In a hilarious posting, William Dembski presents most likely an email from a colleague who argues that

I encourage you to take a look at the Panda’s Thumb and follow the entire thread devoted to the optimality of the genetic code. It is simply priceless. Someone styling himself Chunkdz dominates the discussion and by virtue of a very considerable gift for profane abuse, succeeds in doing what I never thought possible, and that is reducing the entire PT crowd to sputtering, dim-witted incoherence. You must link to it.

here is the link

Let’s link to this as well as to the response by us dim-wits.

PS: I wonder if Bill even bothered to look at the threads in question. Yes, they are full of profane abuses while ignoring the science involved. What is even more fascinating is how Bill points to a thread in which ChunkDZ’s profanity has been minimized in order to focus on his ‘arguments’ to show how they lack support and a thread in which ChunkDZ has not participated. Given Bill’s somewhat juvenile pleasures in making a judge pass gas, I am wondering in what other unexplored pleasures he indulges. Funny how so few ID proponents are willing nay able to defend ChunkDZ, other than marvel at his gift of profanity. Needless to say, ID may be scientifically vacuous but it does attracts people with remarkable gifts. Well, at least it’s more entertaining that Denyse O’Leary’s continued whining and DaveScot’s denial of the fact of global warming and the large human component of global warming. Ignorance does love company.

By Bora Zivkovic

First, there was the First NC Science Blogging Conference. Then, there was the Second NC Science Blogging Conference. And yes, we will have the Third one - renamed ScienceOnline’09 to better reflect the scope of the meeting: this time bigger and better than ever.

ScienceOnline’09 will be held Jan. 16-18, 2009 at the Sigma Xi Center in Research Triangle Park, NC.

Please join us for this free three-day event to explore science on the Web. Our goal is to bring together scientists, bloggers, educators, students, journalists, writers, publishers, Web developers and others to discuss, demonstrate and debate online strategies and tools for promoting the public understanding of science.

The conference is organized jointly by BlogTogether, the North Carolina bloggers’ group, and WiSE @ Duke, the Women in Science and Engineering organization at Duke University, with help from Sigma Xi and other sponsors.

The people behind the organization are Anton Zuiker, Bora Zivkovic (aka Coturnix) and Abel Pharmboy, with additional generous help by Brian Russell and Paul Jones.

The conference homepage/wiki is now live! Go and explore!

Registration is free and it is now open - go and Register right now!

See who has already registered.

Help us develop the Program.

Perhaps your organization/company would like to be a sponsor? Or you’d like to volunteer?

Just like last two times, we are preparing the publication of the Science Blogging Anthology and, this time, we’ll try to really have it ready and up for sale at the conference itself. This year’s Guest Editor is Jennifer Rohn and you should really start submitting your entries now.

For news and updates about the conference (and anthology), follow the ScienceOnline09 blog, or the Facebook Event page, or the FriendFeed room or check Bora’s SO’09 category on his blog.

Hope to see many of you in January!

On evolutionnews.org, lawyer Casey Luskin, ‘argues’ that Tiktaalik as an evolutionary icon is poor, in a retrospective confession of ignorance. Let’s see how he reached such a ‘conclusion’.

Casey Luskin Wrote:

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit “Quality” of Evolutionary Icon is “Poor” in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance

How did Luskin reach this ‘conclusion’? Because he read an interview with the lead-researcher who made the following claim:

Boisvert Wrote:

Previous data from another ancient fish called Tiktaalik showed distal radials as well – although the quality of that specimen was poor. And the orientation of the radials did not seem to match the way modern fingers and toes radiate from a joint, parallel to each other.

A logical conclusion would be to accept the observation that the quality of the specimen was ‘poor’ regarding the details of ‘distal radials’, but instead Luskin decided to mine the statement to mean that the quality of Tiktaalik was poor.

Casey Luskin Wrote:

The “quality” of Tiktaalik as a fossil specimen was “poor”? When did we see Darwinists admit this previously? Never. They wouldn’t dare make such admissions until they thought they had something better.

But in fact, the ‘Darwinists’ had already admitted that the fossil specimen for Tiktaalik poorly resolved the distal radials.

Day 2 update at the bottom

October 2, 2008

The hearing on John Freshwater’s termination began today before an external referee. It’s expected that it will go on for 7 or 8 days, split between early October and late October. I’ll post updates on those sessions I can attend. There is very limited seating for spectators and press – just 21 seats – so one has to get there very early to get in. A number of people failed to be admitted on account of space.

In today’s session the morning had some innocuous preliminaries and then some fireworks. In the course of having the Superintendent of Schools (Steve Short) identify documents, the Board of Education’s attorney (David Millstone) submitted a letter from the Does, parents of the boy who was burned, with their names redacted to preserve their anonymity. R. Kelly Hamilton, Mr. Freshwater’s attorney, objected to the redaction, and moved to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was a credible threat if anonymity was breeched. After a 25 minute sidebar and a 2-hour adjournment for a cage match among the half-dozen attorneys involved, the hearing resumed with the Does’ attorney Jessica Philemond agreeing to restoring the redaction and identifying the family. So they’re no longer anonymous.

On direct examination Millstone led Superintendent Short through a narrative of the various events that culminated in the BOE’s resolution to initiate termination proceedings. It was a straightforward recital of a series of problems: the original complaint about burning the boy with a Tesla coil, displays of religious materials in Freshwater’s classroom, Bibles stored in his classroom and allegedly distributed to students, inappropriate behavior in his role as monitor of the Fellowship of Christian Athetes (FCA), using ID creationist materials and handouts in his teaching, and problems with parental permission slips for participation in FCA.

Cross examination and Day 2 below the fold

A paper written by Knight et al in 2000 has created some confusion as to the nature of the genetic code, leading some design proponents to jump to the conclusion that these findings show evidence of ‘design’ when in fact, the findings, in proper context show strong support for an evolutionary thesis of the origin and evolution of the genetic code. Let me explain.

Apropos of practically nothing normally on PT, I really like Dana Hunter’s way with words:

There’s Divorced from Reality, and Then There’s …

…murdering it, cutting it into pieces, stuffing the remains into suitcases, and dumping them in remote areas while telling concerned inquirers that “Reality and I just felt like we needed a little break from each other. I think she went to Barbados. Don’t worry - I’m sure she’ll be back soon!”

Something to amuse us as the ship of state sinks into an economic swamp.

In It’s Darwin-Malthus Day! Allen MacNeill describes the relevance of today’s date

However, what many people don’t know is that today is also a very significant anniversary of a crucial development in Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. On this day in 1838, Darwin

“…happened to read for amusement ‘Malthus on Population,’ and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck [him] that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation of new species.” [Darwin’s Autobiography, page 83]

Happy MacNeill-Darwin-Malthus day

In a future posting PT intends to analyze the accusations raised by some against Darwin regarding Alfred Russell Wallace.

In a classic ‘bait and switch’, Casey Luskin, ‘argues’ that the “classic “Junk DNA” icon of neo-Darwinism needs updating” because a Yale University news release shows how differences in the regulatory elements between humans and chimps explain the human thumb and foot development.

Simon Mundy, in The Creation of Confusion, published in “The Journal”, on 19 September 2008 explains why Intelligent Design, due to its lack of scientific content, is dangerous to our educational system.

To label as “information” the murky doctrine of creationism (now repackaged as “intelligent design”) is ludicrous. The intelligent design movement represents a desperate attempt to accommodate within American schools the religious fundamentalism that is undiminished–even resurgent–in many parts of the country. Clearly, the Christian creation story should be taught in religious education classes, alongside those of the other major faiths. But there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that the Garden of Eden fable should be given no more credence than the Hindu belief that the world rests on the back of an elephant.

As Mundy explains the cost to education is not small:

by Dr. Alex “Myrmecos” Wild, http://myrmecos.wordpress.com/

This article originally appeared on Myrmecos Blog —PvM

Martialis heureka Rabeling & Verhaagh 2008 drawing by the inimitable Barrett Klein for PNAS

Most scientific discoveries these days emerge through carefully planned and controlled research programs. Every now and again, though, something unexpected just pops up in a distant tropical jungle. Martialis heureka is a fantastic discovery of that old-fashioned kind. This little ant simply walked up to myrmecologist Christian Rabeling in the Brazilian Amazon. It is not only a new species, but an entirely different sort of ant than anything known before.

Sometimes one wonders what version of reality intelligent design creationists live in. The most recent stimulus for that question is a post by Bill Dembski on Uncommon Descent. The post pitches an apologetics conferences to be held at Hickory Baptist Church in North Carolina. Dembski tells us the speakers will include such intellectual luminaries as James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Dinesh D’Souza, Lee Strobel, and, of course, Dembski.

In the post Dembski claims that

It’s nice to be in such distinguished company as indicated in this press release. I’ll certainly make my usual ID arguments. But I’ll also be pointing out that our opponents, the materialists and their cronies, are now battling principally for political rather than intellectual control. Indeed, the materialists have lost the intellectual battle.

Well, for openers, if that’s what Dembski takes to be “distinguished company” then he’s welcome to them.

More interesting, though, is Dembski’s list of how he thinks “materialists have lost the intellectual battle.” He provides a list of areas in which he thinks that’s occurred. Every one of them is a non sequitur:

**Remember how computers were going to become more intelligent than us and that we would be luck if they deigned to keep us as pets?

**Remember how humans were the third chimpanzee, only to find that some dogs and birds are smarter than chimps at various tasks?

**Remember how it was only a matter of time before the Miller-Urey experiment could be extended to explain the origin of life? (For the sheer hopelessness of OOL research, see my forthcoming book with Jonathan Wells, due out next month – How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist (Or Not).)

The list of vapid materialist promises that show no sign of ever being fulfilled keeps growing and growing. But losing the intellectual battle no longer matters to materialists.

Notice anything? No evolution. No irreducible complexity. No mousetraps, CSI, SC, or Explanatory Filters. Why? Well, look below at Nick Matzke’s posts on the immune system and on the bacterial flagellum for two examples. The evolutionary origin of the poster child of ID and cover illustration for Dembski’s No Free Lunch and his blog, the bacterial flagellum, is closer to a full explanation in purely materialistic terms now than it was just 5 years ago. ID creationism lost the “intellectual battle” 150 years ago; it’s been fighting a rear-guard action every since, defending a smaller and smaller territory.

The ultimate self-parodying irony, though, is in the last two sentences of the post:

We’ve made a good case. What we need now are good legal and political strategies.

This from a Fellow of the Disco ‘Tute, whose sole and only tactics for 10 years have been political. I frankly cannot understand how a man with two (count ‘em, two!) Ph.D.s can be so unreflective, so unaware of self, so utterly blind to the reality of his own movement. It truly passeth all understanding.

Edited 9/22 to correct immune system link.

According to a recent article in the Chicago Tribune, 235 US rabbis have signed a Rabbi Letter in support of teaching evolution since last July. The Rabbi Letter was written by David Oler, a Reform rabbi. The letter urges school boards to teach the theory of evolution and notes that those who disbelieve in it are free to teach their perspective elsewhere. The letter goes on to observe that not everyone considers the Bible as their main source of “inspiration” and further argues that the Bible is in any case open to interpretation. It concludes with the assertion that the job of the schools is to teach science and not religion.

It is hard to tell by looking casually at the list of signatories, but I estimate (speculate?) that most of the signatories are Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis (if a synagogue is named Temple Something, it is a Reform synagogue; if a rabbi has a feminine first name, she is probably a Reform or Reconstructionist rabbi). Three Conservative and Orthodox rabbis interviewed for the article stated that they had no quarrel with the theory of evolution, but it looks as though only one of them has signed the letter. One of the Conservative rabbis argued in favor of teaching alternate viewpoints, whether religious or not.

Mark Pallen, author of the Rough Guide to Evolution and expert on Type III Secretion Systems (and producer of the famed Darwin in Dub), has a new blog. He just put up two posts about the third UK Type III Secretion meeting:

Dispatches from the cutting edge of flagellar biology, part 1

Dispatches from the cutting edge of flagellar biology, part 2

Over on the opposingviews.com website, Casey Luskin of the DI tries to rebut the Kitzmiller decision by re-fighting Behe’s spectacular implosion on the issue of the evolution of the vertebrate immune system. To review, in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, Behe claimed that:

“As scientists we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustruation.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 139)

“We can look high or we can look low, in books or in journals, but the result is the same. The scientific literature has no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system.” (Darwin’s Black Box, p. 138)

As the debate over “irreducible complexity” developed in the next decade, the most detailed arguments would go basically like this:

There is a certain sequence that is common to flare-ups involving religious antievolution advocacy. First, there is some starting event, where people raise some form of antievolution as appropriate to insert into a science curriculum in some manner. Second, there is some notice of this. Third, other parties bring those involved up to speed on the state of religious antievolution. Fourth, the initially enthusiastic advocates of religious antievolution desist or are overruled.

Note that I said common. Most of the cases of religious antievolution intersecting with public K-12 education resolve fairly shortly. If they do follow this common pathway, one usually has no more notice of it than that initially given to the problem. It is when a case goes pathological that it may become well-known, as in the cyclical antievolution of the Kansas state school board, the long-term antievolution advocacy of the Tangipahoa Parish school board, or the spectacular self-destruction of the Dover Area School District. Even intermediate cases demonstrate how readily our attention passes on to extreme cases, as shown by the flirtation the Darby, Montana school board had with “intelligent design” creationism a few years back. Darby was set to provide that first lawsuit over “intelligent design” creationism that it seemed the Discovery Institute was spoiling for, but the community had its elections for the school board before a policy was implemented, and the voters elected people who were not amenable to the IDC program.

In North Carolina, the Brunswick County School Board recently demonstrated steps 1 through 3 of the common sequence of religious antievolution advocacy. A speaker before a school board meeting suggested that creationism should be taught in the public school science classes. The members of the school board showed a certain initial enthusiasm for the suggestion. A reporter filed an article laying out how those events happened, plus the useful information that all the school board members favored including creationism in the science curriculum, and that even their legal counsel initially thought that they might do so legally if creationism supplemented but did not displace evolutionary science there. Shortly thereafter, another article reported on the response to those events at the state level, where it was noted that various legal precedents said that the course of action contemplated by the Brunswick County School Board was plainly unconstitutional.

What we don’t know yet is whether the Brunswick County School Board case will follow the common sequence and give up the idea of explicit inclusion of religious antievolution in the public schools, or whether this case will progress in a pathological way toward giving certain religious doctrines privilege by government authority.

I go into some of the possible outcomes at the Austringer.

On EvolutionNews, Casey Luskin posts that:

Casey Luskin Wrote:

Late last night I posted my final rebuttals to the NCSE on OpposingViews.com. This makes 12 total rebuttals for the pro-ID side and zero for the anti-ID side (though Americans United did post a sur-rebuttal tellingly titled “You Lost the Case – Get Over It”).

I responded: Over 375 comments, mostly showing the vacuity of ID, the NCSE need not respond. Casey’s description of the NCSE’s position is as usual full of empty accusations and yet fail to address the simple fact that:

ID is scientifically vacuous.

As a final blow to the Discovery Institute’s attempts to get Intelligent Design into the Catholic ‘door’, the church announced an evolution congress which failed to invited creationists, and intelligent design

The Congress is titled “Biological Evolution: Facts and Theories. A Critical Appraisal 150 years after ‘The Origin of Species’” and is scheduled for March 3-7, 2009 in Rome. The organizers are the Pontifical Council for Culture, Rome’s Pontifical Gregorian University and the University of Notre Dame as one of a series of events marking the 150^th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Origin of Species.”

The reason for the rejection?

He said arguments “that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite” supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

It seems to me that the Catholic church has come to understand that intelligent design fails to contribute either to science or to theology in a manner fruitful to be discussed.

I can’t wait to read Denyse O’Leary’s comments on these ‘shocking’ developments.

Could some friendly (and polite) Panda Thumbers, go over to Does Intelligent Design have merit at Opposing Views? The Discovery Institute is in need of some better qualified ID defenders and I am certain that PT’ers can do a better job than what has been presented so far. And I do not even count the ‘Hovind was framed’ arguments or the Pascal wager fallacy or the ‘Eonic effect’.

To be honest, I feel a tiny bit sorry for the Discovery Institute and ID proponents who have tried so hard to present an argument but, faced with the facts, could not really respond. For instance, Behe attempted some rebuttals and was pwned by Nick Matzke. Could someone help Behe formulate a response as he seems to be lost for arguments and has decided to ignore Nick’s scathing comments.

Casey Luskin’s best performance was in wishing me a good weekend of rest, and Jay Richards showed why theologists should be careful when addressing real science when discussing the scientifically vacuous topic of Intelligent Design.

I am having a lovely time, but perhaps a few could go over and vote on the issue? The sad news is that you need to sign up. But the rewards of seeing the ID proponents expose the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design…

Priceless

I think sometimes reporters and news organizations don’t realize that alarmist reporting, while it gets viewers and comment, can have real negative impacts. Here is a recent example. Last week the BBC put up a story, “Call for creationism in science” which suggested that Michael Reiss, the director of education for the Royal Society in the UK, actually supported putting creationism in science classes. Now, if you read the story carefully you would realize that he wasn’t saying that at all – his remarks are pretty much standard teachers-should-be-ready-to-address-this-if-it-comes up stuff, which I believe is the considered position of the NAS, NCSE, Brian Alters and all other serious people who work to improve evolution education and block creationist attempts to subvert it.

But, the headline and some incensed remarks from another professor (who was probably just called up and asked by the reporter, “Hey, this guy supports putting creationism in science classes, what do you think?”) were enough to create a brouhaha.

Now, according to this story today, “‘Creationism’ biologist quits job” What moron writes these headlines!?! (it’s usually not the reporter) Reiss is a biologist and education expert, he was advocating a mainstream (and correct) position, and he loses a position because of it?

I guess this isn’t the hugest deal in the world, the position was probably volunteer/add-on to his main job at the Institution of Education (which he is returning to). But still, nothing was gained and a fair bit was lost from this. As a result of the BBC’s alarmist reporting, some people think the Royal Society supports creationism (which is ludicrous); others think that scientists and the Royal Society are so intolerant so as to want to impose a ban on any discussion of creationism, even a teacher explaining the mainstream scientific view on the issue in response to a student question; Michael Reiss is at the very least feeling alienated from a portion of the scientific community, after being bashed for just doing his job and trying to help them out; and the creationists are crowing. Not a good show.

My 2 cents: as with everything, you’ve got to be skeptical. As we like to say, if a creationist says the sky is blue, go outside and check. But similarly, if a news story headline confirms your worst fears, don’t just believe it, read the actual story and see if the headline was warranted or just incendiary and attention-grabbing.

TVO’s Big Ideas podcast this week features a talk by Richard Lewontin on “The Coevolution of Animals And Their Environments.” A very good presentation (although a couple years old). You can download it by right-clicking here.

AC Grayling has reviewed Fuller’s latest book “Dissent over Descent” and does not hold back any punches.

Grayling Wrote:

For at the end of these nearly 300 pages of wasted forest he tells us what science needs in order to justify its continuation (oh dear, poor science, eh?) and what Intelligent Design, a theory he defended before a US Federal Court in the 2005 Dover Trial, needs to “realise its full potential in the public debate” - that is: how a theory trying to bend the facts to prove its antecedent conviction that Fred (or any arbitrary and itself unexplained conscious agency) designed and created the world and all in it, can attain its full potential in the public debate. This, note, from a professor at a proper British university. Well: if this is not proof of the efficacy of Jesuit educational methods, nothing is.

Somewhat foolishly, Fuller decided to ‘respond’ and Grayling delivered the technical KO

Some may remember Fuller as the ‘witness’ for the defense in the Kitzmiller v Dover trial where his testimony ended up serving mostly the plaintiffs’ cause. Not satisfied with driving a nail in the coffin of ID, Fuller decided to publish a book with his musings.