it's going, it will pass "Hi" sometime around the letter "N" in "Now" and touch the face of God around the end of the upcoming election cycle. Can't wait!

I had to scroll that graph off the top of the screen, because it was making me more and more ignorant the longer I looked at it.

DS said: Obviously, biology has been very successful at discovering more and more complexity, see it didn't really exist until it was discovered. But, at the same time, it did a worse and worse job of explaining the findings. Cause, you know, that's all biologists do, discover things they can't explain. Well, at least that's obviously what creationists think. Cause, you know, they have never explained a single thing.

I wrote to John Sanford last summer to ask him to clarify whether he thought that his argument led inevitably to a Young Earth view, or whether he considered an alternative explanation. He replied and gave me permission to post his reply at UD. The link is here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/new-paper-using-the-avida-evolution-software-shows/#comment-383856

I've been in contact with one of the editors at Springer, so they're now certainly aware of the situation.

Bob O'H said: I've been in contact with one of the editors at Springer, so they're now certainly aware of the situation.

I teach at Cornell (cell biology, evolution, and physiology) and I don't remember anything about this conference. Considering the ID "heavy hitters" who supposedly attended, I'm curious when and where it was held, who attended, and how (and to whom) it was publicized. It's entirely possible that it didn't actually happen at Cornell at all, but that John Sanford's extremely peripheral connection to Cornell (he's listed as a "courtesy appointment" at the Geneva Experimental Station for having invented the "gene gun" but hasn't actually taught there for years) was used to make it seem as if it was held here. Was there actually a conference in a physical location in a building at the Ithaca campus which was attended by all these people, or did they contribute to a volume that simply claimed there was such a conference, when it actually occurred online over John Sanford's computer? Just curious...

Did a Google search and discovered that the conference was NOT sponsored or endorsed by any department at the university. Rather, it was held somewhere with a Cornell connection (I haven't been able to find out in what building it was held, or even if it was at the Ithaca campus). Furthermore, NO ONE was allowed to attend who was not specifically invited by the organizers. Finally, a significant fraction of the participants refused to have their names listed, either in the list of attendees or in the proceedings of the conference. Many of the readers here have been to a genuine scientific conference – how does all of this square with your experience?

Allen MacNeill said: I teach at Cornell (cell biology, evolution, and physiology) and I don't remember anything about this conference. Considering the ID "heavy hitters" who supposedly attended, I'm curious when and where it was held, who attended, and how (and to whom) it was publicized. It's entirely possible that it didn't actually happen at Cornell at all, but that John Sanford's extremely peripheral connection to Cornell (he's listed as a "courtesy appointment" at the Geneva Experimental Station for having invented the "gene gun" but hasn't actually taught there for years) was used to make it seem as if it was held here. Was there actually a conference in a physical location in a building at the Ithaca campus which was attended by all these people, or did they contribute to a volume that simply claimed there was such a conference, when it actually occurred online over John Sanford's computer? Just curious...

Finally, a quick note on the date of the so-called conference: 7 June 2011. Anyone from Cornell would know that this is in between commencement (always held on Memorial Day weekend) and the beginning of the 3-week summer session, which starts about two weeks later. In other words, the campus is completely deserted during the first week in June (not even any sports camps until public schools recess for the summer), so they could have held this almost anywhere and nobody would have noticed. Sounds to me like yet another attempt to game the system...

Just ran a search at the Cornell University website (http://www.cornell.edu/) using "nature and origin of biological information 2011" and got no hits at all – not one. Apparently no one at Cornell has any record that this conference actually happened. Did it, or is this just another ID scamfest?

Allen MacNeill said: Did a Google search and discovered that the conference was NOT sponsored or endorsed by any department at the university. Rather, it was held somewhere with a Cornell connection (I haven't been able to find out in what building it was held, or even if it was at the Ithaca campus). Furthermore, NO ONE was allowed to attend who was not specifically invited by the organizers. Finally, a significant fraction of the participants refused to have their names listed, either in the list of attendees or in the proceedings of the conference. Many of the readers here have been to a genuine scientific conference – how does all of this square with your experience?

Just ran a search at the Cornell events calendar and got this: "We couldn't find 'nature and origin of biological information'" Curiouser and curiouser...

Allen MacNeill said: Just ran a search at the Cornell events calendar and got this: "We couldn't find 'nature and origin of biological information'" Curiouser and curiouser...

Furthermore, NO ONE was allowed to attend who was not specifically invited by the organizers. Finally, a significant fraction of the participants refused to have their names listed, either in the list of attendees or in the proceedings of the conference.

harold linked to : http://www.mountaindaily.com/content/1196/

Interestingly, there was a notable absence of participants from Cornell or the Ithaca area. It appears very likely that many who might have otherwise have attended were afraid of negative professional consequences arising from being associated in any way with this event of its participants..

I teach at Cornell (cell biology, evolution, and physiology) and I don’t remember anything about this conference.

I read parts of the book and reminded me a lot of a story that my father (a chemical engineer) used to tell. When he was in the university a colleague of his decide to begin a crusade against analytic geometry (such as a creationist against evolution). He approach several times his professors saying that everything was wrong with it, since it was based in the notion of point which is something that does not exists. When he was asked to give an alternative, he stated that was not is task, but the professors tasks. Then he radicalized his attacks and started preaching in public against the existence of points. Years later he was putted in a mental institution. If geometry had the same social impact as biological evolution, and if he lived in America, probably he would be considered sane and even get financial support to attack the notion of geometric point. The motivation of this book and the highly biases and speculative conclusions that it promotes are a similar story. ID seems to explain Bio-information. How? A supernatural something is responsible for it! Case close. If in your particular area of research you don´t have an explanation don´t worry. Just say some divine creature is blurring the data.

Love the charts. So truthy! Someone please send these to Stephen Colbert. The copyright/byline line itself is probably worth 30 seconds of lampooning.

Pedro Sarmento said: I read parts of the book and reminded me a lot of a story that my father (a chemical engineer) used to tell. ...

Joe Felsenstein said:

Pedro Sarmento said: I read parts of the book and reminded me a lot of a story that my father (a chemical engineer) used to tell. ...

I got some parts via a secure font How did you read it? It isn't published yet.

Pedro Sarmento said: via

Joe Felsenstein said:

Pedro Sarmento said: I read parts of the book and reminded me a lot of a story that my father (a chemical engineer) used to tell. ...

I got some parts via a secure font How did you read it? It isn't published yet.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Pedro Sarmento said: via

Joe Felsenstein said:

Pedro Sarmento said: I read parts of the book and reminded me a lot of a story that my father (a chemical engineer) used to tell. ...

I got some parts via a secure font How did you read it? It isn't published yet.

Note -- despite being quoted above as saying "I got some parts via a secure font", that statement is not by me. (Besides fonts are inanimate systems for printing characters and cannot actually act to send anything to anyone. Nor do I know what a "secure font" is.)

Dave Lovell said:

harold linked to : http://www.mountaindaily.com/content/1196/

From this I particularly like :

Interestingly, there was a notable absence of participants from Cornell or the Ithaca area. It appears very likely that many who might have otherwise have attended were afraid of negative professional consequences arising from being associated in any way with this event of its participants..

But Allen MacNeill said:

I teach at Cornell (cell biology, evolution, and physiology) and I don’t remember anything about this conference.

So come on Allen, fess up. You knew all about it and were too scared to go.

I think Springer is abusing its good name by publishing the Behe, Dembski et al. edited example of mendacious intellectual pornography.

From the very few bits of information I have been able to gather, the "symposium" was apparently held in the Statler Auditorium in the School of Hotel Administration at the Ithaca campus. Unlike most of the large lecture halls at Cornell, the Statler Auditorium can be rented by outside groups for non-university functions. I know this because I have performed there with the Ithaca Ballet, which used to rent the hall for their local performances. Ergo, it appears that John Sanford and the symposium organizers rented the hall and are now claiming that the event was somehow "a Cornell event" rather than an event held in a rented hall at Cornell.

Statler Auditorium has almost 900 seats, but in looking at the housing reservation at one of the links above, there were apparently only 42 attendees (and that may also include the presenters), so the auditorium would have looked a little...well, shall we say "sparse"?

As for being afraid to attend, on the contrary, if I had known about it I would definitely have attended, as I relish every opportunity to argue with ID supporters. As I have posted elsewhere, the ID movement at Cornell is long dead, as it is at virtually all other colleges and universities in the USA (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/12/intelligent-design-movement-on-college.html), so an opportunity like this would have been both rare and enjoyable – it would have been fun to put Behe, Dembski, et al on the spot at my home turf. No such luck...

Allen MacNeill said: As for being afraid to attend, on the contrary, if I had known about it I would definitely have attended, as I relish every opportunity to argue with ID supporters.

As for being afraid to attend, on the contrary, if I had known about it I would definitely have attended, as I relish every opportunity to argue with ID supporters.

The page on springer.com is gone. Victory?

cengime said: The page on springer.com is gone. Victory?

Computational Intelligence and Complexity Home; Engineering; Computational Intelligence and Complexity An error occurred Not Found

If Springer has withdrawn; the spin masters will claim persecution. They have shown dishonesty a thousand times, what is one more time going to do?

How Do You Silence Science? A National Center for Science Education Alum Shows the Way David Klinghoffer February 27, 2012 6:00 AM | Permalink Here's a wonderful fresh illustration of Casey's point in our current lead story ("A Friendly Letter to the Heartland Institute and Other Advocates of Free Speech on Global Warming"), that the primary challenge facing Darwin- and climate-skeptics alike is not from science but from censorship. A National Center for Science Education alum, Nick Matzke, writes in indignation to denounce a major academic publisher, Springer, for planning to publish a volume of essays with a design theme: Biological Information: New Perspectives. We haven't seen a copy of the book, nor has Matzke, since the publication date isn't till March 31. But the description from Springer sounds interesting: The contributors to this volume use their wide-ranging expertise in the area of biological information to bring fresh insights into the explanatory difficulties that biological information raises. Going beyond the conventional scientific wisdom, which attempts to explain biological information reductionistically via chemical, genetic, and natural selective determinants, the work represented here develops novel non-reductionist approaches to biological information, looking notably to telic and self-organizational processes. Several clear themes emerged from these research papers: 1) Information is indispensable to our understanding of what life is. 2) Biological information is more than the material structures that embody it. 3) Conventional chemical and evolutionary mechanisms seem insufficient to fully explain the labyrinth of information that is life. By exploring new perspectives on biological information, this volume seeks to expand, encourage, and enrich research on the nature and origin of biological information.

It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn't even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility -- if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.

Perhaps Springer has instituted a policy wherein they ask you a ridiculous question and any answer that is not the single word "no" results in your book being withdrawn and your privilege of being published through them permanently revoked. Probably at the behest of notable censor, Nick Matzke! He's just the censorious type who would do something like tha- oh wait!

My guess is that Springer will cave in, and the reported "coincidence" yesterday is no surprise at all.

It's all about money not science, and the Great Recession isn't going away anytime soon, as Springer and other publishers know all too well.

So, given the usual evolutionist rage in such situations, it's safe to assume that Springer will cave in pronto (if it hasn't already). They sure don't want the garroting that the Smithsonian got because of the "Privileged Planet" film!!

FL

FL, hypothetical question.
If a group of astrologers convened a handful of their colleagues and gave each other some pep talks about how the science of astrology explains so much about the financial crisis, should Springer publish their lectures on astrological economics as science?

The science publisher seem to not only rip off scientists thrice, but also to let the actual work all be done by interns. Otherwise, the alarm bells should have rung much earlier given the names of the editors.

If I were to arrange a meeting like the one at Cornell, I would ask the person in charge of room bookings at my university department for a convenient room at a time when it is empty. I would say that I am editing a book, and I need the room for a meeting with the contributors. My colleagues might be angry with me when they see the book, but if I have earlier made my deviant scientific beliefs known to them I don't have anything to loose.

I am not saying that this is what actually happened, only that it is a possible scenario.

ksplawn said: FL, hypothetical question. If a group of astrologers convened a handful of their colleagues and gave each other some pep talks about how the science of astrology explains so much about the financial crisis, should Springer publish their lectures on astrological economics as science?

the primary challenge facing Darwin- and climate-skeptics alike is not from science but from censorship.

Matzke’s whole and entire purpose is to intimidate by trying to whip up outrage, hoping to bring social pressure to bear on publishers – in so far as he’s able – so they won’t make the mistake again of giving a public forum to intelligent design

That is censorship not by government action, in this case,

but by professional bullying and guilt by association. It’s the way the NCSE’s game works and Matzke learned it well.

Allen MacNeill said: From the very few bits of information I have been able to gather, the "symposium" was apparently held in the Statler Auditorium in the School of Hotel Administration at the Ithaca campus. Unlike most of the large lecture halls at Cornell, the Statler Auditorium can be rented by outside groups for non-university functions. I know this because I have performed there with the Ithaca Ballet, which used to rent the hall for their local performances. Ergo, it appears that John Sanford and the symposium organizers rented the hall and are now claiming that the event was somehow "a Cornell event" rather than an event held in a rented hall at Cornell. Statler Auditorium has almost 900 seats, but in looking at the housing reservation at one of the links above, there were apparently only 42 attendees (and that may also include the presenters), so the auditorium would have looked a little...well, shall we say "sparse"? As for being afraid to attend, on the contrary, if I had known about it I would definitely have attended, as I relish every opportunity to argue with ID supporters. As I have posted elsewhere, the ID movement at Cornell is long dead, as it is at virtually all other colleges and universities in the USA (see http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008/12/intelligent-design-movement-on-college.html), so an opportunity like this would have been both rare and enjoyable – it would have been fun to put Behe, Dembski, et al on the spot at my home turf. No such luck...

The book is on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Biological-Information-Perspectives-Intelligent-Reference/dp/3642284531/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330529010&sr=1-1

Customer tags are amusing.

C'mon John K., get over to Amazon and leave your favorite buzzphrase as a tag.

Customer tags are amusing.

Update: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/02/update-on-sprin.html

FL said: My guess is that Springer will cave in, and the reported "coincidence" yesterday is no surprise at all. It's all about money not science,

FL said: My guess is that Springer will cave in, and the reported "coincidence" yesterday is no surprise at all. It's all about money not science...

eric said:

FL said: My guess is that Springer will cave in, and the reported "coincidence" yesterday is no surprise at all. It's all about money not science...

So, just to be clear, you think a book publishing company will choose not to publish a book in order to make more money?

So, just to be clear, you think a book publishing company will choose not to publish a book in order to make more money?

Allen MacNeill said: From the very few bits of information I have been able to gather, the "symposium" was apparently held in the Statler Auditorium in the School of Hotel Administration at the Ithaca campus. Unlike most of the large lecture halls at Cornell, the Statler Auditorium can be rented by outside groups for non-university functions. I know this because I have performed there with the Ithaca Ballet, which used to rent the hall for their local performances. Ergo, it appears that John Sanford and the symposium organizers rented the hall and are now claiming that the event was somehow "a Cornell event" rather than an event held in a rented hall at Cornell. Statler Auditorium has almost 900 seats, but in looking at the housing reservation at one of the links above, there were apparently only 42 attendees (and that may also include the presenters), so the auditorium would have looked a little...well, shall we say "sparse"? ...

Statler,

Gee my wedding reception was held in that building. Maybe some-one should contact Cornell. It would seem that the seminar organizers could be guilty of fraud or at least trade mark violation by attempting to pawn this seminar off as a real Cornell event!

Paul Decelles (Cornell 73)

Actually, Stephen Meyer spoke at a venue in Whitehall, London. The lecture was organised by the UK's very own Discovery Institute wannabees the Centre for Intelligent Design, and the event was hosted by Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I received an invitation (http://tinyurl.com/83plm2f), but did not attend as I knew how ID creationists manipulate such events. The attendance list was kept secret.

mjcross42 said: C'mon John K., get over to Amazon and leave your favorite buzzphrase as a tag.

Intelligent design scientists are criticized for not publishing and then you denounce them for doing just that. It is damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Intelligent design scientists are criticized for not publishing

and then you denounce them for doing just that. It is damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

The Germans have a cute synonym for affairs that are not what they pretend to be, Köpenickiade

harold said:

Intelligent design scientists are criticized for not publishing

They are also criticized, equally fairly, for their failure to publish good articles that provide positive support for intelligent design. Who was the designer, what did that designer do and mechanistically how, when did the designer do it, and how can your opinions be tested against alternate explanations, such as the theory of evolution, or magic design, but by Allah rather than by your choice of designer? What, if anything, is an example of something that is not designed?

I think FreeBradM speaks for many of us Europeans.

Rolf said: I think FreeBradM speaks for many of us Europeans.

Still, it’s not unscientific to try to prove that some object, thought to be “natural”, is in fact designed

2. What did that designer do and mechanistically how? Well, he/she/it did what was required...

3. When did the designer do it? At the time when the relevant structure emerged...

4. How can your opinions be tested against alternate explanations, such as the theory of evolution, or magic design, but by Allah rather than by your choice of designer? (a) As for the alternatives designer vs evolution by natural selection, they already do this. They pick up some biological fact, claim that the usual evolutionistic explanation for it doen’t work, and then claim that their design explanation fits the fact better. You don’t have to accept their claims, but it’s difficult to deny that they compare two alternatives.

You don’t have to accept their claims, but it’s difficult to deny that they compare two alternatives.

5. What, if anything, is an example of something that is not designed? A heap of sand. It has just formed by various mechanical natural processes. Now, there is a problem since ID tends to think that ultimately everything is created. But ID assumes a distinction between some ultimate creation of the universe (the theologians love the big bang theory), and the design of living structures. (This is not entirely unlike the demarcation in ordinary science between a domain of things that are to be explained by natural selection and things that are explained otherwise.)

Europe is multifaceted, so perhaps one should not generalize, but in Europe we don’t seem to have the same problems with creationism and ID than you have in the US (assuming this is an American blog, I haven’t even checked)...

John said:

Rolf said: I think FreeBradM speaks for many of us Europeans.

Just a slight editorial comment, if I may. Hope FreeBradM realizes that Allah is, according to Muslims, the same Deity as the Judeo-Christian GOD. Personally, I prefer Klingons as the Intelligent Designer(s).

John said:

mjcross42 said: C'mon John K., get over to Amazon and leave your favorite buzzphrase as a tag.

It's now listed as mendacious intellectual porn (Amazon wouldn't let me use the full word, so I had to abbreviate it to porn.).

FreeBradM said: 5. What, if anything, is an example of something that is not designed? A heap of sand. It has just formed by various mechanical natural processes. Now, there is a problem since ID tends to think that ultimately everything is created.

harold said:

Still, it’s not unscientific to try to prove that some object, thought to be “natural”, is in fact designed

That does not address any of the questions I asked. However, I will point out that it is wrong... Please define "natural" and "designed" and how to tell . Please note that things designed by animals, like space stations, beehives, bower bird bowers, etc, are natural.

The point is of course not whether I am able to determine if a particular heap is animal-made; it is if I can make room for the very concept of something that is not designed.

And as you implicitly accept that such non-designed heaps are conceivable, the example is OK.

(You may want to switch from token to type, but I really don’t see why we should discuss if there is some type of thing for which none of its individual instances could be designed.)

I am just a complete outsider. I work for a news source that just published an article on this topic and I was just wondering about some things.

You referred to intelligent design as nonsense and I was just reminded when I read that, how hundreds of thousands of scientists support the theory. I was also reminded of German geneticist who critiqued evolutionary accounts of the infamously complex long neck of the giraffe.

"•"What are the limits of accidental genetic alterations in giraffes (microevolution), where the construction of genetic information requires intelligent programming because undirected mutations ('chance mutations') no longer have explanatory value?"
•"The question of new irreducibly complex systems (in comparison to the short-necked giraffes) should be investigated thoroughly on the anatomical, physiological and genetic level."
•"Likewise the question of specified complexity should be thoroughly researched on both levels (probabilistic complexity, conditionally independent pattern for gene functions, gene cascades, organs and organ systems)."
•"Population size and Haldane's Dilemma for long and short-necked giraffes."
•" The question of similar or identical systems in the long-necked giraffe compared to other known (or as yet unknown) bionic and cybernetic structures and functions in engineering (it is very probable that we can still learn a lot from the giraffe's anatomical and physiological constructions)." But this is just probably nonsense.

Granted that is only one example, but I just wanted to know (and believe me I am in Marketing so in no way do I have the intellectual ability to have a debate with anyone on this subject so you will have to dumb yourselves down for this question) if the Big Bang Theory is not fact, if due to the order of nature and all of the systems cooperating together to create life (everything from solar system to our respiratory system), if you just try not to believe that it took billions of "coincidences" (if you don't believe in intelligent design then I just assume you believe that the universe started off coincidentally as hot then expanded rapidly then cooled created sub atomic particles that reacted when they met and boom, you have the universe) to get to the point we are at right now, and if Einstein (trump care uh oh) also believed in intelligent design does it really not deserve any notoriety in the scientific world? It seems to me (and again I'm on the outside) that the church of old not condoning scientific research is the same thing that the science community of today is doing by not condoning ID research. Point is, in none of our lifetimes will we have the answers, as far as I can understand, science can not prove how it all started, at least enough to dispel religion, so why not let the research into the journal?

FreeBradM -

My comment isn't intended to sound hostile, I'm just very familiar with ID/creationism.

I should note that I am not interested in changing anyone's "culture". I strongly support everyone's right to believe any nonsense they want to believe.

What I am interested in doing is -

1) Discouraging the illegal teaching of creationism as "science" in public schools.

2) Promoting strong science curricula in public schools.

3) Countering misinformation of the public about science.

4) Encouraging the use of consensus science, rather than religious dogma, by government regulatory agencies.

harold said: you cannot tell me when the designer designed

dmundy said: I am just a complete outsider. I work for a news source that just published an article on this topic and I was just wondering about some things. You referred to intelligent design as nonsense and I was just reminded when I read that, how hundreds of thousands of scientists support the theory.

I just wanted to know...if the Big Bang Theory is not fact, if due to the order of nature and all of the systems cooperating together to create life (everything from solar system to our respiratory system), if you just try not to believe that it took billions of "coincidences" (if you don't believe in intelligent design then I just assume you believe that the universe started off coincidentally as hot then expanded rapidly then cooled created sub atomic particles that reacted when they met and boom, you have the universe) to get to the point we are at right now, and if Einstein (trump care uh oh) also believed in intelligent design does it really not deserve any notoriety in the scientific world?

It seems to me (and again I'm on the outside) that the church of old not condoning scientific research is the same thing that the science community of today is doing by not condoning ID research.

Point is, in none of our lifetimes will we have the answers, as far as I can understand, science can not prove how it all started, at least enough to dispel religion, so why not let the research into the journal?

harold said: FreeBradM - My comment isn't intended to sound hostile, I'm just very familiar with ID/creationism. I should note that I am not interested in changing anyone's "culture". I strongly support everyone's right to believe any nonsense they want to believe. What I am interested in doing is - 1) Discouraging the illegal teaching of creationism as "science" in public schools. 2) Promoting strong science curricula in public schools. 3) Countering misinformation of the public about science. 4) Encouraging the use of consensus science, rather than religious dogma, by government regulatory agencies.

"But there may be cultural issues I don't grasp making this approach impossible, for instance that if you give them this they will immadiately want more, starting to bomb Iran and defending abortion etc. If that would be the consequence, then I may agree entirely to your hard line."

I mean prohibiting abortion, not defending, of course.

But I wouldn’t mind if a teacher called the more civilized fraction of ID science too, adding that it is a rather far-fetched and not too well-developed minority view.

That should be that many scientists disagree with me on "one or both" of these issues.

FreeBradM said: Well it sounds hostile, but as I said I may have started the nastiness so that's OK. About 1) I agree, if that means teaching that the standard view is the strongest view at present in terms of evidence and sophistication. But I wouldn't mind if a teacher called the more civilized fraction of ID science too, adding that it is a rather far-fetched and not too well-developed minority view. But there may be cultural issues I don't grasp making this approach impossible, for instance that if you give them this they will immadiately want more, starting to bomb Iran and defending abortion etc. If that would be the consequence, then I may agree entirely to your hard line.

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember? Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ... 2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'. 3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives, is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all. 4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish. Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science. 5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed. But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG ! 6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed." When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science." Now where did I put my shotgun? 7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits! 8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved? Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick. 9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/02/publisher-to-print-id-book/ 10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ... Jorge

Roy -

Thank you, this is getting extremely interesting.

I will bother to note in passing that Jorge seems to feel that Springer doesn't have the right to publish whatever they want and do as many peer reviews of what they publish as they want.

Roy said: Never mind Sanford, how about Jorge Fernandez of "deception by omission" fame? Here's his response to the news, as posted on TheologyWeb and soon-to-be withdrawn:

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember? Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ... 2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'. 3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives, is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all. 4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish. Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science. 5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed. But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG ! 6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed." When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science." Now where did I put my shotgun? 7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits! 8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved? Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick. 9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/02/publisher-to-print-id-book/ 10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ... Jorge

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150162-Hey-Sam-(Ansgar-Seraph) It's no wonder that Springer-Verlag are seeking further opinions when two of the papers were written by an obnoxious YEC with an unsavory reputation and a degree-mill 'doctorate'. Roy

Jorge Fernandez This is outrageous - KGB, anyone? That symposium at Cornell was as scientific an event as you will see anywhere (I was there). This type of censorship is worse than the Middle Ages or the Salem witch burnings. And it's happening in our "enlightened" age. Okay, I've seen it all ... I'm ready to leave the planet. Yesterday 12:50 PM

Nick Matzke said:

Roy said: Never mind Sanford, how about Jorge Fernandez of "deception by omission" fame? Here's his response to the news, as posted on TheologyWeb and soon-to-be withdrawn:

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember? Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ... 2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'. 3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives, is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all. 4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish. Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science. 5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed. But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG ! 6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed." When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science." Now where did I put my shotgun? 7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits! 8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved? Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick. 9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/02/publisher-to-print-id-book/ 10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ... Jorge

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150162-Hey-Sam-(Ansgar-Seraph) It's no wonder that Springer-Verlag are seeking further opinions when two of the papers were written by an obnoxious YEC with an unsavory reputation and a degree-mill 'doctorate'. Roy

Now, that *is* interesting. I don't hang out on UBBs much -- so what's the rundown on this guy? What's his degree (or pseudo-degree or whatever) and what's the "deception by omission" stuff?

fixed typo admission --> omission

dmundy said: I am just a complete outsider. I work for a news source that just published an article on this topic and I was just wondering about some things. You referred to intelligent design as nonsense and I was just reminded when I read that, how hundreds of thousands of scientists support the theory. I was also reminded of German geneticist who critiqued evolutionary accounts of the infamously complex long neck of the giraffe.

Nick Matzke said:

Roy said: Never mind Sanford, how about Jorge Fernandez of "deception by omission" fame? Here's his response to the news, as posted on TheologyWeb and soon-to-be withdrawn:

1. I had promised you that the two papers that I co-authored would soon be published, remember? Well, publication has occurred and release is supposed to be very soon - within days. However ... 2. ... we may be witnessing in real time another episode of 'EXPELLED'. 3. The Proceedings from the symposium, contained in a book titled Biological Information: New Perspectives, is now encountering the usual attempts at censorship practiced by the 'Thought Police' -- you know, the type of censorship that the Evo-Faithful loudly deny happens at all. 4. This was strictly a scientific symposium -- I know, I was there from start to finish. Every paper was scrutinized to be/remain science ... pure science. 5. The publisher is Springer-Verlag. I assure you, the papers were heavily peer-reviewed. But guess what? They now want to do additional peer-review because of "complaints". OMG ! 6. The Evo-Faithful complain that intelligent design isn't science "because it's not peer-reviewed." When it is peer-reviewed, they say, "It shouldn't have been peer-reviewed because it's not science." Now where did I put my shotgun? 7. In passing, do you see why I use the term "dishonest" as often as I do? Do you? Huh? Do you? It fits! 8. Lastly, wanna guess who's already involved? Yup, you guessed it, the NCSE : the 'witch' and her broomstick. 9. More details here : http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/02/publisher-to-print-id-book/ 10. This could turn ugly, very ugly ... stay tuned ... Jorge

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150162-Hey-Sam-(Ansgar-Seraph) It's no wonder that Springer-Verlag are seeking further opinions when two of the papers were written by an obnoxious YEC with an unsavory reputation and a degree-mill 'doctorate'. Roy

Now, that *is* interesting. I don't hang out on UBBs much -- so what's the rundown on this guy? What's his degree (or pseudo-degree or whatever) and what's the "deception by omission" stuff?

sorry for the wrong second link.
it should have been here and here.

For the originals go to TheoWeb here and here

I hate html. The second TheoWeb link should read:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?146559-Symposium-on-Biological-Information-at-Cornell&p=3242152#post3242152

In case you are redirected to the first page of the thread go to post #16 on page 2.

Since when do you have a "scientific" conference and only invite a few speakers from the "sponsoring" institution? WHy wasn't the conference announced ion real journals? Why weren't papers invited form every institution in the country? Why didn't anyone know about the conference? How does not including anything religious in any of the titles make the "conference" "scientific"? Are the graphs above indicative of the "quality" and rigor of the "science"? Have any of these guys actually been to a real conference? Do they know how things work in real science? How many shotguns were there anyway?

(Besides fonts are inanimate systems for printing characters and cannot actually act to send anything to anyone. Nor do I know what a "secure font" is.)

But speaking as Devil's advocate, I would say that for ID, a thing is designed if it required some conscious planning to organize it.

"3. When did the designer do it? At the time when the relevant structure emerged…" Repeating back a question that you won’t answer isn’t answering the question. When was “the time”? What was “the relevant structure”?"

Well, what I tried to explain what that this of course depends entirely on what version of ID theory one adopts. That implies that the answer to this is much more definite and satisfying here than to the foregoing question. For suppose (standard) science said that RNA appeared 4 billion years ago, then an ID theorist (of the sort claiming that RNA was the first biological structure) would answer your "When?" with "4 billion years ago, Sir".

That's why I said that the young earth folks among them cause problems, since they sabotage this strategy for responding to the when question.

"4. How can your opinions be tested against alternate explanations, such as the theory of evolution, or magic design, but by Allah rather than by your choice of designer?" Of course I agree that they assert that “usual evolutionisic explanations don’t work and then claim their design explanation fits better”. I asked how we can TEST this assertion.

OK, I may have read you too literally, as asking how they test their explanation against alternative explanations. To test theory A against theory B is to compare how well A and B explain known relevant facts, satisfy requirements of parsimony etc.

FreeBradM said: To test theory A against theory B is to compare how well A and B explain known relevant facts, satisfy requirements of parsimony etc. And this is the kind of testing they attempt when they attack standard explanations for the origination of various structures as being inadequate. Now, what you had in mind wasn't this, but rather how we can test A further, demanding answers to new, more challenging questions, to see whether A leads to fruitful consequences that generate new knowledge.

I see ID as containing various fractions. These fractions are not necessarily compatible. YEC is hostile to some of the moves I propose for ID. Obviously YES would be much harder to accommodate to other sciences. And obviously the YES people would fiercely attack ID folks that claim that life has existed for billions of years, if it weren't so much more important for them to attack the common enemy.

"The past forty years have been an unusual period, during which continental Western and Central Europe, traditionally a hotbed of dictatorship, absolute monarchy, war, religious violence, superstition, imperialism, colonialism, anti-semitism, political extremism, etc, has become very stable, and gained worldwide recognition for respect of human rights. I hope you can keep it up, and don’t fall back into your habits of the preceding three thousand years or so of recorded history."

A good point. Let's hope for a better future for the whole planet.

Here is one of the “diverse group of scientists” who attended and reported on the event – Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at www.soulcare.org, which is devoted to “Education, Counseling, and ... Animal-Assisted Apologetics.” Here’s his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).

As a high school teacher, I have taken the knowledge I gleaned from the presenters at the BINPS and attempted to "translate" it for the high school level, including a few very simplified graphs. Sadly, but not surprisingly, there are plenty of people – even “professionals”, who have no problem grossly misrepresenting others in order to achieve their desired agenda. http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_article_biological_information_conference.html

Peter Nyikos said: I now turn to the gossipy article by Matzke that began this blog, or whatever the right term is.

Here is one of the “diverse group of scientists” who attended and reported on the event – Sid Galloway BS, M.Div., who I gather is the Director of the Good Shepherd Initiative at www.soulcare.org, which is devoted to “Education, Counseling, and ... Animal-Assisted Apologetics.” Here’s his summary of the meeting (or his talk?).

Neither, it would seem. Below is what Galloway had to say about those graphs in a webpage which you linked and has apparently been altered since you linked it [not from the above paragraph, which had three links sending readers to the home page rather than to anything relevant to the graphs].

As a high school teacher, I have taken the knowledge I gleaned from the presenters at the BINPS and attempted to "translate" it for the high school level, including a few very simplified graphs. Sadly, but not surprisingly, there are plenty of people – even “professionals”, who have no problem grossly misrepresenting others in order to achieve their desired agenda. http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_article_biological_information_conference.html

Where did you find those graphs anyway, Matzke? Of course, those graphs only make sense if one adopts the "God of the Gaps" explanation for the vast majority of biological phenomena for which the embryonic science of ID [of which I represent one rigorously scientific branch]is unable to give a plausible naturalistic explanation. Galloway, who seems to have a very high regard for the YEC Jorge Fernandez, probably doesn't care about making such distinctions.

PN has an obsession with directed panspermia, a subject I rate along with Yeti, Bigfoot, UFO abductions, God of the gaps and all the rest. It is just a vaste of time.

Nick Matzke said:Now, that *is* interesting. I don't hang out on UBBs much -- so what's the rundown on this guy? What's his degree (or pseudo-degree or whatever) and what's the "deception by omission" stuff?

Peter Nyikos said: Of course, those graphs only make sense if one adopts the "God of the Gaps" explanation for the vast majority of biological phenomena for which the embryonic science of ID [of which I represent one rigorously scientific branch]is unable to give a plausible naturalistic explanation. Galloway, who seems to have a very high regard for the YEC Jorge Fernandez, probably doesn't care about making such distinctions.

John said:

Peter Nyikos said: Of course, those graphs only make sense if one adopts the "God of the Gaps" explanation for the vast majority of biological phenomena for which the embryonic science of ID [of which I represent one rigorously scientific branch]is unable to give a plausible naturalistic explanation. Galloway, who seems to have a very high regard for the YEC Jorge Fernandez, probably doesn't care about making such distinctions.

Peter, how many papers have been published by IDiots such as yourself demonstrating that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory and that it does a much better job than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution in accounting for the history and current composition of our planet's biodiversity? THE ANSWER IS NONE.

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to combine all the desirable properties within one single type of organism or to send many different organisms is not completely clear. --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_ Simon and Schuster, 1981

Peter Nyikos said: Crick was describing the theory guess of directed panspermia, which he developed with Leslie Orgel, and which I talked about in my other comments.

Peter Nyikos said: The generally accepted hypothesis is "Mother Earth did it" but if panspermists finding themselves alone in the galaxy are likely to seed millions of suitable planets (which is part of my hypothesis)and the probability of a seeded planet developing a technological life form is, say, one in a hundred thousand, then the probabilities favor any one intelligent species, 13 billion years beyond the birth of our universe, to be the result of panspermia.

Peter Nyikos said:

John said:

Peter Nyikos said: Of course, those graphs only make sense if one adopts the "God of the Gaps" explanation for the vast majority of biological phenomena for which the embryonic science of ID [of which I represent one rigorously scientific branch]is unable to give a plausible naturalistic explanation. Galloway, who seems to have a very high regard for the YEC Jorge Fernandez, probably doesn't care about making such distinctions.

Peter, how many papers have been published by IDiots such as yourself demonstrating that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory and that it does a much better job than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution in accounting for the history and current composition of our planet's biodiversity? THE ANSWER IS NONE.

John, do you have any reason to assume that I do NOT think that it is sheer idiocy on the part of most ID theorists to think "that Intelligent Design ... does a much better job than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution in accounting for the history and current composition of our planet's biodiversity?" THE ANSWER IS YOU HAVE NONE. So, why did you say what you did? Is it because I didn't puke all over creationists from the get-go? Is it because to you, the word--pair "Intelligent Design" is anathema and should NEVER be used to describe what is described with the words "specially designed" in the following passage:

The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to combine all the desirable properties within one single type of organism or to send many different organisms is not completely clear. --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_ Simon and Schuster, 1981

Crick was describing the theory of directed panspermia, which he developed with Leslie Orgel, and which I talked about in my other comments.

Peter Nyikos said: Behe's favorite structures ("molecular machines")include the eubacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic cilium, the protein transport mechanism, the blood clotting mechanism, and a certain cascade in the immune system. I approach these Behe favorites by way of the back door, so to speak. Once my arguments for directed panspermia have been laid out -- and they are mainly mathematical and have nothing to do with believing this or that had to be the product of intelligent design -- then and only then do I turn around and ask, "What things might have been designed by them?" The gram-negative bacterial flagellum looks like a promising candidate, and the next two on the above list may also be [I haven't thought as carefully about them as I have with the first] but the two cascades are not promising at all because they came much later in evolution than the ca. 4 bya seeding of earth that I hypothesize. I think the panspermists are responsible only for the first organisms on earth. The power of locomotion that a flagellum or cilium represents is an obvious asset in environments of which parts are apt to turn hostile, as in the early earth. So that makes them reasonable candidates from a different angle. One way to test the first example is to try and discover what kind of flagellum the most primitive flagellated eubacterium had. The gram-positive bacteria, whose flagellae are homologous to a subset of the gram-negative bacterial flagellae, are generally believed to be derived from the gram-negative ones. A design theorist of my sort would naturally gravitate towards the hypothesis that the most primitive bacteria had the more complicated flagellae; a "Mother Earth did it" devotee would naturally favor the hypothesis that they had the simpler kind. Back when I proposed this test in 1997 or 1998, I was told that the most primitive bacteria were then believed to be what was called "purple bacteria". I'm trying to find out whether that still holds.

John said:

Peter Nyikos said:

"The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to combine all the desirable properties within one single type of organism or to send many different organisms is not completely clear." --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_ Simon and Schuster, 1981

Crick was describing the theory of directed panspermia, which he developed with Leslie Orgel, and which I talked about in my other comments.

Peter, Intelligent Design never was, and never will be, a science,period.

For you to proclaim that you are a member of its "rigorously scientific branch" is either deceitful or delusional (or most likely both).

John said:

Peter Nyikos said: Behe's favorite structures ("molecular machines")include the eubacterial flagellum, the eukaryotic cilium, the protein transport mechanism, the blood clotting mechanism, and a certain cascade in the immune system. I approach these Behe favorites by way of the back door, so to speak. Once my arguments for directed panspermia have been laid out -- and they are mainly mathematical and have nothing to do with believing this or that had to be the product of intelligent design -- then and only then do I turn around and ask, "What things might have been designed by them?" The gram-negative bacterial flagellum looks like a promising candidate, and the next two on the above list may also be [I haven't thought as carefully about them as I have with the first] but the two cascades are not promising at all because they came much later in evolution than the ca. 4 bya seeding of earth that I hypothesize. I think the panspermists are responsible only for the first organisms on earth. The power of locomotion that a flagellum or cilium represents is an obvious asset in environments of which parts are apt to turn hostile, as in the early earth. So that makes them reasonable candidates from a different angle. One way to test the first example is to try and discover what kind of flagellum the most primitive flagellated eubacterium had. The gram-positive bacteria, whose flagellae are homologous to a subset of the gram-negative bacterial flagellae, are generally believed to be derived from the gram-negative ones. A design theorist of my sort would naturally gravitate towards the hypothesis that the most primitive bacteria had the more complicated flagellae; a "Mother Earth did it" devotee would naturally favor the hypothesis that they had the simpler kind. Back when I proposed this test in 1997 or 1998, I was told that the most primitive bacteria were then believed to be what was called "purple bacteria". I'm trying to find out whether that still holds.

All of this is utter rubbish. There are researchers at Yale and Brandeis who have demonstrated that the bacterial flagellum is not the result of some Intelligent Designer(s)

(If they existed, then I would nominate the Klingons as the most likely Intellient Designers.)

, but rather, through Natural Selection. Indeed, the bacterial flagellum - when its "motor" is removed - becomes a most effective "hypodermic needle" capable of delivering toxins.

Peter Nyikos said:

John said:

Peter Nyikos said:

"The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to combine all the desirable properties within one single type of organism or to send many different organisms is not completely clear." --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_ Simon and Schuster, 1981

Crick was describing the theory of directed panspermia, which he developed with Leslie Orgel, and which I talked about in my other comments.

Peter, Intelligent Design never was, and never will be, a science,period.

And you seemingly are not, and perhaps never will be, a scientist; a fortuneteller, maybe, and polemicist, yes, for that is the role you are filling here.

For you to proclaim that you are a member of its "rigorously scientific branch" is either deceitful or delusional (or most likely both).

Do you realize that you are saying that Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and biochemist Leslie Orgel were not doing any rigorous science in their article, Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf nor in the discussions and debates that ensued in later issues of Icarus? Go ahead, crow triumphantly over the fact that Icarus is not a peer-reviewed science journal. Do you claim that neither Stephen Hawking nor John Horner are doing science because, rather than submitting papers for peer review, they publish their hypotheses in "best sellers"?

Dave Lovell said:

Peter Nyikos said: The generally accepted hypothesis is "Mother Earth did it" but if panspermists finding themselves alone in the galaxy are likely to seed millions of suitable planets (which is part of my hypothesis)and the probability of a seeded planet developing a technological life form is, say, one in a hundred thousand, then the probabilities favor any one intelligent species, 13 billion years beyond the birth of our universe, to be the result of panspermia.

How does your hypothesis determine whether we are in a universe where we are the result of panspermia, and one where we are destined to become the ones doing the seeding?

Peter Nyikos said:

, but rather, through Natural Selection. Indeed, the bacterial flagellum - when its "motor" is removed - becomes a most effective "hypodermic needle" capable of delivering toxins.

Interesting. You seem to show no awareness that the general thrust of the prosecution in the Dover case had to do with the more complicated motor than with the simple "hypodermic needle". Are you also unaware of how Behe handled that one?

John said:

Peter Nyikos said: Do you realize that you are saying that Nobel Laureate Francis Crick and biochemist Leslie Orgel were not doing any rigorous science in their article, Icarus 19 (1973) 341-346: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf nor in the discussions and debates that ensued in later issues of Icarus? Go ahead, crow triumphantly over the fact that Icarus is not a peer-reviewed science journal. Do you claim that neither Stephen Hawking nor John Horner are doing science because, rather than submitting papers for peer review, they publish their hypotheses in "best sellers"?

I hate to disappoint you, moron.

Unlike you I was trained in evolutionary biology, edited and reviewed papers that were later published in scientific journals pertaining to evolutionary biology (primarily in paleobiology, which was my specialty)

Peter Nyikos said: Wonderful! You may be just the person I have been looking for in the past year. I am intensely interested in paleobiology (and since the age of 7, in vertebrate paleontology, in which I have done very extensive readings) and I participated extensively in the Usenet newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology (also sci.bio.systematics and sci.bio.evolution) back in 1995 - 2001. When I returned to that newsgroup early last year, I was appalled to see that it was on the verge of extinction. I've tried to bring it back from the brink, but John Harshman and I are the only people so far who are involved in this rescue mission. Would you be willing to join us? [polemics deleted]

Peter Nyikos said: Wonderful! You may be just the person I have been looking for in the past year. I am intensely interested in paleobiology (and since the age of 7, in vertebrate paleontology, in which I have done very extensive readings) and I participated extensively in the Usenet newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology (also sci.bio.systematics and sci.bio.evolution) back in 1995 - 2001. When I returned to that newsgroup early last year, I was appalled to see that it was on the verge of extinction. I've tried to bring it back from the brink, but John Harshman and I are the only people so far who are involved in this rescue mission.

John said:

Peter Nyikos said: Wonderful! You may be just the person I have been looking for in the past year. I am intensely interested in paleobiology (and since the age of 7, in vertebrate paleontology, in which I have done very extensive readings) and I participated extensively in the Usenet newsgroup sci.bio.paleontology (also sci.bio.systematics and sci.bio.evolution) back in 1995 - 2001. When I returned to that newsgroup early last year, I was appalled to see that it was on the verge of extinction. I've tried to bring it back from the brink, but John Harshman and I are the only people so far who are involved in this rescue mission.

I should also note that my former interests in paleobiology tended more toward invertebrates and in modeling taxonomic diversity in the Phanerozoic Eon (which, I might add, John Harshman has expressed skepticism here in the past, even though he had studied with some of the foremost researchers pertaining to this while a doctoral student at Chicago.).

I also think it is odd that you would have any interest at all in paleobiology, especially since Intelligent Design has not demonstrated itself - nor will it ever - as a better alternative than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution in accounting for the current composition, structure and history of biodiversity on Planet Earth.

Peter Nyikos said: You've lost your interest in paleobiology? What a shame! It's been a passion of mine ever since the age of 7, as I told you. I find the range of my interests steadily broadening, with paleobotany added about five years ago and Ediacaran organisms about a year earlier. I've read other things about invertebrate paleontology from time to time, starting at the age of 12 when I got intrigued by the mystery surrounding receptaculites and nidulites. I get the impression the majority opinion now is that these were both calcareous algae, although that opinion is far from firm. Then there were the pleosponges. There was quite a stir created a while back when an Australian paleontologist claimed that the archaeocyathids had been misclassified and they have descendants in the Pacific Ocean today! I don't know what became of that idea.

I also think it is odd that you would have any interest at all in paleobiology, especially since Intelligent Design has not demonstrated itself - nor will it ever - as a better alternative than the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution in accounting for the current composition, structure and history of biodiversity on Planet Earth.

Boy, you really have me pegged wrong! I've been convinced of the Modern Synthesis since early adulthood. More to the point though, my extensive readings in paleontology convinced me even earlier that all earth life is descended from a few unicellular organisms. I also was convinced in the "Mother Earth did it" notion of abiogenesis from the age of 16 to the age of 50. I shared the layman's confidence all that time thanks to extrapolations everywhere in the popular literature from the Urey-Miller experiment and Fox's proteinoids. Also the astronomy textbooks all through that time were very upbeat about abiogenesis when discussing Drake's equation. My interest in ID only goes back to 1996, when I read two books that completely turned my thinking around about abiogenesis [though not, perish the thought, about biological evolution]. Paradoxically, one was Vital Dust by Christian deDuve, Nobel Laureate biochemist. He was firmly convinced that life arises naturally and easily in the cosmos, on any planet where conditions are as good as they were on early earth. But I noticed something very strange about that book. For several chapters he painstakingly took us to the development of something on the lines of an aminoacyl-tRNA. Then, as if it were the most natural thing in the world, he jumped to a description of the protein translation mechanism, with its ribosomes, its mRNA, tRNA, and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. I had never read the details of protein translation before and I saw some very key vulnerabilities in the process which de Duve completely glossed over. That, coupled with the colossal jump, made me highly receptive to the other book, Life Itself, by another Nobel Laureate biochemist, Francis Crick, in which he emphasized that no one knows how likely or unlikely life is to arise. Therefore, he took seriously the possiblility that it was sent to earth (by a technological civilization that arose ca. 4 billion years ago) in the form of prokaryotes. He also considered the possibility that they sent primitive eukaryotes, but wrote that this was less likely because "prokaryotes travel farther." When I heard about Behe's book coming out the following year, I opined something to the effect, "If it doesn't mention the protein translation mechanism, it probably isn't worth buying." I still feel that way, except that after I saw the back-door possibilities of the bacterial flagellum and a few other "molecular machines," I got a bargain-basement copy and do refer to it from time to time.

Peter: Popper was incorrect if he said what you claim about protein translation. Though many proteins are involved in the ribosome, its core is RNA, and if you carefully digest all the protein out, its RNA core will still perform translation, though not as well as with an intact ribosome. There are reasons to suppose that aminoacyl synthetases likewise are later additions that merely improve the fidelity of translation. Once again, we can see pathways by which irreducible complexity can evolve through standard Darwinian mechanisms.

If you want to talk about panspermia, maybe you should head back to talk.origins rather than trying to hijack a thread here.

John said: If you claim to be convinced of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution's explanatory power, then why are you wasting your time with what philosopher Philip Kitcher has described charitably as "dead science", Intelligent Design?

On the other hand, John is what I call a cladophile–someone who will not tolerate anything except clades in any classification system.

John Harshman said: Peter: Popper was incorrect if he said what you claim about protein translation.

Though many proteins are involved in the ribosome, its core is RNA, and if you carefully digest all the protein out, its RNA core will still perform translation, though not as well as with an intact ribosome. There are reasons to suppose that aminoacyl synthetases likewise are later additions that merely improve the fidelity of translation.

If you want to talk about panspermia, maybe you should head back to talk.origins rather than trying to hijack a thread here.

Peter Nyikos said: I did want to make the point here that ID does not necessarily have to have anything to do with creationism. If people here would concede that point, I can bid this thread adieu.

Peter Nyikos said: I did want to make the point here that ID does not necessarily have to have anything to do with creationism. If people here would concede that point, I can bid this thread adieu. [...]

John Harshman said:

On the other hand, John is what I call a cladophile–someone who will not tolerate anything except clades in any classification system.

Or, in other words, I'm a systematist in the 21st Century. Ernst Mayr is deceased. So is Leigh Van Valen. Today it's cladists all the way down, and that's a good thing. But yes, Peter has always seemed sincere in his odd form of ID, which is "the aliens did it, and *they* evolved naturally". Still, Peter, stop hijacking the thread.

Peter Nyikos said: I did want to make the point here that ID does not necessarily have to have anything to do with creationism. If people here would concede that point, I can bid this thread adieu.

John said: is Peter ALWAYS this exasperating?

John Harshman said:

John said: is Peter ALWAYS this exasperating?

Short answer: yes. Then again, I find you almost as exasperating, so you may have a different experience.

John said: It sounds as though you and Peter have a mutual admiration society ongoing over at sci.bio.paleontology. I'll leave you both in each others' company then. As for "exasperating", I will plead the Fifth regarding my attitude with regards to our discussions here at PT.

John Kwok said:

Peter Nyikos said: I did want to make the point here that ID does not necessarily have to have anything to do with creationism. If people here would concede that point, I can bid this thread adieu.

I see no need for me to "concede that point", when eminent philosophers like Philip Kitcher and Robert Pennock and historians like Ronald Numbers, among others, have stated that Inteligent Design IS creationism.

And given that, like other branches of "scientific creationism", Intelligent Design has yet - and will never - produce research demonstrating that it is a viable - and better - alternative to the Modern Synthesis in accounting for the current composition, structure and history of Planet Earth's biodiversity,

it should not be taken seriously by anyone, period, as a "scientific theory" capable of producing research-quality testable hypotheses (The best I have seen has been from Stephen Meyer in his "Signature in the Cell", and his "tests" are rather ludicrous, especially with respect to paleobiology and systematics.).

I think you should bid this thread adieu, effectively immediately.

John Harshman said:

John said: It sounds as though you and Peter have a mutual admiration society ongoing over at sci.bio.paleontology. I'll leave you both in each others' company then. As for "exasperating", I will plead the Fifth regarding my attitude with regards to our discussions here at PT.

Hey, you asked a question and I answered. You don't have to get all huffy. Peter, if you're reading this, welcome to the world of John Kwok.

John Harshman said:

John said: is Peter ALWAYS this exasperating?

Short answer: yes. Then again, I find you almost as exasperating, so you may have a different experience.

John Harshman said:

John said: It sounds as though you and Peter have a mutual admiration society ongoing over at sci.bio.paleontology. I'll leave you both in each others' company then. As for "exasperating", I will plead the Fifth regarding my attitude with regards to our discussions here at PT.

Hey, you asked a question and I answered. You don't have to get all huffy. Peter, if you're reading this, welcome to the world of John Kwok.

Wesley R. Elsberry said:

Peter Nyikos said: I did want to make the point here that ID does not necessarily have to have anything to do with creationism. If people here would concede that point, I can bid this thread adieu. [...]

If you want to propose something completely different and call it "intelligent design",

maybe you can create a personal connotation that isn't counterfactual. But ID as it was originated and used is a term applied to "two-model" arguments and a subset of retooled "creation science" religious antievolution arguments.

If you did have something new, I have no idea why you would want to refer to it by the name of a well-documented deceptive practice.

Unfortunately for the specific case, the "intelligent design" creationists (IDC) have already floated the "God the Designer could be an alien" conjecture, and thus that's not new or different.

Mouthing the same old, moldy religious antievolution ensemble of arguments is not the only way that creationism can be recognized, but so far it is an entirely sufficient method.

Peter Nyikos said: Not according to John Kwok. As far as he is concerned, anyone who advances any hypothesis bearing the label "Intelligent Design" is automatically assumed to be a creationist trying to undermine the Modern Synthesis.

Peter,

You insist on redefining terms to suit your fancy, yet you have no appreciable grounding in the topic (hint: not understanding what a "two-model" argument is when it was a major issue in McLean v. Arkansas). I'm perfectly happy to note that your connotations are connotations, bizarre to boot, and ignore a documented history that you don't care to discover before making your pronouncements. Your penchant for nitpicking pettifoggery is, frankly, not worth that much of my time. Nor do I count your other inquiries as sincere or trying to remediate your ignorance productive.

My ISP chose to drop Usenet services years ago. I have recently had cause to investigate the possibility of switching ISPs only to discover that I have no good alternatives at my residence.

John said:

Peter Nyikos said: Not according to John Kwok. As far as he is concerned, anyone who advances any hypothesis bearing the label "Intelligent Design" is automatically assumed to be a creationist trying to undermine the Modern Synthesis.

I honestly don't see much difference between you and Dishonesty Institute mendacious intellectual pornographers Mikey Behe, Bill Dembski, David Klinghoffer, Casey Luskin, Stephen Meyer, Scott Minnich, Johnny "I Love Reverend Moon" Wells, and the rest of their pathetic cabal of "Fellows and Senior Fellows".

But Intelligent Design IS NOT SCIENCE, PERIOD, no matter how much you wish it to be so.

BTW I'm not committed exclusively to the Modern Synthesis, agreeing with some, like, for example, Niles Eldredge and Massimo Pigliucci, who think we need an Extended Modern Synthesis. But for now The Modern Synthesis is the best scientific theory we have to account for biological evolution;

Intelligent Design doesn't even remotely come close. Indeed, we have much better proof for the reality of Klingon Cosmology than we do for Intelligent Design cretinism.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: Peter, You insist on redefining terms to suit your fancy, yet you have no appreciable grounding in the topic (hint: not understanding what a "two-model" argument is when it was a major issue in McLean v. Arkansas).

I'm perfectly happy to note that your connotations are connotations, bizarre to boot,

and ignore a documented history that you don't care to discover before making your pronouncements.

Your penchant for nitpicking pettifoggery is, frankly, not worth that much of my time. Nor do I count your other inquiries as sincere or trying to remediate your ignorance productive.

My ISP chose to drop Usenet services years ago. I have recently had cause to investigate the possibility of switching ISPs only to discover that I have no good alternatives at my residence.

Peter Nyikos said:

BTW I'm not committed exclusively to the Modern Synthesis, agreeing with some, like, for example, Niles Eldredge and Massimo Pigliucci, who think we need an Extended Modern Synthesis. But for now The Modern Synthesis is the best scientific theory we have to account for biological evolution;

Well, there you have it: you keep harping on biological evolution when my interest is in pre-biological evolution (biochemical evolution, if you will). I take a scientist's attitude towards it too: if anyone comes up with detailed scenarios that make the occurrence of life based on a biochemistry as complicated as ours considerably more than a one-in-a-galaxy occurrence, I would count it as evidence against earth life being a result of directed panspermia. If it turned out to be as likely as Carl Sagan thought it was in Cosmos I'd consider it as falsifying my hypothesis.

Intelligent Design doesn't even remotely come close. Indeed, we have much better proof for the reality of Klingon Cosmology than we do for Intelligent Design cretinism.

I never claimed otherwise, where biological evolution is concerned. That is something I don't think your logic-proof mind has processed yet. By the way, do you realize how limited in scope Judge Jones's actual order was in the last page of his huge Opinion of the Court in the Dover case? Clue: pay special attention to the use of "as an alternative to".

I endorse completely Wesley's commentary directed toward you. Having been with NCSE at the time of the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial, I know that his knowledge of the scientific and legal reasoning behind Judge Jones' decision is sound and beyond reproach (unlike yours). And yes, while I am aware that Jones' ruling only applied to his district, it has been cited since then as unofficial legal precedent in similar cases around the country (Cases which have been won virtually in all instances by those who recognize what is - and what isn't - valid mainstream science; in plain English by those who accept the scientific validity of biological evolution and reject Intelligent Design as religiously-inspired pseduoscientific rubbish (Though I would go further and label Intelligent Design as a sterling example of mendacious intellectual pornography.). If a case similar to Kitzmiller vs. Dover is ever heard before the justices of the United States Supreme Court, I am certain that they would have to accept as well establishe legal precedents, not only their prior rulings (all against "scientific creationism") but also Judge Jones's.

Peter: "Would you like to find me a forum where I can tell you about them?"

You can set up a free blog to spout whatever twaddle you want to whoever feels moved to listen at WordPress.com.

Wesley R. Elsberry said: My ISP chose to drop Usenet services years ago. I have recently had cause to investigate the possibility of switching ISPs only to discover that I have no good alternatives at my residence.

John Harshman said: Hey, why not just let Nyikos and Kwok beat on each other in peace?

Rolf said: PN has an obsession with directed panspermia, a subject I rate along with Yeti, Bigfoot, UFO abductions, God of the gaps and all the rest. It is just a vaste of time.

Peter Nyikos seems determined to hijack this thread. Nick, I was wondering if you can send his comments to the BW please. I think that's a more important locale for his rather pathetic musings regarding the "science" of Intelligent Design cretinism.

John said: Peter Nyikos seems determined to hijack this thread. Nick, I was wondering if you can send his comments to the BW please. I think that's a more important locale for his rather pathetic musings regarding the "science" of Intelligent Design cretinism.

When a particular science subject becomes "off-limits" for such challenge, then it is no longer merely a science debate but has then become a political and ideological conflict between opposing worldview presuppositions. As Dr. Kuhn brilliantly describes in his book, such an interim period of debate sadly often degenerates to ad hominem name-calling especially by supporters of the old paradigm. http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_article_biological_information_conference.html

Peter Nyikos the delusional IDiot barfed:

John said: Peter Nyikos seems determined to hijack this thread. Nick, I was wondering if you can send his comments to the BW please. I think that's a more important locale for his rather pathetic musings regarding the "science" of Intelligent Design cretinism.

How revealing. Unable to refute my comments detailing just how scientific my position is, you resort to advocating censorship. You are a living exemplar of the kind of person Sid Galloway wrote about in the site Nick referenced in his article:

When a particular science subject becomes "off-limits" for such challenge, then it is no longer merely a science debate but has then become a political and ideological conflict between opposing worldview presuppositions. As Dr. Kuhn brilliantly describes in his book, such an interim period of debate sadly often degenerates to ad hominem name-calling especially by supporters of the old paradigm. http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_article_biological_information_conference.html

"merely" does not apply in your case: you give every indication that you have become a political animal, temperamentally unsuited for rational discourse.

John said:

Peter Nyikos the delusional IDiot barfed:

How revealing. Unable to refute my comments detailing just how scientific my position is, you resort to advocating censorship. You are a living exemplar of the kind of person Sid Galloway wrote about in the site Nick referenced in his article: "When a particular science subject becomes `off-limits' for such challenge, then it is no longer merely a science debate but has then become a political and ideological conflict between opposing worldview presuppositions. As Dr. Kuhn brilliantly describes in his book, such an interim period of debate sadly often degenerates to ad hominem name-calling especially by supporters of the old paradigm." http://www.soulcare.org/gsinew_article_biological_information_conference.html "merely" does not apply in your case: you give every indication that you have become a political animal, temperamentally unsuited for rational discourse.

This is a most insightful observation about your own present state of mind: "...you give every indication that you have become a political animal, temperamentally unsuited for rational discourse."

I'm only interested in valid science, Nyikos. Not the absurd ramblings of someone who clearly knows nothing about biology and is incapable of having any kind of rational discourse with anyone here in PT, including John Harshman.