Comment #2371

Posted by charlie wagner on May 18, 2004 09:00 AM (e) (s)

Science, Vol 304, Issue 5673, 981 , 14 May 2004

Recombination of Human Mitochondrial DNA


Summary from “Science Now: Mary Beckman,May 14, 2004


  “Mitochondrial Eve,” the hypothetical mother of all modern humans who lived about 150,000 years ago, might be lying about her age. A key assumption in determining how long ago she lived—that molecules of mitochondrial DNA do not swap segments with one another—is false, researchers now say. Their findings call into question a multitude of findings in evolution, early human migration, and even the relations between languages.
  Researchers have long counted on the stability of DNA in mitochondria—cells’ energy-producing factories—to measure the time between events in the distant past. Unlike the DNA in chromosomes, which are a mix of maternal and paternal genes, mitochondrial DNA is inherited directly from mom. Moreover, mitochondrial DNA molecules were not thought to swap sequences of DNA with one another. (Chromosomes, in contrast, routinely do this, creating novel assortments of genes in each new generation.)

The only changes to mitochondrial DNA, therefore, seemed to be spontaneous mutations. And because mutations pile up at a predictable rate, the number of mitochondrial DNA differences between, say, a modern human and an ancestor can be used to calculate how long ago the two groups diverged. Or so scientists thought.

Several years ago, however, researchers made an unusual discovery: a man who had inherited some mitochondrial DNA from his father, as well as his mother. In the current study, Konstantin Khrapko of Harvard Medical School in Boston and colleagues took advantage of the rare glitch to test the assumption that mitochondrial DNA doesn’t recombine. The research team members sequenced the man’s mitochondrial DNA and compared it to some from his parents. They found stretches of paternal DNA mixed in with stretches of maternal DNA.

Additional experiments showed that this recombination happened when enzymes that copy mitochondrial DNA stopped copying mom’s DNA, jumped to dad’s DNA, and began copying from the same site—and vice versa—the team reports in the 14 May issue of Science.

“The data are quite convincing,” says molecular biologist R. Sanders Williams of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “The implications are that this is going on all the time in our cells.” Mitochondrial DNA’s history “is clearly not as clean as people had thought. Or people had wished,” says molecular biologist Eric Shron of Columbia University in New York City. As yet, it’s not known how recombination changes mitochondrial DNA, says Shron, so it’s too early to say whether the molecular clock has been running fast or slow.

Comment #2372

Posted by Andrew on May 18, 2004 09:24 AM (e) (s)

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the laughably misleading press release put out by DI?

Comment #2373

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 18, 2004 09:45 AM (e) (s)

But, has anyone else noticed?  The news media are not carrying the press releases from Discovery Institute.  They’re getting zero mileage from their publicity dollar.

Comment #2378

Posted by charlie wagner on May 18, 2004 10:41 AM (e) (s)

Andrew wrote:

And what, exactly, does this have to do with the laughably misleading press release put out by DI?

  Absolutely nothing. But since I haven’t been invited to be a contributor, this is the only way for me to communicate my information.
  I’ve decided that it’s better to simply stick to the science, so there will be no comment or interpretation.

Comment #2379

Posted by PZ Myers on May 18, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)

Well, Charlie, have you considered starting your own weblog? You’ve got a site. The software is free (look for WordPress or pMachine, for instance). You can blather away. I’d probably even link to you now and then, if for no other reason than to criticize.

Comment #2383

Posted by AAB on May 18, 2004 12:41 PM (e) (s)

But this supports the scientists’ position all along.  Scientists don’t deny that they subject evolutionary theories to experimental scrutiny.  This news item is an evidence that evolutionary theories are not believed dogmatically, as the anti-evolutionaries claim, but they are subject to scientific inquiry by scientists themselves.

Comment #2406

Posted by Ian Menzies on May 18, 2004 04:35 PM (e) (s)

News Flash!  Scientists potentialy revise their position based on new data!  In a related story, bears are said to poop in the woods.

IIRC only rarely do children inherit their father’s mitochondria and when they do it often leads to health problems which would seem to limit the effect this would have on the Eve estimation.

Comment #2409

Posted by Navy Davy on May 18, 2004 05:18 PM (e) (s)

Do y’all mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why all the hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd?

On the one hand, I’ve read Dawkins and Gould (good books, informative, some problems, some doubts, Dawkins is a bit coarse, though)

On the other hand, I’ve read Dembski and Behe (good books, informative, some problems, some doubts, perhaps a few flaws, perhaps a lack of falsifiability).

But, what’s the big deal?  Maybe, the ID is wrong. So what? It’s not the first time a theory is tested and fails.

I guess I just don’t see the need for all the teeth-gnashing.

Comment #2416

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 18, 2004 06:51 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy, Behe& Dembski’s books are not informative.  They put up a false front of having something to say, and use impressive sounding words to fool the layman.  They are disinformation, and part of a massive disinformation campaign.  You can read _Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design_ by Forrest & Gross
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195157427/…

for extensive documentation, and of course ask briefer questions here.

Comment #2417

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 18, 2004 06:57 PM (e) (s)

Whether ID is true or not would not be an issue if advocates of ID were scientists attempting to distribute their work through scientific channels. That is not the case. Instead, the advocates of ID are first and foremost members of the Christian religious right, and they are not seeking to convince the scientific community of the merits of their work - in fact, they’re doing an end-run around that entire process and instead trying to get their ideas taught in public school classrooms before they have gained any scientific acceptance. ID is not a scientific movement, it is a political movement attempting to undermine the quality of science education in American public schools.

Comment #2420

Posted by charlie wagner on May 18, 2004 08:15 PM (e) (s)

Adam wrote:

the advocates of ID are first and foremost members of the Christian religious right,

I agree completely. The notion of intelligent design has been hijacked by those with a religious agenda to promote. Almost all proponents of ID do in fact have a religious agenda and they must be stopped from disseminating their ideology in public schools. The trick is to separate legitimate scientific investigation of intelligent design from religious creationism. As it stands now, most scientists are afraid to even talk about the subject for fear of being misquoted or having their own words used as religious propaganda. This has had a chilling effect on legitimate science that may take decades to repair. Ideology has no place in any public school science classroom and it must be stopped wherever it occurs. But one must also recognize that there have also been zealots on the evolutionist side who want to teach mechanisms of evolution that have no empirical support.
  The answer is simple and clear. Religious creationism must be eliminated from school curriculums and darwinian evolution must be taught not as fact, but in it’s historical context. There is enough factual science, from anatomy to zoology to fill any school’s scientific curriculum with non-controversial, factual science. Any teaching of darwinian evolution or creationism or “the controversy” is nothing more than a waste of time that could be better spent on real science.

Comment #2421

Posted by Sad Eyed Lady on May 18, 2004 08:19 PM (e) (s)

But one must also recognize that there have also been zealots on the evolutionist side who want to teach mechanisms of evolution that have no empirical support.

Name one such “mechanism of evolution” Charlie for which “no empirical support” exists.

Comment #2423

Posted by Jim Foley on May 18, 2004 09:01 PM (e) (s)

I’d like to know exactly what this benchmark the DI is quoting says, and whether the ellipses hide any significant information. And what was the intent behind the benchmark? I suspect that it was to understand examples such as the replacement of Newtonian by Einsteinian theories, rather than to encourage ID incursions into the biology curriculum.

Comment #2424

Posted by PZ Myers on May 18, 2004 09:09 PM (e) (s)

Here’s what’s covered by those ellipses:

Students will be able to explain how scientific innovations and new evidence can challenge accepted theories and models, including cell theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, plate tectonic theory, germ theory of disease, Big Bang theory.

Comment #2425

Posted by FL on May 19, 2004 01:24 AM (e) (s)

Interesting and intelligent comments and questions, Navy Davy.  And your willingness to read authors on ~both~ sides of this issue, speaks well of you.

Do y’all mind if I ask a stupid question?

Why all the hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd?

Oh, it’s not a stupid question at all, Navy.  Nor are you necessarily alone in asking it.

I think evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin may have answered your question several years ago.
Please consider the following:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

And there you have it, Navy.

Now that’s not to say that evolutionists aren’t committed to science, mind you.  But…

…But the “hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd” that you’ve correctly noticed, well, that ~ain’t~ science. 
 
Instead, such hostility appears to derive from a prior philosophical or quasi-religious commitment—the religion being that of materialism. 

Since the ID hypothesis potentially would allow something contrary than the philosophy of materialism to get what Lewontin called “a foot in the door”, ID and its proponents become the enemy. 

ID (and its proponents) thus become the enemy that for some folks must be opposed at all costs in the public policy arena, whether or not ID at least qualifies conceptually as a ~scientific~ hypothesis, whether or not the ID hypothesis is ultimately confirmed or disconfirmed via the scientific method, whether or not their criticisms of current textbook Darwinist claims do in fact carry real scientific merit.

Such hostility is clearly NOT science, needless to say.  But there it is, all the same. 

At any rate, Lewontin offers you some honest and blunt insights, Navy.  Something to think about as you read various posts on this blog.

—————————————

Reference:
Richard Lewontin, “Billions and billions of demons”, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31.
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/Lewontin1.htm…

—————————————
FL

Comment #2426

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 19, 2004 03:18 AM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

Instead, such hostility appears to derive from a prior philosophical or quasi-religious commitment-the religion being that of materialism.

False.  “Methodological Naturalism,” sometimes referred to as “materialism,” is an a posteriori philosophical commitment of science.  The reason why scientists restrict their explanations and examinations to the natural world is that they found out centuries ago that entertaining supernatural causes was fruitless.  You cannot evaluate the supernatural because by definition it avoids experimental scrutiny.  They tried it and it didn’t work; that makes it a posteriori. 

The “hostility” towards “intelligent design” is not based in religion; it is based on the fact that the scientific community does not like pseudo-science and crackpottery messing with education.  How would you expect a WWII historian to react to a highly organized and politically connected institute of holocaust deniers trying to corrupt history education?

If the “intelligent design” movement has scientific merit, they need to do the science.  They need to skip the church lecture circuit, stop playing political games, ditch the lawyers and clergy, stop issuing bogus popular opinion polls, and cease writing popular books.  They need to

1. educate themselves on modern biology,

2. develop a rigorous research program,

3. execute that research program,

4. publish the findings in mainstream scientific journals, and

5. accept the criticisms of scientists more skilled than they are.

Then they will get the respect of the scientific community.

Comment #2433

Posted by charlie wagner on May 19, 2004 06:49 AM (e) (s)

Sad Eyed Lady wrote:

Name one such “mechanism of evolution” Charlie for which “no empirical support” exists.

An’ here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.

Comment #2434

Posted by zak822 on May 19, 2004 07:48 AM (e) (s)

Oops.  I misread the directions on the poll and voted the opposite of what I believe.  The arguements against evolution are unsound and should not be taught.

ID is simply another attempt to teach a particular religion in the public schools.  If they want to do that, they should include, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist and the various Native American creation stories.  And maybe Mithra (which the Christian church absorbed a lot of) and Zoroastrian.

Comment #2447

Posted by Navy Davy on May 19, 2004 10:13 AM (e) (s)

Interesting comments, boys. A few observations.

Pete Dunkelberg says that Behe’s book was “not informative.” Au contraire. He is a biochemist. He knows the intricacies of DNA and immune system exceedingly well. He may NOT be correct with his thesis. (Immune system too complex to have randomly evolved). But, his book was certainly informative.

My man, FL. We need more scientists like you (Sadly, I ain’t one — Just a humble attorney, specializing in cancer cases.) Good references and comments, I’ll check them out.

One ironic problem: Someome says, “gene mutation.” I don’t hear “engine of biological evolution.” I hear, “metastatic tumor!”

I guess I’m a confused layman — I believe in God, and I believe in evolution, but I ain’t sure where the lines of demarcation lay.

Anyway, y’all gotta nice blog, here. Much obliged.

Comment #2448

Posted by Steve Reuland on May 19, 2004 10:30 AM (e) (s)

PZ, the first link in your post is broken.

Comment #2466

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on May 19, 2004 06:48 PM (e) (s)

Fixed.

Comment #2467

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 19, 2004 07:47 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy says:

Pete Dunkelberg says that Behe’s book was “not informative.” Au contraire. He is a biochemist. He knows the intricacies of DNA and immune system exceedingly well. He may NOT be correct with his thesis. (Immune system too complex to have randomly evolved). But, his book was certainly informative.

Navy, I think you make my point.  Behe was well versed in DNA at one time, when he was doing research  on DNA sequences.  He seems to have nearly quit research to spread the gospel of ‘intelligent design’ in recent years.  But that is a minor point here.  He wrote about various protein systems, not DNA.  He is not an expert on those topics.  If he gave that impression, that’s disinformation.  He did not show expert knowledge of the immune system, did not say what experts say, and did say things about the immune system that experts contradict.

If he led you to believe that the immune system could not have evolved for whatever (scientific) reason, that’s disinformation.  He was similarly disinformative about other protein systems. 

If he led you to think that there is some level of complexity (however defined) that identifies things  as not natural, that’s disinformation.  If he led you to believe that his ‘irreducible complexity’ has something to do with evolution, that’s disinformation. 

Although he is only a chemist, it was irresponsible of him to publish a book on biology without learning much more about it first.

I understand that he has many followers who take his word for things, but how can Behe himself believe in his book?  Is he possesed by Morton’s Demon?

Navy Davy:

One ironic problem: Someome says, “gene mutation.” I don’t hear “engine of biological evolution.” I hear, “metastatic tumor!”

Bad news: You are a mutant, many times over.

Pete

Comment #2487

Posted by Navy Davy on May 20, 2004 09:38 AM (e) (s)

Pete,

If he led you to believe that the immune system could not have evolved for whatever (scientific) reason, that’s disinformation.  He was similarly disinformative about other protein systems.

I have formed no such belief. I think people form conclusions about X,Y & Z far too hastily. I said Behe’s book was informative — not that I agreed with his thesis. (BTW, Dawkins’s book “The Selfish Gene”  was quite informative, too.)

If he led you to think that there is some level of complexity (however defined) that identifies things  as not natural, that’s disinformation.  If he led you to believe that his ‘irreducible complexity’ has something to do with evolution, that’s disinformation.

Right, Paley’s error. We do not necessarily infer design from complexity. Fully agree. But see above — no such belief formed.

As someone who has absolutely no stake, financial, professional, emotional or otherwise, in the debate between Evolution v. ID, may I say something that seems basic?

Theories aren’t “bad.” Theories are either testable or not. If not testable, then “go home” because it ain’t a valid theory. If testable, then the theory is either proven true or proven false. Period.

High octane clashes between differing political theories? Not surprising.

High octane clashes between differing religious theories? Not surprising.

High octane clashes between scientific theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

Instead of demonizing Behe or Dembski, I would much rather have them clearly articulate their theories, devise suitable tests for assessing their theories, and then just test them — without all the teeth-gnashing.

And, if ID is not testable or proven false, I would lose not a wink of sleep.

Cheers.

Comment #2489

Posted by Smokey on May 20, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)

Navy Davy,

Theories aren’t “bad.” Theories are either testable or not. If not testable, then “go home” because it ain’t a valid theory. If testable, then the theory is either proven true or proven false. Period.

Not really.  Theories can never really be “proven” true.  Thus the religious right’s insistence that evolution is only a “theory,” not “fact.”  Scientists generally judge the worth of a theory by how fruitful it is.  Does it make testable predictions, does it lead to other avenues of investigation, does it explain previously unexplainable phenomena, etc…  ID fails in every respect.  Some would claim that it explains the diversity and origin of life, but a) this is not “unexplained,” evolutionary theory adequately explains everything which ID purports to; and 2) the explanation of ID simply substitutes one unexplained phenomenon (the designer) for another.

High octane clashes between differing political theories? Not surprising.
High octane clashes between differing religious theories? Not surprising.
High octane clashes between scientific theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head.  The problem here is in the intersection of politics, religion, and science.  This is not a clash of scientific theories, as ID has failed to articulate a theory in any meaningful sense.  No theory, no research program, no data, no science.  Just a lot of armchair speculation.  What we are left with is politics and religion. 

Instead of demonizing Behe or Dembski, I would much rather have them clearly articulate their theories, devise suitable tests for assessing their theories, and then just test them — without all the teeth-gnashing.

So would we.  The teeth-gnashing has little to do with the theories of ID per se, but rather with the inability and/or unwillingness of its proponents to do the science required to justify their claims.  By attempting to mandate that ID be taught on an equal footing with Darwinian evolution, they do a disservice to biology students, as well as to the scientists out there who actually do the hard work of research.  Can you blame scientists for being upset by this?

Comment #2490

Posted by Chishu Ryu on May 20, 2004 11:09 AM (e) (s)

Navy Dave:

High octane clashes between scientific theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

In this case, that is certainly the case.  ID is not a scientific theory.  It is a (essentially evangelical Christian) political tool dressed up as a scientific theory.  Read this (you might want to have a bucket handy):
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html

Instead of demonizing Behe or Dembski, I would much rather have them clearly articulate their theories, devise suitable tests for assessing their theories, and then just test them

Most of us here would love to see that but I don’t think any of us are holding our breath.  Unfortunately, Behe and Dembski have had quite a bit of time to do precisely these things, and have received a lot of suggestions from scientists as to how their arguments might be improved such that they are actually testable.  But the bottom line is that ID just isn’t going anywhere.  It’s an argument from ignorance cloaked in bad math and bad logic.  Or it was so cloaked until the contributors to this blog, among others, ripped it off to reveal the naked propoganda underneath.

I think the comments which you perceive as “demonization” are really just scientists expressing their incredible frustration with people like Behe and Dembski who insist on propogating their useless and fundamentally flawed algorithms and theories, and mischaracterizing the research of thousands upon thousands of scientists, in the face of patient and sincere criticism from nearly every working scientist.  Instead of going back to the drawing board and trying again like honest scientists, Dembski and Behe and their followers would like to believe that there is some sort of conspiracy to “suppress” their “findings.”  The great irony, of course, is the existence of the document I linked to above, which shows that it is the ID “theorists” who have a decidedly unscientific agenda, and not the community of scientists whose work Dembski and Behe mock.

Comment #2523

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 21, 2004 12:30 PM (e) (s)

Now that’s not to say that evolutionists aren’t committed to science, mind you.  But?

But the “hostility against the Intelligent Design crowd” that you’ve correctly noticed, well, that ~ain’t~ science. 
 
Instead, such hostility appears to derive from a prior philosophical or quasi-religious commitment?the religion being that of materialism.

In the first place, FL, what makes you so sure that ID threatens materialism? It was my understanding, based on statements made by several prominent ID advocates, that the “intelligent designer” need not be God. I do not see any scientific need for an intelligent designer, but if there was one, why couldn’t it be, say, extraterrestrial genetic engineers (as groups like the Raelians believe), rather than a supernatural deity? We could have an ID-based explanation for life that was still thoroughly materialistic. What I think, and feel free to disagree with me about this, is that you’ve inadvertently given away the game here: ID is, after all, nothing but the old Judeo-Christian creationism dressed up in some new jargon. The “Intelligent Designer” is and has always been just Yahweh with a new forwarding address. What do you think?

As for that Lewontin quote, it’s easy to see why creationists (oops - ID advocates) love it so much. But if you strip away the hyperbole, what he’s saying is actually quite reasonable, and doesn’t have the sinister spin so many creationists would give it. What he’s saying, in essence, is that there is nothing that compels us to accept a materialistic view of the world. We could go back to believing that mental illness and disability is caused by demon possession and can be cured by fasting and prayer. We could go back to believing that anointing with holy oil, and not injections of antibiotics, will cure disease. But that is not science. Science is precisely the method of attempting to understand the world through methodological naturalism: devising tests, drawing conclusions from those tests, accepting or discarding hypotheses based on what the facts say. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that evidence means something, that malicious undetectable entities aren’t altering it to deceive us the moment we turn our heads (as some creationists believe, in the form of the Omphalos hypothesis). Methodological naturalism is the assumption that events have causes that can be understood by humans. Methodological naturalism is the assumption that the past can be used to understand the future. Science, simply defined, is applied methodological naturalism.

Could we throw this out? Could we begin again to believe that every event is a direct, unique, one-time act of God? Could we chalk up anything we don’t understand to divine intervention? Sure we could. But then we wouldn’t be doing science anymore, and what’s more, we’d essentially have to give up all hope of really understanding anything, since God’s intervention is unpredictable, incomprehensible, and may not be detectable. That’s the point Lewontin is making, and it has nothing to do with how scientists are evil atheists; many plainly are not. Nothing about science requires you to believe that God does not exist, but it does require you to believe that he’s not changing all the rules whenever you’re not looking. (In short, the good Lord may be subtle, but he is not malicious.) Otherwise, you have to abandon all hope of gaining knowledge about the world. However, this is a concession that ID advocates don’t seem to want to make. They do hold out hope that God may intervene in the history of life in unexplainable ways, at unpredictable times, for unknowable reasons. Well, if that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine with me. But then don’t call it science, and don’t demand it be taught in public school classrooms. By all means, teach your children about religion, but do it at home or at church, on your own time. Don’t demand that the government help you out (and incidentally indoctrinate many other children whose parents may not believe the same as you), and please don’t make the mistake of bringing 150+ years of scientific progress (and the benefits humanity accrues as a result) to a halt just because some people feel there are things human beings were not meant to know.

Oh, and BTW, this is for Navy Davy:

One ironic problem: Someome says, “gene mutation.” I don’t hear “engine of biological evolution.” I hear, “metastatic tumor!”

It’s true that most mutations you hear about are deleterious, since medical scientists obviously preferentially study those. But that doesn’t mean good ones don’t exist. May I offer up some examples that may help you reorganize your thinking?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.h…

A community in Italy has a mutant form of a blood protein that makes them, for all intents and purposes, immune to heart disease.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=uefomdovf615e%40corp.su…

A New England family has a mutation in a bone-building protein that makes their bones twice as dense as normal humans’, and far stronger. The mutation was discovered when a member of this family was involved in a serious car accident which he walked away from with no fractures.

Comment #2529

Posted by shiva on May 21, 2004 02:06 PM (e) (s)

I do not know where to post this. Best thought it would fit here.

http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/22/stories/2004052201691000.htm…

There’s an interesting article in “The Hindu” by Meera Nanda calling for a rejection of any attempts to rationalise Hindu beliefs through the principles of modern sciences. It is a good agenda for freeing science from any need to follow the contours of faith, even if it is not a very accurate of what has happened.

I do not entirely agree with the author (for what i think are errors of interpretation) but generally believe this is where science needs to be headed.

Science and scientists should be allowed to work without any regard for the religious sensibilities whatsoever. If a scientist is teaching me something that goes against my religious beliefs - tough luck - grin and bear it. But that is not equal to propogating the “faith of materialism” or the “a Godless creed” or any such hooey. I wish scientists wouldn’t pussyfoot around trying to be nice saying “MN is not equal to PN’. My desired mid-point in rolling back the boundary of faith, is an acceptance that it is an unverified-capable of being harmless-belief. Only PN can achieve that and scientists must be doing more of it.

Comment #2548

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 21, 2004 10:01 PM (e) (s)

Davy,

I appreciate your comments.  Perhaps I was a bit to sharp in my remarks.  I see that you take a quite reasonable position, assuming that you don’t know some crucial facts.  Since you disclose under the other topic (Peer Reviewed Research) that you are a lawyer, I can put it in those terms: you seem to think that the jury is out on whether ID has any scientific merit.  Flash! The jury is in — way in. 

Let’s start with
if ID is not testable or proven false, I would lose not a wink of sleep.

Ironically, you have already read the one testable claim of ID (in the narrow sense of ID): the claim that IC (irreducible complexity) can’t come from evolution, or, to cover the weasel that IDists use when this is said, that the evolution of IC is so improbable that for all practical purposes it can’t evolve.
This claim is directly false, and is supported only by rhetoric.  Behe’s ‘parts’ — proteins — evolve, and biological ‘functions’ evolve, and the result is that codependent parts are to be expected, exactly contrary to what Behe claims.  [By the way, several people have said that IDC makes no testable predictions.  Perhaps this is said in oversight, or perhaps they are making a distinction between a prediction and a claim.]

High octane clashes between  scientific  theories? This surprises me. It usually means that something other than scientific inquiry as been introduced into the mix.

Bingo!  Except that there are not two scientific theories here - only one.  The ‘intelligent design’ slogan is used by the DI (discovery institute) to push creationism in public school science classes.  They stir up controversy over evolution and bring political pressure on school boards to trash the subject.  After getting much public mileage with the slogan, they say to school boards “Gee, we wouldn’t want you to teach ‘intelligent design’.  We just insist that you must teach ‘the controversy’ (the public, not scientific controversy, which we IDists have stirred up hee hee);  by this we mean teach the ‘scientific evidence against science’.  Since you don’t know what that is, one of our Senior Fellows has it all written up  for you.”  They take advantage of the fact that most people don’t know that anti science propaganda has always been a large part of creationism to deny that their program is creationism.  And of course they do not give previous creationist authors credit; they give the impression that they just discovered it all.  And their version, if swallowed hole, would tend to make people hostile to science.

And their reason for all this?  Despite what they say  they fervently believe that trashing science gets you to their dopey kind of theology, know as God of the gaps.  It might not really get you there, but they expect that it will.  It worked for them.  In short, high school science classes can be used to make the next generation hostile to science and convert them to bad theology.  Recall that you can read this for documentation.

Now do you begin to see why people who have looked behind the rhetoric are not pleased? 

So when you propose in the other discussion:

My proposed solution:
1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;

you apparently don’t know that the intelligent design advocates themselves don’t even want schools to teach ID - that’s just a stalking horse.  If they said “teach ID” they would have to say what, exactly, it is.  Knowing how scientifically vacuous ID is, they don’t dare put themselves on that spot.  Instead it is ‘bait and switch’; they want public schools to teach bogus antiscience propaganda - classic creationism. 

You apparently don’t know that like any vibrant scientific theory, evolutionary biology makes many testable predictions, and the testing has been done vigorously for over a century.

By the way (1) when talking about science, the ID theologian Dembski does not belong in the conversation.  To paraphrase Robin Williams, he may be the most extreme case of an overeducated white man with no concept of science on record.
By the way (2) you set a lot of store by Adam Marczyk’s suggestion:

So, let’s throw it back to the ID advocates: what specific tests would confirm or falsify intelligent design? As soon as they answer this question, we can begin.

Adam knows what he is talking about.  He knows that the IDologists have been asked that question for years and have no answer.  But I have to bring to your attention another bit of reality: If there were any way to scientifically test ID, scientists wouldn’t wait for IDologists to do it or explain how; they’d be all over it like white on rice. 

By the way (3) here is how actual science gets into the school curriculum: first, do some science.  Then get it published in the real scientific literature.  Then it gets into graduate seminars, then, if it holds up it gets into graduate level text books, then into undergraduate texts, and if it still holds up it may get into school texts if it is grade-appropriate.  The creationists, including IDC’s (intelligent design creationists) want to ‘be there without getting there’ as the coach said about the boy who wanted to make the team but never made practice.  They want to substitute mere rhetoric for the real thing.

Davy, is this beginning to sink in?  To recap, the scientific jury on ID is in, and ID is guilty of scientific vacuity
and theological intent as charged. 

Pete

Comment #2557

Posted by Tricia from Ohio on May 22, 2004 08:01 AM (e) (s)

As a mother in an ID’d state, I must say I am very angry that people do not realize the danger imposed by ID proponents:namely putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes. If we want to teach religion as science, we may as well say Thor causes lightning, and leave it at that. I will be one of those parents filing a suit against the Ohio Board of education for violating church/state lines… I am not a scientist, just a simple cashier. This is MY children’s future, their ability to get a college education, that these religious persons are trying to destroy. Science is the backbone of modern American society… it gave us the world we have today. The anti-intellectual bent of today’s society is so profound, our president barely speaks English. Until knowledge is put back as the goal of education, rather than indoctrination, we will always be having this argument. Let’s save the brainwashing for where it belongs, in the home.

Comment #2589

Posted by Bob Maurus on May 22, 2004 07:01 PM (e) (s)

Hey Charlie,
What was the point of that little ditty way back on 19 May at 06:49? It sure wasn’t an answer to Sadeyed Lady’s question.

Comment #2594

Posted by FL on May 22, 2004 07:58 PM (e) (s)

In the first place, FL, what makes you so sure that ID threatens materialism?

Well, I think Lewontin’s statements make things clear enough. 

You try to soft-pedal his statements by claiming he’s employing “hyperbole”, but I see no actual evidence (in terms of specific words or phrases) within either his quotation nor within his entire “Billions” article from whence the quotation came, that he meant anything other than what he plainly, literally said in this instance.

Anything that points to origins of Earth life and/or its biodiversity OTHER THAN materialist causes, is disallowed in his view, because of what he, (not ‘me’, but ‘he’) plainly declared was a ~prior~ commitment to the philosophy (not science, but philosophy) of materialism. 

There seems to be no way to damage-control or soft-pedal Lewontin’s specific statements.  Therefore since an Intelligent Designer ~~could possibly be~~ a supernatural agent, a “Divine Foot” (the ID hypothesis neither specifies nor rules out such an option, as your own paragraph clearly suggested), then it should be easy enough to infer that ID poses a threat to materialism. 

Something else:  You state that an ID-based explanation for life could be “thoroughly materialistic” or even “Raelian”, but then you say “ID is, after all, ~nothing but~ the old Judeo-Christian creationism dressed up in some new jargon”. 
You’re not trying to have it both ways, are you?  If your first claim is true, the second is not necessarily true.  If your second claim is true, then ID obviously could pose a threat to materialism as per Lewontin’s statement, because of the general public perception of God as the claimed Creator/Designer of humanity.

You also said,

They (ID advocates)do hold out hope that God may intervene in the history of life in unexplainable ways, at unpredictable times, for unknowable reasons. Well, if that’s what you want to believe, that’s fine with me. But then don’t call it science, and don’t demand it be taught in public school classrooms.

You’ll have to show me, Adam, where ID advocates are claiming that the above stated beliefs are “science”, and also please show me where they are demanding that such beliefs as you stated, be taught in public school classrooms. 

Here is the ID hypothesis, btw:

1.  Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.
2.  Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3.  Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

(William Dembski, “Intelligent Design”, c1999 Intervarsity Press, p. 247.).

Now you may disagree with said hypothesis, Adam, in fact that is to be expected.  But I’d appreciate it if you would specifically show me how this 3-point ID hypothesis constitutes “religion”.

Oh yeah, let me extend a similar invitation to Tricia from Ohio, who said:

As a mother in an ID’d state, I must say I am very angry that people do not realize the danger imposed by ID proponents:namely putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes.

Would you please show me, Tricia, how ID advocates are putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes?

(Oh, and btw, merely offering quotes from Dembski’s personal faith or personal theological views won’t be sufficient.  We don’t say, for example, that teaching evolution in public school is necessarily equivalent to teaching atheism in public school, merely because evolutionists R. Dawkins and S. Weinberg openly posit evolution as justification for their personal atheism.)

FL

Comment #2595

Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 22, 2004 08:03 PM (e) (s)

What makes ID ‘religion’ is both the motivation, the failure of ID as a scientifically relevant hypothesis and the continued efforts to get ID into school curricula, often under the disguise of scientific disagreement.

The Wedge and its goals are quite well documented. That ID perse does not have to be religious may be arguably true but the efforts to insulate itself from its creator(s) also has made it meaningless.

ID’s attempts to divorce its design and designer are to be expected but its failure as a scientific endeavor combined with its stated goals and recent activities indicate that for all practical purposes it IS religious. It surely is NOT scientific.

Comment #2596

Posted by FL on May 22, 2004 09:13 PM (e) (s)

According to Pete,

If they said “teach ID” they would have to say what, exactly, it is.

Which they already ‘exactly’ have done, of course.  To repeat:

1.  Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.
2.  Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3.  Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

(William Dembski, “Intelligent Design”, c1999 Intervarsity Press, p. 247).

On another issue, Adam suggested:

So, let’s throw it back to the ID advocates: what specific tests would confirm or falsify intelligent design? As soon as they answer this question, we can begin.

May I offer the following from philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer and educational psychologist Mark Hartwig as a starting point?
I think it’s relevant especially to the issue of ID as an explanatory scientific hypothesis for the origin of life:

The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable.  In particular, the concept of intelligent design
predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents.

Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information.  All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information.

(“A Note to Teachers”, in “Of Pandas and People”, Kenyon and Davis, 2d ed, pg. 160.)

FL

Comment #2598

Posted by FL on May 22, 2004 10:22 PM (e) (s)

Pim van Meurs said,

What makes ID ‘religion’ is both the motivation,
the failure of ID as a scientifically relevant hypothesis
and the continued efforts to get ID into school curricula, often under the disguise of scientific disagreement.

Incorrect.  Let’s look at each one there.

First, influential evolutionist philosopher Michael Ruse specifically stated at the 1981 McClean vs Arkansas creationism trial, that the motivation of those proposing a particular hypothesis has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis is scientific, even if, as in the case of the young earth creationists, their personal motivation is specifically religious in nature.

If you want to show that ID is “religion” instead of “science”, you’ll have to offer something OTHER THAN the personal motivations or religious beliefs of the ID advocates.  Or else you must show specifically ~why~ evolutionist Michael Ruse is wrong.

Second, in the specific arena of origin-of-life, intelligent design has NOT been shown to have been a “failure as a scientifically relevant hypothesis” vis-a-vis competing hypotheses already considered scientifically relevant enough to publish in college level evolution texts.

In fact, given Orgel and Crick’s particular “alien spacecraft” panspermia hypothesis (which one pro-evolution poster even  labeled as an “ID hypothesis” and which is considered “scientifically relevant” enough to appear without controversy in a college-level evolutionary biology textbook even though not confirmed by subsequent scientific research), a reasonable person would conclude that ID (specifically the 3-point hypothesis I quoted) remains at least a relevant ~scientific~ hypothesis in the origin of life arena (all the more so in light of Meyer/Hartwig’s proposed test for falsifiability).

Adding to this, btw, would be Ratzsch’s significant conclusion about design theories, even supernatural design theories:

“…There is no compelling conceptual basis for any blanket prohibition on exploring applications or implications of the idea of supernatural design within the scientific context.  Some design theories may be inappropriate in some instances, but that is perfectly consistent with others being legitimate.” (Nature, Design, and Science, pg149).

Further, for those who would interpret design theories like ID as a “God of the gaps” argument and try to eliminate it as “religion” that way, Ratzsch warns:
“And gap objections seem mistaken on all counts—-conceptual, logical, empirical, historical.” (ibid, pg149).

Third, even if a school board is directly asked to permit teaching of the 3 point ID hypothesis quoted earlier, that HARDLY shows, in and of itself, that ID is “religion.” 

Sure, such attempts may irritate evolutionists to no end, but neither evolution nor ID is demonstrated to be a “religion” merely by proponents of either side making their arguments/proposals, either pro/con, in front of a state or local board.  Nor can such merely be assumed arbitrarily, nor because one may privately believe that citing textbook problems constitutes a “disguised” approach.

(To digress for a second, evolutionists should never have waited for non-evolutionists to blow the whistle on less-than-accurate pro-evolution biology textbooks.  But, too late now!  Oh well!)

Okay, that covers the three issues you mentioned there.  In none of the three cases, has the ID hypothesis been shown to be a “religion.”

FL

Comment #2614

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 23, 2004 10:34 AM (e) (s)

You try to soft-pedal his statements by claiming he?s employing ?hyperbole?, but I see no actual evidence (in terms of specific words or phrases) within either his quotation nor within his entire ?Billions? article from whence the quotation came, that he meant anything other than what he plainly, literally said in this instance.

Phrases such as “the patent absurdity of some of its constructs” lead me to conclude that Lewontin was employing hyperbole. I doubt he was really saying that science’s findings are patently absurd.

Anything that points to origins of Earth life and/or its biodiversity OTHER THAN materialist causes, is disallowed in his view, because of what he, (not ?me?, but ?he?) plainly declared was a ~prior~ commitment to the philosophy (not science, but philosophy) of materialism.

Yes, that’s correct. As I said, science is applied methodological naturalism. If you see something you don’t understand and attribute it to a unique, one-time miracle of God, that’s your option. But then you’re not doing science.

The problem you seem to be having is that you’re confusing methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. The former is the view that events we study have causes we can understand - i.e., that the universe works according to knowable natural laws. The latter is the view that there is nothing else beyond those causes and natural laws (atheism, in other words). Doing science requires you to adopt the former philosophy; it does not require you to adopt the latter philosophy. You can believe that science works, that the universe runs according to the regularities of natural law, and that evolution happens, and still believe in a God who runs the show. Prominent evolutionary scientists have held exactly this belief (Asa Gray and Theodosius Dobzhansky come to mind).

There seems to be no way to damage-control or soft-pedal Lewontin?s specific statements.  Therefore since an Intelligent Designer ~~could possibly be~~ a supernatural agent, a ?Divine Foot? (the ID hypothesis neither specifies nor rules out such an option, as your own paragraph clearly suggested), then it should be easy enough to infer that ID poses a threat to materialism.

This argument is extremely weak. Evolution could also possibly be guided by a supernatural agent: the theory of evolution neither specifies nor rules out such an option. Can we infer from that that evolution poses a threat to materialism? Obviously not. The only reason ID would threaten materialism would be if it requires supernatural intervention. You seem to be saying that it does not, so why do you think it threatens scientific naturalism? Do you know something the rest of us don’t?

Something else:  You state that an ID-based explanation for life could be ?thoroughly materialistic? or even ?Raelian?, but then you say ?ID is, after all, ~nothing but~ the old Judeo-Christian creationism dressed up in some new jargon?. 
You?re not trying to have it both ways, are you?  If your first claim is true, the second is not necessarily true.  If your second claim is true, then ID obviously could pose a threat to materialism as per Lewontin?s statement, because of the general public perception of God as the claimed Creator/Designer of humanity.

My argument is as follows: Though prominent advocates of intelligent design have claimed publicly that their hypothesis does not require supernaturalism (and though tiny fringe groups like the Raelians may have taken that at face value), that does not change the fact that the true motivations of IDers are not scientific, but religious. Intelligent design was deliberately proposed by right-wing Christian groups as a way to insinuate their religious beliefs into public schools (see my quotes below from the “Wedge” document).

You also said,

They (ID advocates)do hold out hope that God may intervene in the history of life in unexplainable ways, at unpredictable times, for unknowable reasons. Well, if that?s what you want to believe, that?s fine with me. But then don?t call it science, and don?t demand it be taught in public school classrooms.

You?ll have to show me, Adam, where ID advocates are claiming that the above stated beliefs are ?science?

Before I show that, do you first agree with me that this is in fact what ID advocates believe?

and also please show me where they are demanding that such beliefs as you stated, be taught in public school classrooms.

http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html…
“Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.”
“We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.”
and under the section “Goals”:
“To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.”
“Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)Darwinism.”

Granted, most ID advocates are not yet campaigning for ID to be taught explicitly in public schools; instead they are only demanding that the “weaknesses” of evolution be taught. However, as this document shows, their ultimate goal is to spur the repudiation of “Darwinism” and to “integrate” ID, which is “consonant with Christian and theistic convictions” and which teaches “that nature and human beings are created by God”, into public school classrooms.

Now you may disagree with said hypothesis, Adam, in fact that is to be expected.  But I?d appreciate it if you would specifically show me how this 3-point ID hypothesis constitutes ?religion?.

Let me reply to that with another example: In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that laws requiring “equal time” for both evolution and creationism were unconstitutional, the advocates of creationism argued that what they really wanted to see taught was “origin through abrupt appearance in complex form”, and claimed that that viewpoint constituted a legitimate scientific theory. The Court rejected this claim. Why? Because when it comes to law, intent matters. The creationist groups plainly worked to get this law passed for the purpose of promoting their own sectarian religious beliefs in public school classrooms; just because they didn’t explicitly use the word “God” in their actual lesson plans does not change that. Creationism, the court rightly held, is religion and not science. The situation here is analogous: “intelligent causation” is the same as “abrupt appearance in complex form” in that respect. Neither of those phrases, if read in isolation, implies a supernatural deity.

At this point you might ask whether I believe that the Supreme Court defines what constitutes science. The answer is that no, I do not; I bring this point up to show that a disinterested group of observers can conclude and has concluded in the past that a doctrine that does not explicitly mention God can still be religious in nature and purpose. And I hold that the same is true of intelligent design. It is the Judeo-Christian god with a mask on to try to hide him from constitutional scrutiny.

Would you please show me, Tricia, how ID advocates are putting the fundamentalist Christian Bible in the center of science classes?

(Oh, and btw, merely offering quotes from Dembski?s personal faith or personal theological views won?t be sufficient.  We don?t say, for example, that teaching evolution in public school is necessarily equivalent to teaching atheism in public school, merely because evolutionists R. Dawkins and S. Weinberg openly posit evolution as justification for their personal atheism.)

It seems to me that you recognize the counterargument that is going to be presented here and are trying to forestall it: Dembski - and not just Dembski, but Behe, Wells, Johnson, practically all the leading lights of the ID movement - have in times past expressed their religious convictions and, often, their belief that ID is a way to advance those convictions. Well, if that doesn’t show you that ID is an expressly religious movement, I don’t know what would. The key difference here is that evolution is accepted by scientists of all faiths and of none, while ID, insofar as I am aware, is advocated and defended only by conservative Christians (and the Raelians - but somehow I doubt you’ll want to hang the entire case for ID’s constitutionality on the fact that the Raelians are okay with it too).

Comment #2616

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 23, 2004 10:40 AM (e) (s)

An addendum with two other minor points:

May I offer the following from philosopher of science Stephen C. Meyer and educational psychologist Mark Hartwig as a starting point? I think it?s relevant especially to the issue of ID as an explanatory scientific hypothesis for the origin of life:

“The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable.  In particular, the concept of intelligent design predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents.

Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information.  All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information.”

Before this challenge can be answered, you must define your key terms. How do Kenyon and Davis define “information”? How do we measure it? How do we determine if new information has arisen?

To digress for a second, evolutionists should never have waited for non-evolutionists to blow the whistle on less-than-accurate pro-evolution biology textbooks.  But, too late now!  Oh well!

There is nothing to blow the whistle about. Wells’ claims about pervasive inaccuracies in evolution textbooks are falsehoods; the only example where he has any kind of point is Haeckel’s drawings, and those were exposed multiple times as incorrect by advocates of evolution long before Wells ever published Icons. All the other “icons” he advances are in fact correct and scientifically relevant.

Comment #2627

Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 23, 2004 01:33 PM (e) (s)

FL: First, influential evolutionist philosopher Michael Ruse specifically stated at the 1981 McClean vs Arkansas creationism trial, that the motivation of those proposing a particular hypothesis has nothing to do with whether a hypothesis is scientific

And if you have read my response it would be obvious that I am not saying that motivation is a sufficient reason to reject something as scientific. What I am saying is that religious motivation may help understand why people are still promoting ID as an (alternative) scientific explanation when ID has failed miserably as a science.

FL: If you want to show that ID is “religion” instead of “science”, you’ll have to offer something OTHER THAN the personal motivations or religious beliefs of the ID advocates.  Or else you must show specifically ~why~ evolutionist Michael Ruse is wrong.

Which is why I offered the fact that ID is scientifically irrelevant, meaningless and has been shown to be based on fallacious assumptions and arguments.

FL: Second, in the specific arena of origin-of-life, intelligent design has NOT been shown to have been a “failure as a scientifically relevant hypothesis” vis-a-vis competing hypotheses already considered scientifically relevant enough to publish in college level evolution texts.

Since ID is not about scientific competing hypotheses this statement seems self evident. But since ID fails to provide for relevant competing hypotheses it should be rejected as a scientific argument.

There is just no (3 point) ID hypothesis that is scientifically relevant.

FL:  digress for a second, evolutionists should never have waited for non-evolutionists to blow the whistle on less-than-accurate pro-evolution biology textbooks.  But, too late now!  Oh well!)

Your claims that 1) non-evolutionists blew the whistle 2) pro-evolution text books are less than accurate 3) evolutionists did not point out these problems would require some supporting evidence. Wells’ book ‘Icons’ is just poor science. Haeckel was pointed out by Richardson and others much earlier than Wells. The peppered moth is a myth created by IDers who seem to not understand what was and was not done.

FL: Okay, that covers the three issues you mentioned there.  In none of the three cases, has the ID hypothesis been shown to be a “religion.”

Motivation is clearly exposed as religious, insistance on teaching ID as an alternative is clearly religious. Combine this with ID’s failure to be scientifically relevant and one may understand why despite it’s failures to be scientifically relevant ID is still being promoted.

Comment #2641

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 23, 2004 07:05 PM (e) (s)

FL may mean to show that intelligent design creationism (IDC) is scientific, but he has done the opposite.

According to Pete,

  [quote] If they said “teach ID” they would have to say what, exactly, it is.

According to FL,

Which they already ‘exactly’ have done, of course.  To repeat:

1.  Specified complexity is well-defined and empirically detectable.
2.  Undirected natural causes are incapable of explaining specified complexity.
3.  Intelligent causation best explains specified complexity.

(William Dembski, “Intelligent Design”, c1999 Intervarsity Press, p. 247).

OK, I need one more word: They would have to explain what scientific ID is. 

For that purpose, FL is off to a bad start when he says “Specified complexity is well-defined ….”
It isn’t.  “Specified complexity” (SC) is a term invented by Dembski.  (He also calls it “complex specified information” (CSI)).  First he says it means one thing, then another, contradictory thing, then another then another … it takes pages just to introduce all the different things he says it means.  See Elsberry and Shallit   for the details.

In practice, SC is a combination of two things: a “specification” and pseudoimprobability.  A specification, in practice, amounts to describing a natural thing with words that make it sound like something a person might create.  For example the specification of the bacterial flagellum is “outboard motor”.  I am not making this up.  Now for the pseudo, or creationist, improbability: this means getting a fantastic lower bound for the probability of something and claiming that this lower bound is “the” probability of that thing.  The usual way to get this extreme lower bound is usually to view the  thing is question as one of all possible combinations of its particles.  Dembski does this (well, he makes up a formula for it) for the flagellum.  Of course he gets a satisfyingly small number.  Therefore the Designer did it. Now I left out one part: before embarking on this procedure (specification etc.) you are supposed to ascertain that the thing in question could not have come from natural causes, so as to avoid making a fool of yourself.  Behe says that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex (IC) and hence not a result of natural causes.  So why does one need the irrelevant calculation?  Perhaps because Dembski, as archIDologist, has the have the last word on whether something is really Designed.  Meanwhile, back in the real world, IC is an expected outcome of evolution. 

FL goes on to quote out and out IDC politicians Meyer and Hartwig.  How low can you go?  Then FL quotes theologians.  This is not the way to argue  that IDC is scientific.

FL quotes other IDists saying:

The concept of intelligent design entails a strong prediction that is readily falsifiable.  In particular, the concept of intelligent design
predicts that complex information, such as that encoded in a functioning genome, never arises from purely chemical or physical antecedents.

No, the concept as such does not entail that.  But to continue with FL:

Experience will show that only intelligent agency gives rise to functional information.  All that is necessary to falsify the hypothesis of intelligent design is to show confirmed instances of purely physical or chemical antecedents producing such information.

(“A Note to Teachers”, in “Of Pandas and People”, Kenyon and Davis, 2d ed, pg. 160.)

It is well known that such information does arise in the course of natural events.  For a scientific view of Behe’s recent brainstorm, see Ian Musgrave’s article here at The Thumb.

ID isn’t science.  Is it a religious crusade that is deceptive about its true nature for strategic purposes?  Here are some recent ID insider comments, either from or stimulated by the recent Biola Jesus and ID confab:

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Epist/FthVsRsnBiola.ht… 

The debate is absolutely crucial for the future of Western Civilization — indeed, of world civilization.  It will determine whether Western Civ. heads more deeply back into paganism, or whether the Biblical worldview, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ will recapture Western Civ. and the rest of the world.  Creation ex nihilo and some form of evolution are the only two choices we have for explaining the nature of things in the cosmos.

and

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/ID/ID%20EF.htm… 

Some of us are involved in the evolution debate by virtue of assisting the recovery of persons battered and broken by a world built on a Darwinian worldview. Evil was around long before Darwinianism, but his supposed scientific undergirding of what is essentially the world of the Fall (independence from God) has unleashed unbelievable tragedy among us. There is no way on earth I will ever be “neutral” about evolution as an explanation of origins. But, I can (and will) be objective.

Good, when will you start?
And by the way, compare these last two items to the new article Fear of Evolution
here at The Thumb.

Pete

Comment #2650

Posted by Jack Shea on May 24, 2004 04:07 AM (e) (s)

Reed:

You cannot evaluate the supernatural because by definition it avoids experimental scrutiny. 

Spot the tautology. 

The a posteriori materialist position of science does not invalidate the existence of the supernatural.  It merely states that the supernatural cannot be tested by scientific means.  That is not equivalent to saying the supernatural does not exist.  There was a time when science could not test radio waves.  Times change.

The “hostility” towards “intelligent design” is not based in religion; it is based on the fact that the scientific community does not like pseudo-science and crackpottery messing with education.  

Of course this hostility is based on religion.  Darwinism is not a science, it’s a belief system.  When a Darwinist says “that is not science” what he is really saying is “that particular bit of science does not correspond with my belief system so I will ignore it”.  Faced with the undeniable fossil evidence that evolution is not a graduated process but that species emerge intact and virtually instantly (Stephen Gould et al) all a darwinian feels obliged to do to explain what is going on is provide a new name for the observation.  “Punctuated equilibriium”, “hopeful monsters”, “quantum speciation”.  None of these new terms for “creationism” is supported by anything remotely resembling science.  Each “theory” is merely a restatement of the observation:  species emerge fully formed, rapidly.  There is no theorizing going on here, absolutely zero. 

Reed, tell me what causes punk eek, etc and then we will have a theory.

Comment #2654

Posted by Tricia from Ohio on May 24, 2004 06:58 AM (e) (s)

I say they are Christian fundamentalists because all their evidence against science comes from the Bible. All the “evidence” against evolution comes from ONE fundamentalist organization… given that the most overtly religious websites were stricken from the standards, the sources for the “acceptable” websites, still list the extreme ones… Thus they get their brainwashing in anyway. They are fundamentalist Christian, because they ARE fundamentalist Christian.

Comment #2658

Posted by Adam Marczyk on May 24, 2004 09:08 AM (e) (s)

Faced with the undeniable fossil evidence that evolution is not a graduated process but that species emerge intact and virtually instantly (Stephen Gould et al) all a darwinian feels obliged to do to explain what is going on is provide a new name for the observation.  “Punctuated equilibriium”, “hopeful monsters”, “quantum speciation”.

In the first place, and I cannot state this too strongly, if you really think that punctuated equilibrium is equivalent to the “hopeful monster” hypothesis, then you do not know what punctuated equilibrium is. How many of Stephen Jay Gould’s books and papers have you actually read? I’m betting the answer is zero.

I can’t spend too much time to educate you, but briefly, “hopeful monsters” are a now-discredited hypothesis stemming from the very early days of genetics, when some scientists thought that totally new organisms might arise in a single step through large-scale macromutations. This is now known to be completely untrue. Punctuated equilibrium, by contrast, holds that the emergence of new species takes place rapidly (on a geological timescale: i.e., in between 10,000 and 1 million years) in small subpopulations geographically isolated from the parent species. PE does not postulate that transitional fossils do not exist, nor was it invented to explain away a hypothetical lack of such transitionals. On the contrary, here is what Dr. Gould has to say about such creationist misrepresentations:

“We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

…Continuing the distortion, several creationists have equated the theory of punctuated equilibrium with a caricature of the beliefs of Richard Goldschmidt, a great early geneticist. Goldschmidt argued, in a famous book published in 1940, that new groups can arise all at once through major mutations. He referred to these suddenly transformed creatures as ‘hopeful monsters’…. Goldschmidt’s theory still has nothing to do with punctuated equilibrium.”
—Stephen Jay Gould, from the essay “Evolution as Fact and Theory”, in Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, p.258-260 (emphasis added)

In this same book, Dr. Gould discusses some of the best examples of step-by-step evolutionary transitional series, including the therapsids (reptile-to-mammal transitionals showing in detail the evolution of the mammalian ear bones from reptilian jaw bones) and the human ancestors including Australopithecus africanus and other transitional hominids.

Reed, tell me what causes punk eek, etc and then we will have a theory.

PE is caused by mutation and natural selection.

Comment #2661

Posted by Pim van Meurs on May 24, 2004 09:54 AM (e) (s)

Jack: Faced with the undeniable fossil evidence that evolution is not a graduated process but that species emerge intact and virtually instantly (Stephen Gould et al) all a darwinian feels obliged to do to explain what is going on is provide a new name for the observation.  “Punctuated equilibriium”, “hopeful monsters”, “quantum speciation”. 

Seems that Jack is unfamiliar with the actual evidence which shows both gradual changes as well as rapid changes. Punctuated equilibrium is a Darwinian explanation to explain the gaps in the fossil record.

If you reject Darwinism as a belief system how come that you seem to be quite unfamiliar with its claims and the evidence?

Examples of gradual series

[irl=http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html…]A Smooth Fossil Transition: Orbulina, a foram[/url]

A Pliocene Snail

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Eocoelia, a “lamp shell”

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

A Smooth Fossil Transition: single celled Radiolarian

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Foraminifera

And for educational sakes, some links on PunkEek, especially dealing with the common confusions

Punctuated Equilibria

Well Jack?

Comment #2664

Posted by Erik on May 24, 2004 10:48 AM (e) (s)

this site explains nothing.  This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy.  I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people bitching about politics and other bureaucratic BS.  Don’t advertise that you have information if you don’t.  It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes. 
Erik-recent HS dual enrollment student.

Comment #2665

Posted by Erik on May 24, 2004 10:49 AM (e) (s)

this site explains nothing.  This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy.  I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people bitching about politics and other bureaucratic BS.  Don’t advertise that you have information if you don’t.  It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes. 
Erik-recent HS dual enrollment student.

Comment #2666

Posted by Erik on May 24, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)

this site explains nothing.  This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy.  I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS.  Don’t advertise that you have information if you don’t.  It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes. 
Erik-recent HS dual enrollment student.

Comment #2667

Posted by Erik on May 24, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)

this site explains nothing.  This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy.  I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS.  Don’t advertise that you have information if you don’t.  It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes.  And your comments are censored, what a joke.
Erik- HS dual enrollment student.

Comment #2668

Posted by Erik on May 24, 2004 10:50 AM (e) (s)

this site explains nothing.  This site has the earmarks of a teachers union or conspiracy.  I came here to write a paper on evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS.  Don’t advertise that you have information if you don’t.  It was a useless waste of 15 precious minutes.  And your comments are censored, what a joke.
Erik- HS dual enrollment student.

Comment #2669

Posted by PZ Myers on May 24, 2004 10:54 AM (e) (s)

A conspiracy? Don’t be silly.  This is a site where we discuss miscellaneous aspects of current issues in creation/evolution. If you want general information on the overall topic of evolution, I recommend the talk.origins archive.

Comment #2670

Posted by Mr. Needlebaum on May 24, 2004 10:58 AM (e) (s)

evolution compared to creationism, and I I see is people complaining about politics and other bureaucratic BS

Wow, Eric.  If I had stumbled across this site in your shoes, I would be completely stoked.  I think this site presents a very accurate and thorough picture of the issues which form the current debate between evolutionary biologists and creationists.

Comment #2677

Posted by Navy Davy on May 24, 2004 12:56 PM (e) (s)

Pete Dunkelberg,

Sorry for not responding sooner. I got lost on another thread. BTW, you’re a fair-minded fellow.

You ask:

Davy, is this beginning to sink in?  To recap, the scientific jury on ID is in, and ID is guilty of scientific vacuity and theological intent as charged.

Before I answer, a few minor points:

1. The great Albert Einstein once said, “The most important thing is to never stop asking questions.”

There is no exemption. Per Einstein, I’m gonna ask questions about both ID and evolution.

2. One of my favorite books is “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by T. Kuhn.

Kuhn says scientific theories are based on paradigms. Facts that don’t quite fit the paradigm are often ignored. Theories that challenge the paradigm are often quashed by the majority. Scientists who challenge the paradigm are often derided and/or ostracized.

Then, suddenly, abruptly, the paradigm shifts, like some big ice-berg in the arctic ocean— what was once the ascendant, dominant theory is discarded into the dustbin of medical history.

Kuhn says that the tragedy of Galileo is repeated over and over and over and over again —by seemingly intelligent scientists, even some of the world’s best.

To avoid this problem, I have a simple 2-part rule: No theory is discarded or ignored, No theory is accepted willy-nilly. Both must be scrutinized, tested, and hammered intensively, before any conclusion is reached. That keeps me safe, that keeps me sane, that keeps me fresh.

So, to answer your question, Yes, it’s starting to sink in that: (a) Most scientists believe in Evolution, (b) Few scientists believe in ID, and  (c) there is great rancor between groups (a) & (b).

Myself, though, I would like the best of both groups to engage and debate, rather than talk over each other. Hence, my proposal:

1. Evolution be treated as the dominant theory;
2. ID be treated as the minority theory;
3. Determine if (1) and/or (2) are testable;
4. If so, devise suitable tests and test them both;
5. Analyze the results to see if the theories are proven more likely than not true, or more likely than not false;
6. Make some good real world predictions about each theory;

Even if this has been done before, there’s no harm in doing it again.

And, if ID is not a testable theory, then it really should just melt away.

Good post, though, Pete.

Cheers, Navy Davy

Comment #2678

Posted by Jack Shea on May 24, 2004 01:03 PM (e) (s)

Adam:

“We proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium largely to provide a different explanation for pervasive trends in the fossil record. Trends, we argued, cannot be attributed to gradual transformation within lineages, but must arise from the differential success of certain kinds of species. A trend, we argued, is more like climbing a flight of stairs (punctuation and stasis) than rolling up an inclined plane.

This doesn’t explain anything.  It just reformulates the question.  “Differential success” is just another way of saying “rapid, inexplicable emergence”.  What produces the “differential success” in such a short span of time?  It could be either propulsive intelligent forces inherent, immanent in matter or it could be random mutations combined with natural selection.  The simpler, more elegant solution is the former and would seem to be supported by the pattern similarities which are present in all living systems.  Nature as blossoming, not as accident.

Comment #2681

Posted by Ed Darrell on May 24, 2004 01:21 PM (e) (s)

NavyDavy said: 

2. One of my favorite books is “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by T. Kuhn.

Then you know what Kuhn says about evolution being the revolutionary new, workable theory, and creationism/design being the old, on-the-way-out idea, right?

Do you accept Kuhn’s view on evolution, or are you just dropping names?

Comment #2683

Posted by Whistle Blower on May 24, 2004 01:34 PM (e) (s)

Navy Davy —

So, to answer your question, Yes, it’s starting to sink in that: (a) Most scientists believe in Evolution, (b) Few scientists believe in ID, and  (c) there is great rancor between groups (a) & (b).

Navy, that isn’t an answer to Pete’s question.  Pete asked you if you understood (or were beginnning to understand) that “the scientific jury on ID is in, and ID is guilty of scientific vacuity and theological intent as charged.”  You replied “yes,” but the rest of your post strongly suggests otherwise.

I’m only trying to referee the debate here.  Let’s make an effort to keep it honest, okay, Navy Davy?  Can you agree to keep your responses honest?  For example, when you answer a question in the affirmative, can you please avoid providing a “clarification” that disembowels the affirmative response and essentially mocks the questioner?  I am sure that the bar in the “blue state” you allegedly hail from requires nothing less.

Cheers,
WB

Comment #2684

Posted by Pete Dunkelberg on May 24, 2004 01:35 PM (e)