Pete Dunkelberg Archives

IDist Stephen Meyer’s “Signature” ID book has lately inspired this, this, this and this. Now it is Ayala’s turn to play Whack-a-Meyer. Elsewhere Dembski of all people is criticized for not being wrong enough.

Darrel Falk is co-president of the BioLogos Foundation and a biology professor at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego. He offers a calm review of Signature in the Cell by Stephen Meyer, Director and Senior Fellow of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute (Disco). Signature in the Cell seems to be Disco’s main statement of late, but it fails to convince biologist Falk.

Falk begins:

I believe there is a Mind who was before all things and through whom all things are held together (Colossians 1:17): I believe that Mind is the intelligence behind all that exists in the universe. Hence, I believe in intelligent design. Does that by definition then, place me in the Intelligent Design (ID) movement?

They and we are both mammals, but bunnies are in the order Lagomorpha and we aren’t. Clarifying the relationships of the mammalian orders (pdf) will require more data. Unlike birds and lizards bunnies are synapsids. Recall that early amniotes split into synapsids and sauropsids (mammal like amniotes and reptile like amniotes). Clearly we mammals and the sauropsids are all craniates.

I’m posting this quick reminder because today is the day for it, and because some readers may enjoy the well done article on the subject by DarkSyde.

Florida state senator Stephen Wise has introduced SB 2396, amending a law that is mostly about teaching civics. He makes critical analysis of evolution item (a) and moves all the other items down one letter. The old (a) becomes (b) and so forth. Evolution is evidently the only topic requiring critical analysis. Coincidentally “critical analysis” is code for “teach creationism”. It didn’t work in Ohio once the trick was discovered, but hope springs eternal. By another coincidence Senator Wise recently wanted to teach ID, another code word for creationism.

Update below the fold

Opposition to evolution is cultural. It isn’t because people are laying awake at night worrying about gaps in the fossil record.

          Michael Ruse

How does this opposition persist and spread in our culture? A new paper in PLoS Biology documents the fact that our public school biology teachers play a significant role. A national survey of high school biology teachers found that about one sixth of them are young earth creationists. Of the remaining 5 sixths, most are in a large muddled middle. I recall another survey (but not the reference) that defined creationists more broadly and more correctly than just YEC’s and found that about one third of science teachers are creationists.

I think this willful act of deception has corrupted creationism irredeemably.
   - John Derbyshire

Conservative author John Derbyshire, writing in the National Review Online, pulls no punches. His article is ostensibly a review of Expelled, with an approving nod to Expelled Exposed. One of the problems in discussing creationism with ordinary decent people is that creationism has become so bad that one can’t explain how bad it is without sounding extreme. Derbyshire:

These dishonesties do not surprise me. When talking about the creationists to people who don’t follow these controversies closely, I have found that the hardest thing to get across is the shifty, low-cunning aspect of the whole modern creationist enterprise.

…

My own theory is that the creationists have been morally corrupted by the constant effort of pretending not to be what they are. What they are, as is amply documented, is a pressure group for religious teaching in public schools.

Political creationists must pretend not to be creationists. This is in addition to avoiding any real understanding of how nature works, so that they can go on believing in their “critical analysis of Darwinism”. The strain of all this pretending is starting to show very publicly. The excesses of Ben Stein’s Expelled go way beyond your daily quote mine, and will backfire with many people. Is creationism now a loser in national politics?

Continue reading A Blood Libel on Our Civilization at the National Review.

Let’s don’t and say we did. That’s what kids used to say when someone suggested doing something that the others didn’t want to do. And that is the point of special laws or standards that single out evolution for special treatment. Let’s find a way to say we are doing it, but still not require it, or fudge quite a bit.

At first glance the bill, as amended by the Florida House of Representatives yesterday, looks like a strong endorsement of teaching evolution. And state Representative Hays, the bill’s main sponsor in the House, says

Don’t try to read something in there that isn’t already there. It’s direct and to the point. Any good science theory that is a valid theory should be able to withstand a critical analysis.

Source

But it singles out evolution for odd special treatment, so a closer look is in order.

There’s been legal action at last. XVIVO just couldn’t stand by and let their work be stolen and used for vile purpose.

Dear Mr. Craft:

This letter will constitute notice to you, as Chairman of Premise Media Corporation, of the copyright infringement by your corporation, and its subsidiary, Rampant Films, of material produced by XVIVO LLC, in which XVIVO holds a copyright.

It has come to our intention that Premise Media and Rampant Films has produced a film entitled “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” which is scheduled for commercial release and distribution on April 18, 2008.

The story is already up at ERV’s and Henry’s. Regular readers know that this matter has a history. Newby’s can start with links at ERV’s. NCSE has the legal letter in beautiful pdf format.

But I want to pose this question: how many theaters, if any, will show Expelled on 18 Apr 2008? And should you aid your local theaters by explaining the matter?

Anything goes in science class in Florida if the “Evolution Academic Freedom” bill passes. The bill advanced strongly today, passing the Senate Judiciary Committee by 6 to 3, or 7 to 3 by another count. (We still have trouble counting votes.)

The bill’s first provision after its name is:

9 (2) As used in this section, the term “scientific

10 information” means germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed

11 research specific to the topic of chemical and biological

12 evolution as prescribed in Florida’s Science Standards.

Who decides what is germane or peer reviewed? Individual teachers and students are given rights under the bill. This right is not precisely stated but in no way denied either, and they would need that right in order to enjoy the other rights granted under the bill. If everything from germane through peer-reviewed is one conjunction then topics must be both germane and peer reviewed, in at least one person’s opinion. Creationists will insist that anything of interest to them is germane, and they also claim, except when under oath, that specific scientific papers support creationism. They also claim indirect support from numerous other papers via quotation abuse, or quote mining as it is known online. If germane (in someone’s opinion) and peer reviewed (in someone’s opinion) are taken to be separate sufficient conditions then absolutely anything goes. Florida’s fine new science standards will just be “if you want to”.

The Florida legislature is considering an “Academic Freedom Act” originating from Disco. For some background see my earlier post.

The bill has passed its first committee vote with amendments. The amended bill starts as follows:

The Committee on Education Pre-K - 12 (Wise) recommended the following amendment:

2

3

4 Senate Amendment (with title amendment)

5 Delete everything after the enacting clause

6 and insert:

7 Section 1. (1) This section may be cited as the “Evolution

8 Academic Freedom Act.”

9 (2) As used in this section, the term “scientific

10 information” means germane current facts, data, and peer-reviewed

11 research specific to the topic of chemical and biological

12 evolution as prescribed in Florida’s Science Standards.

13 (3) The Legislature finds that current law does not

14 expressly protect the right of teachers to objectively present

15 scientific information relevant to the full range of scientific

16 views regarding chemical and biological evolution.

As Disco is not on trial at the moment, they claim the following “Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)”: Discovery Institute claims peer reviewed support.

And as regular readers know, they quote mine much of the rest of the scientific literature to read it as they wish.

The entire Florida bill is reproduced below the fold. I have a simple question for readers: how pleased (or not) is Disco with the revised bill, and why?

Over at Christianity Today Stephen H. Webb reviews Michael Behe’s new book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.

Biology certainly has a lot to say about the role of luck in the evolution of life, but the question of how much luck evolution needs and how much luck nature provides to get the ball of life rolling has been as much a matter of philosophical and mathematical speculation as empirical observation. Only in the past few decades has the state of genetic research reached the point where an informed judgment about the probabilities presupposed by Darwinism can be made. Michael Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution, should establish the precedent for future debates. Darwinists will appeal Behe’s verdict, no doubt, but for readers with an open mind, it will be hard to overturn.

Last paragraph:

Evolution is such a sensitive topic for the scientific community that Behe will be dismissed as a fringe thinker, but he does not think the edge of evolution is Darwin’s undoing. Behe is a reformer, not a revolutionary. He wants to divide the Darwinian cake into small pieces so that he can be picky about what he accepts. Whether he has gotten to the bottom of Darwinism, he has shown that it lacks explanatory depth. Behe holds out the possibility that the progress of science, more than the claims of theologians, will undermine the dogmas of Darwin.

First comment:

Because evolutionists and anti-evolutionists have so many problems talking past each other, is it too much to ask for a review that facilitates dialogue instead of unhelpful stereotypes?

That is a very good comment. I hope some commenters here can help readers there to see a little more science. And don’t let the trolls get you.

Continue reading Taking Behe at his word at Christianity Today where comments can be left.

By now regular readers of The Panda’s Thumb know that “academic Freedom” bills have been filed in the Florida legislature, and you know that the bills are Disco designed. You have also noticed Disco’s complaint that people get it. The complaint reads like disingenuous gibberish, but why that specific gibberish?

This is just a Christmas linky to show you a little two-step with the latest ID textbook,The Design of Life. Relax and let Miss Smith show you the moves.

In the first half of the 20^th century creationism, at least when it had any scientific pretensions, tended to be of the old earth variety. And many American Christians, even rather fundamental ones, felt no need for science denial at all as Bowler reminds us. Instead, progressivism (“Mankind ever upward and onward”) was the order of the day in popular culture and to some extent in scientific thinking. Evolution was thought, even by some scientists, to include an innate drive toward progress, and this could easily be seen as God’s method.

By mid century progressivism had suffered two major blows. There had been two world wars, the first insane and the second not only that but starkly demonstrating man’s capacity for evil. The idea of inevitable progress seemed ludicrous. At the same time, Fisher’s mathematical basis for what came to be known as the Modern Synthesis in biology removed any hope for innate progress in evolution and replaced it with chance and selection. But for many believers, it just didn’t seem like God would do it that way.

In Florida, we have just finished writing new science standards for all grades of public schools. The standards are intended to be a core of fundamentals that will be taught and tested. I am commenting on an email sent to a number of the standards writers by Fred Cutting of Florida. Cutting has some suggestions for the new Florida School Science Standards, and concludes a longish email with these two proposed additions:

1. Standards requiring students to learn about the anomalies to all theories (standard models) including standard models for the origin and evolution of life;

2. Standards requiring students to learn about the abuses and misuses of science in America’s recent history.

Update: now crossposted to Florida Citizens for Science

The first of these is supposed to accomplish many things:

Stephen Meyer, Discovery Institute cofounder and major IDist, in support of the Designer on this somewhat trying day, offers this amazing discovery: Meyer proves that information of any sort, not just complex specified information, comes from out of this world! Meyer’s impeccable proof is so astonishing in its simplicity that it can be explained to a first grade class! Here it is.

Stephen Meyer, explaining why biological information cannot originate through a materialistic process, said:

One of the things I do in my classes to get this idea across to students is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software the other one is blank. And I ask

“What’s the difference in mass between these two computer disks as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses?”

And of course the answer is zero - none. There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a massless quantity. Now if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation explain its origin? How can any material cause explain its origin. And, this is the real fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. uhm  In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities of science: matter and energy. At the beginning of the 21^st century we now recognize that there is a third fundamental entity, and it’s information. It doesn’t - it’s not reducible to matter, it’s not reducible to energy, but it is still a very important thing that is real, we buy it we sell it, we send it down wires. Now what do we make of the fact that information is present at the very root of all biological function? [picture of DNA] That in biology we have matter we have energy but we also have this third, very important entity, information? The biology of the information age I think poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.

After this storm cloud, there came another, which produced only little roses or wheels with six rounded semicircular teeth … which were quite transparent and quite flat … and formed as perfectly and symmetrically as one could possibly imagine. There followed, after this, a further quantity of such wheels joined two by two by an axle, or rather, since at the beginning these axles were quite thick, one could as well have described them as little crystal columns, decorated at each end with a six-petalled rose a little larger than their base. But after that there fell more delicate ones, and often the roses or stars at their ends were unequal. But then there fell shorter and progressively shorter ones until finally these stars completely joined, and fell as joined stars with twelve points or rays, rather long and perfectly symmetrical, in some all equal, in others alternately unequal. (1)

The beauty, symmetry and diversity of snow crystals have long fascinated scientists. Snow crystals come in endless variety of six-fold symmetric shapes, sometimes thinner than a sheet of paper and up to 3 millimeters across. How can they grow in a three dimensional bath and yet be thin? What natural processes could lead to great diversity of shapes that are complex yet symmetric? What keeps opposite sides of the growing crystal in step even as a unique shape is forming? And with slightly different temperature or humidity produces sensible hexagonal columns instead? Is there any rational explanation for the generation of these crystals out of thin air? Can you formulate a hypothesis that even has a chance?