Send in the clowns

Posted by Nick Matzke on April 5, 2005 10:46 PM

In the I am not making this stuff up category, the ID crowd is planning on sending a battalion of pseudoscientists to Kansas this May for the upcoming ID Kangaroo Court.  On the front page of the Intelligent Design Network’s “we’re not promoting ID” website, we find:

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON MINORITY REPORT.  A Committee of the State board has scheduled hearings to provide for an in-depth examination of the Minority Report and its proposed changes. The hearings will be conducted in Topeka on May 5, 6 and 7, and May 12, 13 and 14 at a place to be announced.  CLICK HERE FOR A LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED TO TESTIFY FOR THE MINORITY REPORT

(IDnet science standards website)

And what a list it is!

I’ll post it here, for when they change it after they come to their senses:

LIST OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED BY  AUTHORS OF THE MINORITY REPORT TO TESTIFY
at hearings to be convened by the Science Committee of the Kansas State
Board of Education On May 5, 6 and 7, 2005, in Topeka, Kansas

Angus Menuge, PhD Professor of Philosophy at Concordia University Wisconsin;
Author: Agents Under Fire: Materialism and the Rationality of Science Date
of anticipated testimony: May 7

Bryan Leonard, MA High School Biology Teacher and candidate for doctoral
degree in science education Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Bruce Simat, PhD Biochemistry and Human Physiology, Associate Professor
North Western College, St. Paul, MN Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemist and co-author of The Mystery of Life’s
Origin Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Daniel Ely, PhD Professor of Biology, University of Akron, specializing in
cardiovascular physiology Department of Biology, University of Akron Date of
anticipated testimony: May 6

Edward T. Peltzer III, PhD Oceanographer (PhD from Scripps Institution of
Oceanography) with research interests in chemical evolution, Associate
Editor, Marine Chemistry, Senior Research Specialist Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum
(Genoa), one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world; retired
Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia Date of anticipated testimony:
May 7

James Barham, MA Independent scholar and author specializing in evolutionary
epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and the foundations of biology Date of
anticipated testimony: May 7

John Millam, PhD Theoretical Chemist, Project Manager, Semichem, Inc., a
provider of solutions for computational chemistry. Date of anticipated
testimony: May 6

John H. Calvert, J.D. Lawyer, specializing in constitutionally appropriate
ways to teach origins science in public schools, Managing Director of
Intelligent Design network, inc., an organization that seeks institutional
objectivity in origins science Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University Date of
anticipated testimony: May 6

Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular and cell biologist, author of Icons of
Evolution and Senior Fellow Discovery Institute Date of anticipated
testimony: May 5

Michael Behe, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Biochemistry Lehigh University,
Author of Darwin’s Black Box Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Mustafa Akoyl, MS Media Director of International Relations at the
Intercultural Dialogue Platform (a foundation in Istanbul), freelance writer
and spokesman for Islamic organizations interested in origins science Date
of anticipated testimony: May 7

Nancy Bryson, PhD Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Kennesaw State
University Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

Ralph Seelke, PhD Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin -
Superior Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Robert Disilvestro, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Nutrition, Ohio State
University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Roger DeHart, BS High School Biology Teacher, Oaks Christian High School in
San Diego, CA Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Russell Carlson, PhD Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Georgia Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 University of
Georgia Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Scott Minnich, PhD Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of
Idaho Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Stephen Meyer, PhD History and Philosophy of Science, including methodology
of historical sciences; Director of the Center for Science and Culture at
the Discovery Institute Date of anticipated testimony: May 7 Business:
509-777-4548; Cell: 509-467-5862

Warren Nord, PhD Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Education,
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Date of anticipated testimony: May
7

William S. Harris, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of
Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory,
St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, MO Date of anticipated testimony

That’s right, the creationists on the Kansas State Board of Education are planning to use Kansas taxpayer funds in order to:

1. Fly in these folks from all over the world — a collection of scientists outside their fields, non-scientists, and straight-up cranks.
2. Put on a pointless show trial which will be boycotted by most/all real experts on evolution
3. In order to provide political cover for the decision to use the power of the state to change the definition of science in Kansas
4. Actively misinforming Kansas’s bright young students and promoting “intelligent design”, which Charles Thaxton himself used to call “creationism” before he began promoting “intelligent design”
5. Provoking another round of international scorn and ridicule for the poor citizens of Kansas, and
6. Violating the U.S. Constitution as soon as a public school teacher attempts to teach ID as science
7. Provoking another round of international scorn, plus a nice expensive lawsuit
8. Which the state will eventually lose.

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/937

Comment #23485

Posted by Jack Krebs on April 5, 2005 11:07 PM (e) (s)

In 5, I think you mean “poor citizens of Kansas,” and yep, this will be a real circus.  There’s about $20,000 or so of taxpayer money that will be spent on these guys.

KCFS and other organizations and individuals are working on a response to all this, and should have some announcements in a week or so.  It will be an interesting month here - feel free to come join us. :-)

Comment #23487

Posted by Scott Davidson on April 5, 2005 11:17 PM (e) (s)

And looking at IDN’s website from the link above they have a little two minute skit which apprently “demonstrates a fundamental problem with a naturalistic definition of science”.
Who Can Answer My Question?

STUDENT:
I have a question - When I look at people, they look designed to me.  I also hear there is a lot of evidence that confirms my intuition. Some chemists say that physical and chemical laws can’t account for biological information.  Biochemists say many biological systems are irreducibly complex.  Mathematicians say it is statistically impossible for the first cell to have been assembled out of nothing.  Geologists say that the fossil record shows life appearing abruptly rather than gradually.  Astronomers say the Universe is so finely tuned that if you just changed one constant by a smidgen, we wouldn’t be here.  So, isn’t there a lot of evidence that we might be designed?

TEACHER:
Science is the activity of seeking only natural explanations of what we see.  These guys are inferring design from the evidence.  Scientists aren’t allowed to do that.  You are not allowed to discuss the possibility of intelligent design.

Bangs head against desk…..

Comment #23488

Posted by Nick on April 5, 2005 11:49 PM (e) (s)

Thanks Jack, I fixed that typo — KCFS on the brain, I fear.

PS for readers: see the previous post PT searched on “Kansas” for previous updates on this issue.  In particular, Nature: Biologists snub ‘kangaroo court’ for Darwin shows what the reaction from the mainstream scientific community has been.

Comment #23489

Posted by yellow fatty bean on April 6, 2005 12:02 AM (e) (s)

Hey, I have an idea, why don’t we get the state legislature decide to hold a statewide popular vote on the ID/evolution issue a year or so hence, that way both camps on the ID/evolution debate can race to get their followers to establish residency in the state, and whichever camp gets the most people to occupy the state of Kansas by vote time wins.

What could possibly go wrong?

[/sarcasm]

Comment #23490

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 6, 2005 12:07 AM (e) (s)

Hmm, looks like they left the eminently qualifed Prof. Steve Steve of the list.  What is the Kansas BOE afraid of?

Comment #23497

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 03:17 AM (e) (s)

“…that way both camps on the ID/evolution debate can race to get their followers to establish residency in the state, and whichever camp gets the most people to occupy the state of Kansas by vote time wins.”

hmm.  you may want to take a look at this… you aren’t the first to think of it!

http://christianexodus.org/…

We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.

I swear, somebody has been inbreeding too much or something.

cheers

Comment #23502

Posted by michael s. on April 6, 2005 05:11 AM (e) (s)

No lineup would be complete without Hovind!  It seems to be the list’s gaping hole

Comment #23504

Posted by FL on April 6, 2005 05:36 AM (e) (s)

2. Put on a pointless show trial which will be boycotted by most/all real experts on evolution

One of the participants on the quoted list of scheduled pro-Intelligent Design speakers is Dr. Jonathan Wells.  He wrote, imo, one of the best criticisms of the “let’s boycott ‘em” evo-strategy that I’ve seen. 

After participating in a well-attended (estimated 1000, plus Internet-broadcast) roundtable-discussion at Washburn University in 1999, he wrote the following observations in the November 29, 1999 Topeka Capital-Journal:

By the end of the evening, it was clear that the controversy was not about defending empirical science from biblical fundamentalism. Scientifically, what little evidence was presented challenged Darwinian evolution and favored intelligent design; philosophically, Darwinian evolution was shown to have as many implications for religion as intelligent design; and legally, teaching Darwinism while excluding other views in state-supported schools could not be justified on First Amendment grounds.

Ignoring these considerations, a panelist who had the last word concluded that Darwinian evolution deserves its privileged status because it is the consensus of biologists. This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin’s theory.
(The scientist on the pro-Darwin side was a psychologist.)

I later learned that Washburn University biologists had been invited to participate, but declined because they didn’t want to provide a platform for creationism. They thereby reflected a nationwide tendency among Darwinians to demonize their critics rather than deal with the issues.

They also made it clear that a “consensus” exists only because Darwinians refuse to tolerate any dissent.

As the Washburn roundtable discussion showed, however, the strategy of sweeping the controversy under the rug is not working. The public clearly saw that there are important unanswered questions here.

First, is the biological evidence more consistent with Darwinian evolution or intelligent design? If the latter, is it proper for Darwinians to decide the matter in their favor by redefining “science” to exclude design? Second, does Darwinian evolution have religious implications? If so, are state-supported institutions acting unconstitutionally when they teach Darwinism to the exclusion of other views? These are serious questions for empirical science and constitutional government. Pretending they do not exist will not make them go away.

I carefully monitored the op-ed pages for weeks afterward to see if the pro-evolution folks from Washburn, Kansas University, KCFS, or wherever would at least provide a response to Wells.  Not one.  Not at all.

You can call them “clowns” and “pseudoscientists” from the relative safety of this PT blog, Nick, but I honestly believe it would be a far different matter if you were to actually show up at the upcoming Kansas hearings and take on these PhD scientists and scholars face to face, Nick. 
I bet you would be forced to moderate your rhetoric much more than a little bit, before things were concluded.

But that’s the point of the KCFS boycott.  To avoid, ummm, potentially troublesome situations, no?
After all, it wouldn’t look good for alleged “real experts on evolution” to come out second best against mere “clowns” and “pseudoscientists” in a public matchup, nope nope.  Safety first, you know!

Hence the strategy of ducking, hiding, and otherwise taking a powder on this public opportunity to engage these non-Darwinist PhD-level scientists and scholars at the upcoming hearings.

I would not be surprised if KCFS put on some separate events in which pro-evolution speakers show up in Kansas anyway, offering the usual evo-PR statements for public consumption (but without having to deal directly with the serious non-Darwinist challenges that would likely be offered to them if they actually showed up at the hearings.)

After all, in Topeka, that’s generally what happened in 1999-2000 as well.  Safety first!

Fly in these folks from all over the world — a collection of scientists outside their fields, non-scientists, and straight-up cranks.

Can’t let this one slide without comment. 
First, re-read that list, folks.  For example, Ely, Peltzer, Sermonti, Thaxton, Seelky, Carlson, Minnich, Harris—-your phrase “scientists outside their fields” hardly seems an accurate description, Nick. 

Second, regarding the listed scholars in such fields as philosophy of science (what, you think that’s not relevant to the subject of state science standards?), religion, and law, may I point out that the two of tha main evolutionist heroes of the McClean v. Arkansas trial were a philosopher (Ruse) and a theologian (Gilkey). 
So, first spend some time criticizing these two evolutionist “non-scientists”, for offering public testimony (and influencing public policy) without first obtaining a science PhD.

As for the “cranks”, go ahead and show up in Kansas for the hearings, publicly identify/verify those you deem to be “cranks”, and then publicly defend your labeling of them as “cranks” during the proceedings.  Then I’ll listen and consider.

5. Provoking another round of international scorn and ridicule for the poor citizens of Kansas

No, I don’t think so, not by a long shot. 
Perhaps it’s because of the success in Ohio not too long ago.

Or perhaps because the 2005 proposed modifications are much better thought-out and explained than the 1999 changes (assuming the reader has taken time to read the 2005 proposal.  I was surprised—but shouldn’t have been—-at the number of online 1999 critics who never took the time to read the 1999 proposal before offering criticism.)

Or perhaps because more Kansans and Americans (and especially more members of the media) have become familiar with the general claims associated with the ID movement (e.g. problems with pro-evolution textbooks, Intelligent Design as a plausible alternative explanation) in the intervening years since 1999.

Or maybe it’s all of the above.  Anyway, the “international scorn and ridicule” games don’t look like they’re gonna work quite so well this time for evolutionists.  Not nearly quite.

FL

Comment #23505

Posted by John A. Davison on April 6, 2005 06:07 AM (e) (s)

Of ccourse Sermonti must be a fool. After all he published 6 of my papers. Don’t forget to add that to the list of reasons to discount him folks.

Giuseppe Sermonti is a fine scholar, a tolerant man and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the history of evolutionary science. I am sure his words will be taken very seriously indeed.

FL

Your comments and opinion are welcome. Thank you. But please do not identify evolutionists with Darwinians as your terminal sentence might suggest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism, the biggest hoax in recorded history.

John A. Davison

Comment #23510

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 6, 2005 07:04 AM (e) (s)

After all, it wouldn’t look good for alleged “real experts on evolution” to come out second best against mere “clowns” and “pseudoscientists” in a public matchup, nope nope.  Safety first, you know!

I will simply point out here that in the only place where the “debate” REALLY matters, in court, the creationists/IDers have lost.  Every single time.  IDers/creation-“scientists” have never won a single court case in the entire history of the United States of America.  When they tried to argue that evolution shouldn’t be taught because it is “anti-Christian”, they lost.  When they tried to argue that creationism was science, they lost.  When they tried to argue that evolution is religion, they lost. 

This despite the fact that they were entirely free to call any “real experts on evolution” that they wanted.

So every time some ID kook yammers about a “public matchup”, simply ask him why his side keeps losing, crushingly and embarrassingly, in court.  Every time.

Wait, let me guess ——— all those judges are part of the vast anti-ID conspiracy, right?

<snicker>  <giggle>

Comment #23511

Posted by Russell on April 6, 2005 07:07 AM (e) (s)

Jonathan Wells wrote:

This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin’s theory.

Wells is a biologist in pretty much the same sense that Mohammed Atta was an airline pilot.

Comment #23512

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 6, 2005 07:10 AM (e) (s)

Perhaps it’s because of the success in Ohio not too long ago.

Um, what “success”?  IDers brought out all their big guns to try to force ID “theory” into the state standards.  They lost (indeed, ID was specifically BANNED from the standards, by name), so badly and crashingly that they have now given up completely on even claiming to HAVE any “alternative theory”, and instead have retreated to a vague “something might be wrong with evolution” argument.

I’d like to know by what measurement you think Ohio was a “success” for the IDers … … . .?

I can’t think of ANY success, anywhere, for IDers.  When they tried to insert ID into the Ohio standards, they lost.  When they tried to pass the Santorum Amendment in Congress, they lost. When they tried to prevent textbooks that discuss evolution from being adopted in Texas and elsewhere, they lost. When they tried to insert “disclaimers” into textbooks, they lost. They will certainly lose in Dover (where they are in the curious position of supporting those who want to teach ID theory in class by testifying that, uh, ID theory “isn’t ready” to be taught in class).  They will also certainly lose in Kansas (just as they already lost a few years ago).

Not exactly a record of “success”, is it … .

Comment #23514

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 6, 2005 07:25 AM (e) (s)

For those who might want to take a look at the big long string of court losses by creationists and IDers, see:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/legal.htm…

Comment #23517

Posted by Jack Krebs on April 6, 2005 08:16 AM (e) (s)

A friend of mine offered a great metaphor for people like Wells - he called them “scientific vandals.” They’re like people who throw a brick throught a window, in five seconds making a mess that takes hours to clean up.

Comment #23519

Posted by bill on April 6, 2005 08:49 AM (e) (s)

I like this quote from Peter Atkins reviewing Behe’s book:

That the creationists have resorted to this subversion should surprise none of us, for the ethical poverty of their actions matches the intellectual poverty of their beliefs.

Here’s the reference:  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_atkins/behe.html

Comment #23526

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 6, 2005 11:31 AM (e) (s)

FL wrote:

Hence the strategy of ducking, hiding, and otherwise taking a powder on this public opportunity to engage these non-Darwinist PhD-level scientists and scholars at the upcoming hearings.

In case you’ve never noticed, it matters not what we do.  The IDists have a set of ready-made distortions — tailored for every possible way in which scientists might react — that get trotted out every time one of these public spectacles gets put on.  If you ignore them, they say you’re afraid.  If you engage them directly, they say you’re circling the wagons, desperately trying to protect the established orthodoxy.  If you simply dismiss them as nuts, they say you’re persecuting them.  I could have told you well in advance that we’d be seeing distortion #1 in this case.

If you wonder why no one is in a big hurry to enjoin these phony hearings, it’s because it’s been done a thousand times before without any discernalbe effect on the creationists.  They’re not there to learn or discuss or even to debate, they’re there to put on a show.  The relevant issues were already handled in the proper venue by the science writing committee and by public hearings.  The IDists didn’t like the outcome, so they decided to create a dog and pony show.  Could you explain what the point would be for any serious scholar to bother attending?  The very fact that the board has resorted to this nonsense demonstrates that they’ve already made up their mind on the outcome.  They’re only looking for a way to legitimize it.

Comment #23527

Posted by Roadtripper on April 6, 2005 11:34 AM (e) (s)

I can’t believe JAD didn’t make the cut!  I’d really feel much better about this whole thing if he were on the list.  After he’s done making the iron-clad case for ID, he could put in a few words for his revolutionary Proscribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.  Shall we petition the Committee to add his name, or just correct their oversight ourselves, pass the hat around and buy him a plane ticket?

Comment #23532

Posted by Great White Wonderb on April 6, 2005 11:59 AM (e) (s)

Ely, Peltzer, Sermonti, Thaxton, Seelky, Carlson, Minnich, Harris

These people, of course, should be ashamed of themselves.

I invite them to come here and show us their stuff.  Somehow I doubt they will even manage to reach the heights of scientific rigor reached by retired software programmers.

Comment #23535

Posted by Greg on April 6, 2005 12:15 PM (e) (s)

I Googled the heck out of Bruce Simat, putatively a teacher of some kind at Northwestern College in St. Paul, Minnesota, because that’s the school I graduated from (with degrees in Bible, Sociology, and Communications).  It took me almost 20 years to unlearn to utter nonsense that was passed off as biology at that school.  I must say, my “biology” professor was one of the nicest people I’ve ever known, but the entire course was one long creationism apologetic—nothing more.  Same with the school’s “earth science,” which was pure flood geology.  Northwestern College is a small fundamentalist school with a popular Christian radio station, the patronage of Rose Totino (who became a millionaire selling pizzas), and the distinction of having Billy Graham as its president for a couple of years several decades ago.  To paraphrase a Gospel passage (can’t let that Bible degree go utterly to waste), “Can any good science come out of Northwestern College?”

Comment #23538

Posted by RPM on April 6, 2005 12:22 PM (e) (s)

Lenny Flank wrote:

I will simply point out here that in the only place where the “debate” REALLY matters, in court, the creationists/IDers have lost.

Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates.  They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

Comment #23539

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 12:26 PM (e) (s)

RPM

Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates.  They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

True enough.  I think Lenny by “really matters,” Lenny was referring to where the debate “really matters” to creationists who want to promulgate their religious beliefs in science classrooms.

Creationists’ contempt for lab work and peer-reviewed publication is well-documented.

Comment #23548

Posted by Greg on April 6, 2005 12:57 PM (e) (s)

I’m against the idea of scientists participating in this kangaroo court, but if they did, I think it would be fun to match up the credentials of the IDers person-for-person (but obviously only the science credentials, not the, like, philosophers of education or whatever) with folks off the Project Steve list. All the “best and brightest” IDers in the world against just those real scientists named “Steve.”

Comment #23553

Posted by RPM on April 6, 2005 01:30 PM (e) (s)

Here’s what I could find regarding the some of the witnesses to be brought in to testify.  I limited my discussion to the “biologists” with PhD’s as people way out of their field and with less than “expert” qualifacations hardly warrant mentioning.

Bruce Simat, PhD Biochemistry and Human Physiology, Associate Professor North Western College, St. Paul, MN Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

See previous post.

Daniel Ely, PhD Professor of Biology, University of Akron, specializing in cardiovascular physiology Department of Biology, University of Akron Date ofanticipated testimony: May 6

There’s not much on him at the Univ of Akron Biology Department website, but he specialize in physiology.  He should be aware of the importance of evolution in his research considering he uses rats as a model for human behavior.  Apparently he does not understand why we can use model organisms for biomedical research.  I’d be interested to hear his opinion on IDC.

Giuseppe Sermonti, PhD Chief Editor of Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum (Genoa), one of the oldest extant biology journals in the world; retired Professor of Genetics, University of Perugia Date of anticipated testimony: May 7

Apparently he’s buddy-buddy with JAD. How seriously can we take him?  Well, not only is the editor of Riv Biol, it’s also the only place he’s published recently according to a PubMed search (Riv Biol has an impact factor of 0.5).  I’m not too sure what to think of him.  He appears to be a credible scientist (at least judging by his early work), but his recent work attempts to find purpose in nature; kinda off the beaten path if you ask me.

John Sanford, PhD Geneticist, Associate Professor Cornell University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

I graduated with a Bachelors in Genetics from Cornell, so I was extremely interested to find out who John Sanford was.  I thought, no way he was really in the Molecular Biology and Genetics department, and I didn’t remember him from my undergrad days.  For those of you unfamiliar with the field, Cornell is a leader in evolutionary genetics.  It turns out Sanford is at the agricultural research station in Geneva, NY (about an hours drive from the main campus in Ithaca).  He’s in the Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, and he describes his research as “at the interface between molecular genetics and plant breeding, for the purpose of crop improvement.”  I’m not sure what to make of him.

Michael Behe, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Biochemistry Lehigh University, Author of Darwin’s Black Box Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

Enough has been written about him, so I won’t add any more.

Ralph Seelke, PhD Professor of Microbiology, University of Wisconsin - Superior Date of anticipated testimony: May 5

He’s one of the few (only?) people trying to study ID using laboratory experiments.  For that, we must give him some credit.  I’ll leave it for another place/time/person to discuss the credibility of his research design and/or findings.

Robert Disilvestro, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Nutrition, Ohio State University Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

He’s a nutritional biochemist (what is it with chemists & biochemists and understanding evolution?), which doesn’t say whether or not he has a firm grasp on evolutionary theory.  He has a response to critiques to Darwin’s Black Box here.

Russell Carlson, PhD Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology University of Georgia Date of anticipated testimony: May 6 University of Georgia Complex Carbohydrate Research Center

Another biochemist!  He studies the interaction between plants and bacteria (specifically microrhizae).  UGA has an excellent evolutionary genetics program, and I wonder if Reed (or Dr. Steve Steve) have anything to say about this fellow.

Scott Minnich, PhD Associate Professor of Microbiology at the University of Idaho Date of anticipated testimony: May 6

Minnich is the bacterial flagellum expert witness.  See here for a discussion of the flagellum argument.

William S. Harris, PhD Biochemist, Professor of Medicine, University of Missouri at Kansas City, Director of the Lipoprotein Research Laboratory, St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, MO Date of anticipated testimony

Another nutritional biochemist.  He can tell you all about why you should eat fist, but I’m not sure what he’s knows about evolutionary theory.  He was an author (along with John Calvert) of  Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution.

Does anyone know if any of these “star witnesses” do not have strong religous beliefs?

Comment #23554

Posted by Scott Davidson on April 6, 2005 01:32 PM (e) (s)

RPM wrote:
Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates.  They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

Ultimately this is true, but how often does Joe Public read the peer reviewed journals?
At some point Joe public needs to know what good science is.  Do we expect them to just take it on faith that we the scientists know what is best? 

GWW wrote:
Creationists’ contempt for lab work and peer-reviewed publication is well-documented.

There seems to be another battle going on for public opinion, which is prehaps more important than scientific debate.  Public opinion will not determine what good science is, but if we lose that battle then at some point in the future will that not impact on tax payer funded research grants?  As things are there’s the republican govt in the US (or at least some elements anyway) can be seen as anti-science.

Comment #23558

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)

@JAD:

I must admit, I had never taken the time previously to examine your publications, and how they have “evolved” (no pun intended) over the years.

However, As i read through: 

AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO:
  A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE

I was struck by one particular line in section II-1, which for me at least, is the core by which to measure all subsequent postulates from yourself:

“A second alternative view is Creationism.  Here caution must be
observed.  While it is true that the existence of a Creator, while
a logical necessity, has never been rigorously proved and perhaps
never can be…”

How can you call yourself a student of evolutionary theory, and purport to having logical grounds to challenge it, while postulating that there is a “logical necessity” for a Creator, a priori?

Indeed, if you purport yourself to be a scientist, how would one even approach rigorously proving the existence of a creator to begin with, using the scientific method?

ask yourself, why should ANYONE who subscribes to the scientific method, even bother to continue taking you seriously, when you have laid such untestable assumptions at the base of your “new hypothesis”.

You should be ashamed.  You are simply continuing the trend towards the betrayal of science and reason that has become so commonplace in the last 20 years or so.  It’s obvious that intelligence has little to do with logic.

I can only ask myself:  Are you THAT unsure of your own faith that you seek to project it into areas where it is innapropriate?

I’m sure I am not the first to raise this point, and I hope i won’t be the last.

If you want to do your faith a service, stop trying to pretend it works to explain the world around us.

Go back and re-read the book of Job.  You seem to have missed a lesson there.

In the meantime, I would say your sermons are better served in a church, but even there, they are too misleading to be appropriate.

no cheers, big raspberry instead.

Comment #23561

Posted by Les Lane on April 6, 2005 02:02 PM (e) (s)

I’m in the process of doing brief web biographies of the clowns. You can see what I have so far here.  I’d be happy to get useful info to include.

Comment #23562

Posted by Steve Reuland on April 6, 2005 02:06 PM (e) (s)

RPM wrote:

He’s [Seelke] one of the few (only?) people trying to study ID using laboratory experiments.  For that, we must give him some credit.  I’ll leave it for another place/time/person to discuss the credibility of his research design and/or findings.

Actually, he’s studying evolution.  There’s no indication that he’s doing anything that would qualify as “ID research” unless one takes the position that any observed anomoly or difficulty in evolution automatically counts as studying ID.  (If that’s the case, then it may as well count as studying panspermia, or spontaneous generation.)  There’s no mention of ID on that page, nor do the experiments seem to contradict evolution in any way.  (So much evolution is going on that they haven’t even made it past a few hundred generations.)

He’s a nutritional biochemist (what is it with chemists & biochemists and understanding evolution?)…

Speaking as someone who is in a biochemistry department, I can attest that many (if not most) biochemists come from a strict chemistry background, and have never studied biology.  They usually know about the system that they work on (maybe a protein or cellular system) but have usually had no exposure to any other kind of biology.  Certainly not subjects like ecology, organismal biology, and, you know, evolution.

Comment #23569

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s)

“As things are there’s the republican govt in the US (or at least some elements anyway) can be seen as anti-science.”

CAN BE????  your kidding right?  It is well documented that the current administration has done more to twist science than perhaps ANY previous US administration in history.  Here is just one of the MANY sites documenting the betrayal of science and reason that is the Bush white house:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381…

make no mistake, those of us who acknowledge and utilize the scientific method are under direct attack by those who are deluding themselves that they believe in “common sense”, and by those who would use that ignorance to further their own aims (whether they really believe in the parsimony that is science or not).

I’m not pointing out anything new here, you can read Paul Ehrlich’s book:

Betrayal of Science and Reason - How Anti-Environmental Rhetoric Threatens our Future

which was published in 1996, to see a good consesus of where the battle lines are being drawn and recognize that things are getting worse, not better, since then.

In fact, the mere re-election of GW shows at least the lack of concern of the average citizen for what the administration truly represents, and a growing number of folks actually support the administration’s approach to science in general.  while certainly not the primary reason in most folks minds as to why they voted one way or the other, it behooves us all to be aware of that, and make others aware as well.

It’s like a growing portion of the population has simply decided to shoot their nose off to spite their face.

very frustrating.

cheers

Comment #23570

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 6, 2005 02:20 PM (e) (s)

Russell Carlson, a professor at my university, is one of the names on the list.  I’ve discussed the failures of intelligent design in his presence before and he was very silent through it.  He did agree that “sentient design” was a better name for what the IDists were trying to establish.

Comment #23578

Posted by Les Lane on April 6, 2005 02:46 PM (e) (s)

I’m in the process of doing brief web biographies of the clowns. You can see what I have so far here.  I’d be happy to get useful info to include.

Comment #23582

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 02:57 PM (e) (s)

Sorry to belabor a point, but it seems to me that the drive to promote “cretionism” by those who claim to be driven by science all stems from one critical point, expounded in the bio of one of the folks on the list, Angus Menuge:

“I still lacked an intellectual foundation for my faith”

there it is.  IMO, the driving force behind all of this creationism as science nonsense.  As far as I can tell, all of the angst that drives these folks simply springs from their inability to resolve their religious belief structures with simple logic, and the thought processes that enable them to do things like physics and chemistry.

My problem is that they make the rest of us suffer their “crises of faith” while they attempt to project their angst onto the world at large in an attempt to relieve the paradox they have created in their own minds.

I wish these folks would just get over themselves; their crises of faith is best solved internally, not externally. 

We don’t need to invent new theories to deal with this angst; there are already counselors available to deal with psychological paradoxes.  I highly suggest, for all of us, that the folks that promote creationism and still call themselves scientists avail themselves of this resource.

cheers

Comment #23586

Posted by Scott Davidson on April 6, 2005 03:10 PM (e) (s)

CAN BE????  your kidding right?

I was aware of the position of “Son of Bush,” but as I was typing my comment above, the thought occured to me that maybe not all of the Repulicans in Senate and Congress were insane.  It’s a vague hope admitedly.  Please, please let it be true.  Still, thank the random space time fluctuations I’m a Kiwi.  :)

while certainly not the primary reason in most folks minds as to why they voted one way or the other, it behooves us all to be aware of that, and make others aware as well.

Certainly very frustrating.  I guess another sympton of the times along with the number of people who believe in the healing power of homeopathy or that astrology describes their behaviour.

Thomas Jefferson:
The success of a democratic society depends upon an “informed and educated” populace.

Somewhere, something has gone horribly wrong….

Comment #23588

Posted by John A. Davison on April 6, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

Nobody is studying evolution directly because evolution is no longer taking place. There are no experts on evolutionary mechanisms because those mechanisms are no longer operative. You see phylogeny, like ontogeny is a self-limiting processs which is quite finished. To assume otherwise is without foundation. Mendelian (sexual) genetics is entirely anti-evolutionary and serves only to stabilize the species, something William Bateson realized 80 years ago.

Neither the ID crowd nor the Darwinian mystics want anything to do with me because I refuse to postulate mysterious forces (like Natural Selection) but insist only on what the facts absolutely demand which is that life was probably created many many times and each creation involved front loading those forms with all the necessary information to bring that series to its ultimate expression. The precise number of such creations remains unknown but we know with absolute certainty that chance never played a role in any of them any more than it does in the differentiation of each fertlized egg into the adult organism which that egg specifies even before its first cell division. Ontogeny and phylogeny are part of the same organic continuum and both have proceeded by means of an internally controlled derepression of prescribed, front-loaded information, a process in which chance and the environment generally played no demonstrable role.

As for the Darwinian myth not a single element of which has any validity:

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Comment #23592

Posted by Joe Shelby on April 6, 2005 03:25 PM (e) (s)

uh, Lenny Frank?

Snopes lost in ‘25.  the creationists won that one all those years ago.

the sentence (a $100 fine) was overturned on a technicality, but the appeal did nothing to the nature of the decision itself or to the law which Snopes was charged under.

most of the court cases where creationism was recognized for what it is have happened since the 1950s.

Comment #23597

Posted by Jim Wynne on April 6, 2005 03:38 PM (e) (s)

John A. Davison wrote:

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

How about this one:

God is a reality of spirit… He cannot… be conceived as an object, not even as the very highest object. God is not to be found in the world of objects.
Bertrand Russell

Or this:

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives’ mouths.
Bertrand Russell

Or this:

Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines.
Bertrand Russell

That’s three apples to your one.

Comment #23601

Posted by Roadtripper on April 6, 2005 03:49 PM (e) (s)

JAD:

Did you actually type that, or just cut-n-past from your previous rants?  Really, it’s amazing how repetive these posts are.

Back on topic:  I found some info on Sermonti over at “stranger fruit”.

http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/?p=246

Enjoy.

Comment #23603

Posted by SteveF on April 6, 2005 04:00 PM (e) (s)

Sermonti has wrote for Answers in Genesis.  This pretty much removes any credibility from him in one swift stroke.  Marvellous.

Comment #23606

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 04:11 PM (e) (s)

“I’m a Kiwi”

hmm, a few years back, i had a gut instinct that it was time to move to the land of sheep.  I see now that the instinct was well founded.

I’m waiting for some neocon to get so pissed off at me, that he actually gives me cash to move out of “his” United States.

several sites have posted interest in doing so, but none have put their money where their mouth is, not surprisingly since they are all sound and fury anyway.

here is an example:

http://nationalreview.com/moore/moore200411170839.asp…

I wrote to the author and asked for a contribution to get to NZ (along with a scathing rebuke of himself and his article), but no response was forthcoming.

oh well, guess I’ll keep on having to step on the religious right’s toes.

cheers

p.s.  have you heard that song, “Suddenly New Zealand” (at least I think that’s what it’s called.  here’s a link just in case:

http://www.bacchus-marsh.com/files/SNZ.mp3…

Comment #23611

Posted by Keanus on April 6, 2005 04:26 PM (e) (s)

If I recall correctly, Warren Nord is not a professor at UNC but a lecturer.  After the Thomas More Law Center listed him as an expert witness for the Dover PA case when it goes to trial, I looked him up at his department’s website. They listed him as a lecturer. A minor point but given the long standing credential inflating of IDC folks, it’s worth noting.

Comment #23620

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

stunning.  I looked at the list of early publications by John A. Davison.  You can’t be the same person.  You must be an alien plant, sent to confuse us into thinking that illogic is logic.  WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL JOHN A. DAVISON, YOU ALIEN SCUM!

…Posted by John A. Davison on April 6, 2005 03:15 PM (e) (s)

<Nobody is studying evolution directly because evolution is no longer taking place.>

right, so all the studies that can demonstrate mechanism and speciation over the last several decades simply don’t exist.

got it.  my brain is cleared of that baggage, thanks for setting me straight!

<There are no experts on evolutionary mechanisms because those mechanisms are no longer operative.>

well, they certainly aren’t in your mind, obviously.  I happen to know several experts on said subject that is supposedly no longer operative, and continue to contribute significantly to the literature and our understanding, which you, as an obvious alien plant, do not.

<Mendelian (sexual) genetics is entirely anti-evolutionary and serves only to stabilize the species, something William Bateson realized 80 years ago.>

hmm.  with that in mind, i suppose a prediction would be that sex serves to reduce genetic variablity, instead of increase it.  funny, every single study of genetic variability i have ever looked at in wild populations shows the exact opposite, and it is only logical to start off assuming this should be so, as you point out, since Lamarckism is debunk.  Convincing us poor humans that variability is “unnatural” would be exactly what i would expect from an alien species intent on wiping us out with a single contagion.

<Neither the ID crowd nor the Darwinian mystics want anything to do with me because I refuse to postulate mysterious forces>

refuse to postulate mysterious forces??? like god you mean, that you postulate as “a logical necessity”?

<facts absolutely demand which is that life was probably created many many times>

yeah sure, after you damn aliens managed to wipe out all life and attempted to reseed so many times.  even after so many attempts, selection ended up producing us poor undesireable logical scientists. so now you want to set us up for annhiliation again!  admit it!

<As for the Darwinian myth not a single element of which has any validity:>

yup, just keep repeating that mantra to yourself.  even you might eventually believe it someday.

If you aren’t an alien, you are the most self-deluded “scientist” I have ever seen write a sentence.

<“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

How do you like them apples?>

if you can’t see the irony in using that quote to “support” your own argument, you are either an alien, or have completely shut your mind down, in which case i highly suggest psycho-therapy.

Convince me you are not an alien bent on world domination, and i will email you the contact info for a few good therapists i know.

Comment #23621

Posted by Scott Davidson on April 6, 2005 04:50 PM (e) (s)

hmm, a few years back, i had a gut instinct that it was time to move to the land of sheep.

Well, we (NZ’s) may have a lot of sheep, but at least they’re not complaining about science curricula.
I wonder if there’s a lesson in that?  Maybe the judicious use of rubber bands may help solve the problem here in the states…
;)

Comment #23622

Posted by Henry J on April 6, 2005 04:53 PM (e) (s)

Re “Russell Carlson, a professor at my university, is one of the names on the list.  I’ve discussed the failures of intelligent design in his presence before and he was very silent through it.  He did agree that “sentient design” was a better name for what the IDists were trying to establish.”

I think “design” should be replaced by “engineer”. Calling it “design” makes it sound like the engineering aspect isn’t important or something.

—-

Re “They usually know about the system that they work on (maybe a protein or cellular system) but have usually had no exposure to any other kind of biology.  Certainly not subjects like ecology, organismal biology, and, you know, evolution.”

Hmm - wonder if that could explain a certain author of a certain book(s)?

Henry

Comment #23623

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 04:54 PM (e) (s)

ROFL!!!

Comment #23625

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)

oop, above laughter directed at:

“Maybe the judicious use of rubber bands may help solve the problem here in the states”

still trying to contain myself.

Comment #23645

Posted by Jim Foley on April 6, 2005 06:39 PM (e) (s)

What I find interesting is the omission of Paul Nelson from this whopping list. Maybe the DI doesn’t want Nelson to tell the Kansas BOE that he doesn’t yet think ID rates as a theory and isn’t ready to be taught to schoolkids?

Comment #23647

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 6, 2005 06:45 PM (e) (s)

Paul Nelson will be busy collecting his Scientist of the Year prize from Tom Delay.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=643826

Comment #23654

Posted by Josh on April 6, 2005 07:31 PM (e) (s)

As always, Thoughts from Kansas is your source for all things Kansas evolution.

I’m profiling these wackos as time goes by.  I’ve got a bunch up there, starting here.

Comment #23655

Posted by Russell on April 6, 2005 07:31 PM (e) (s)

What I find interesting is the omission of Paul Nelson from this whopping list.

They probably don’t want anyone so embarrassingly upfront about believing the biblical young earth account as literal fact, as Nelson is.

Comment #23657

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 6, 2005 07:46 PM (e) (s)

uh, Lenny Frank?

Snopes lost in ‘25.  the creationists won that one all those years ago.

That one didn’t involve either creation ‘scientists’ or IDers.  And, as you point out, the creationists lost anyway —- the conviction was overturned on appeal.  Noit, of course, before creationists were turned into laughignstocks all over the world.

But hey, if creation “scientists” or IDers want to claim Scopes as a, uh, victory, that’s OK with me. Doesn’t improve their record all that much, does it. <shrug>

Comment #23658

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on April 6, 2005 07:50 PM (e) (s)

Lenny Flank wrote:

  I will simply point out here that in the only place where the “debate” REALLY matters, in court, the creationists/IDers have lost.

Court rooms (kangaroo or otherwise) do not decide scientific debates.  They are settled in peer-reviewed journals.

Very very true.  But alas, ID is *not about* “science” and is *not* a “scientific debate”.  It is a POLITICAL debate.  Hence, it is the *courts* that have kept creationism/ID out of classrooms, not the scientific journals.

Comment #23664

Posted by Stan Gosnell on April 6, 2005 08:42 PM (e) (s)

Perhaps a Freudian slip, but the Snopeses were characters in Faulkner’s novels.  Pretty much the very archetype of the current creationists.  As for the spelling of the Rev Dr’s name, I assume that was just a typo.

Comment #23669

Posted by Keanus on April 6, 2005 09:32 PM (e) (s)

Reed Cartwright lamented that the Kansas BOE omitted Dr. Steve Steve. They also omitted another learned scholar who would undoubtedly have much to offer, the Wizard of Oz. It seems that the Wizard could enliven the hearing with some of his green smoke, roaring flames and stentorian voice to go along with the other witnesses’ fire and brimstone.

On a more serious note, I see that these witnesses are all scheduled for May 5, 6 & 7, leaving May 12, 13 & 14 open. I suppose they’re reserving those days for those opposing the minority report. Given that no real biologists will be appearing then, what will the committee likely do? Any clues, yet? Perhaps, Jack Krebs will give us a preview. Whatever else the KCFS does, they should at least produce a playbill with profiles of all the characters, ideally described in  their own words without embellishment and fully footnoted, to be distributed to the press. That should make clear the conflict is all about religion and not in the least about science.

Comment #23672

Posted by bill on April 6, 2005 09:45 PM (e) (s)

Having watched this all unfold a second time in Kansas, I am now at the point where I just don’t care.  The scientific arguments have been presented, the evidence is out there but the fact of the matter is that this is a political problem.  As in 1999 the Kansas board can vote whatever they want to vote.  They can vote to nominate Britney Spears for the Nobel Prize for all I care.

Who needs Kansas, anyway?  I say seal off the entire state and protect their citizens from receiving any goods or services tainted by “materialists” or “atheists.”  Of course, this would include cell phones, computers, well, most technology in general and quite a lot of food.  Fortunately, they grow enough of God’s wheat and corn to get by.

Furthermore, I would donate money to move the Discovery Institute from Seattle to Topeka.  Practice where you preach I say.

Comment #23674

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 10:08 PM (e) (s)

eh, don’t give up yet bill!  as goes kansas… so goes the rest.  just a matter of time.

i seem to recall we fought a civil war over ideological differences that were of a magnitude such that folks were considering forming their own states seperate from the union.

if you are willing to give up kansas, who’s next?  illinois?

i posted this in another thread, but food for thought here too:

http://christianexodus.org/…

Comment #23678

Posted by Jack Krebs on April 6, 2005 10:29 PM (e) (s)

Some comments

1.  Hey, I live in Kansas!  Please don’t just quarantine us and let us suffer alone!

2.  We are working on the “cast of characters” program - we may assign them numbers and jerseys. :-)

3.  The Wizard of Oz idea is actually quite good - “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” could be taken a number of ways.

Comment #23684

Posted by bill on April 6, 2005 11:31 PM (e) (s)

Sir T,

I wasn’t thinking so much about as giving up as using a Judo principle and giving in…a little.  Let the rope play out.  It’s difficult to refrain from name calling, but as Behe’s and Dembski’s work has been thoroughly discredited how else can one describe their behavior other than moronic?  If I had submitted Behe’s ID thesis to my professor when I was a grad student, he would have returned it to me with a big, red “F” across the top, along with acidic comments.  If I had resubmitted the same paper, he simply would have cancelled my grant and bounced me out of the group as an idiot.  Yet, Behe and Dembski persist with their stupid arguments that have no basis.

I found it disturbingly ironic that Behe recently reviewed a book by Dawkins and prounced Dawkins no longer intellectually capable of grasping large ideas.  I can only assume that Behe was talking about himself! 

However, what I find totally draining about this entire episode is the complete lack or ethics and morality by the supposed “Christians” including Behe, Dembski, Wells, Johnson and others.  If they don’t understand the science, then I’ll let them off under the guise of ignorance.  That is not the case, though.  They do understand the science, yet they pursue a political agenda contrary to knowledge, and to this end I brand them liars and hypocrites.

Comment #23685

Posted by sir_toejam on April 6, 2005 11:49 PM (e) (s)

“how else can one describe their behavior other than moronic?”

desperate?

now ask yourself, why are they so desperate?

It actually is a very important question.  the only one that really needs to be addressed to resolve this whole issue, IMO.

I can see multiple levels too it, but don’t forget that the more desperate one becomes, the more dangerous. 

intellectually, the issue was decided long ago, but emotionally, economically, and politically, the war is very hot, and getting hotter.

cheers

Comment #23686

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 12:16 AM (e) (s)

at the risk of sounding a bit redundant, if you want a view from inside the thought processes of the “average” creationist, check out the public forum on the exodus site:

http://christianexodus.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=PNphp…

i highly recommend it.  It might clear up some (at least one) of the questions about why delinski, dembski, behe, etc. keep pushing so hard.

however, I seriously doubt ideology is the only reason for the recent heavy push of creationism in the political and economic arenas.  Like they always say, “follow the money”… it usually won’t steer you too far wrong. 

cheers

Comment #23687

Posted by Jim Harrison on April 7, 2005 12:37 AM (e) (s)

Edward Gibbon summarized his great book, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, by saying that the work “decribed the triumph of barbarism and religion.” Sound familiar?

Comment #23690

Posted by Nick on April 7, 2005 01:48 AM (e) (s)

I finally rediscovered that link where Charles Thaxton was talking about creationism long before he decided ID was the right word to use in Of Pandas and People (Thaxton was the Academic Editor for Pandas):

Charles Thaxton & Jon Buell (1983). “Why All the Fuss About Creation and Evolution?” The Foundation Rationale, Vol.1, No.1, 1983. Published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, P O Box 721, Richardson, TX 75080.  Excerpt online at Creation Social Science and Humanities QUARTERLY: http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v15n3p23.htm

Comment #23692

Posted by Nick on April 7, 2005 02:10 AM (e) (s)

I encourage folks to keep posting material they discover on the clown army.

Someone included Sermonti in their list of respectable scientists.  I had him in my “crank” category, actually.  He may have done some respectable work long ago, but for at least the last two decades he has devoted the journal he edits, Rivista di Biologia, to posting anti-“Darwinism” screeds.  I think the reputation of the journal at the moment is just a hair above the journal Cryptozoology.
While Rivista di Biologia has published a few papers by legit folks, e.g. Brian Goodwin, it also published the prototypical misshapen anti-Kettlewell pieces on peppered moths in the 1980’s, and several papers by telepathy promoter Rupert Sheldrake.  Future all-expenses-paid Kansas witness James Barham has also published there, IIRC.  Sermonti has also appeared in one Young-Earth Creationist video that I specifically remember, and probably others.

Posted by John A. Davison on April 6, 2005 06:07 AM (e) (s)

Of ccourse Sermonti must be a fool. After all he published 6 of my papers. Don’t forget to add that to the list of reasons to discount him folks.

I rest my case…

Comment #23693

Posted by Rusty Catheter on April 7, 2005 02:49 AM (e) (s)

To correct J A Davison,

No one is studying the trivial parody of evolution that creationists paint it as. Since the basic idea has never been seriously suggested to be less than many times a human lifetime, the trivial “experiment” of “observing” the process from beginning to end is not a pressing concern. There are many people who are at least working professionals modelling the numerous processes already known to be operative in heritable biological change. Undergrads often get to meet and talk with them, and often are put through exercises duplicating key aspects of the more basic genetic events involved.

Phylogeny may or may not be finished. No one has observed that presently reproducing organisms do not vary, or that such variance is not heritable, nor that environmental change is impossible by means of climate change or even locomotion. To state otherwise suggests that the precious observation of all things till the end of time has already been done.

Sexual reproduction is capable of dispersing new alleles rapidly in a population in relatively few generations. Clearly this is anti-evolutionary if you didn’t read your undergrad notes. It is possible for new alleles to arise by a process that JAD has not yet heard of called mutation. This occurrs in all cells. Since not enough time has elapsed for all possible alleles to be generated by random or pseudo-random mutational events, and since JAD has not tested all such he is actually wrong to state that none such will arise. Something that William Bateson clearly did not emphasise enough was the point that Natural selection is normative in a constant environment, but normative to new optima in varying environments. Undergrads, yet again, can correct JAD and his source.

JAD has a funny idea of what “chance” is as well, but to say that natural selection does not exist at all is like denying the existence of gravity. It is as apparrent to biological practicioners as such, and JAD is simply playing to an audience when he makes this sort of silly assertion. I can personally assert that mutations can and do occur in organisms, and that these can be induced (as they are in nature, and in all other settings) by a number of agents controllable by man in experimental settings. These agents, and similar ones common in nature, often mutate DNA with some specificity for bases and for base sequence (pairs or triplets, sometimes longer sequences). It should be noted that while there is specificity for “hot spots”, plenty of other bases are affected by any single agent. Naturally occurring mutations are an example of randomness with some statistically observable bias. Since mutations occur and are generated by random events, how could they not exist and not be examples of “chance”. I think JAD is trying to fool someone, and not the professionals in the field.

The darwinian myth?

Change of genetic material by physical processes (tick)
Capacity of such change to affect biological forms (tick)
Capacity of such change in genes and resultant form to affect survival (tick)
Heritability of such change change (tick)
Observation of and selection of such change in contrived settings (tick)

Correction, the darwinian observed process is just fine.

Sorry JAD, but anybody actually working this field, pipettor in hand, gels in the background, can regard your remarks as rubbish.

Rustopher.

Comment #23694

Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on April 7, 2005 03:08 AM (e) (s)

russell wrote:

The posts here (not to be confused with the comments) are, IMHO, generally well reasoned. Sometimes they do point out the absurdities of the anti-evo folks without using kid gloves.

Well, I’ve yet to see any justification for referring to the people arguing for ID as “clowns”. I’m not sure that Mohammed Atta has a pilot’s licence, whereas Jonathan Wells has a PhD.

Really, if you are going to be all hurt at the nasty things people say about you, you shouldn’t throw the first stone from your greenhouse whilst the cat’s away.

Comment #23702

Posted by Russell on April 7, 2005 06:53 AM (e) (s)

aCTa:

(1) I’m not “all hurt”; just unimpressed
(2) I stand by my analogy; Atta had a pilot’s uniform - probably a better comparison to Wells’s PhD
(3) Stone, greenhouse, cat? Is this a mixed metaphor or an example of Brits and Yanks separated by a common language?

Comment #23707

Posted by Marco Ferrari on April 7, 2005 07:15 AM (e) (s)

Re Sermonti, why don’t you ask Massimo Pigliucci  (who, after all, is italian) about his career? AFAIR is a curious mix a decent researches in the first phase and absurd and amazing ideas about immanent “plans” in evolution unfolding. But that’s all I remember. Maybe he’s not a down and out creationist, but definitely antidarwinian. Let’s say he despises the role of chance in evolution and thinks some kind of orthogenesis (inner or outer, if you know what I mean) is better as an explanation of life diversity and evolution.

Marco Ferrari

Comment #23725

Posted by Les Lane on April 7, 2005 11:14 AM (e) (s)

whereas Jonathan Wells has a PhD.

The argument from authority. A PhD makes him a better biologist than Atta was a pilot? I doubt it.

Comment #23733

Posted by Henry J on April 7, 2005 11:52 AM (e) (s)

Re “that environmental change is impossible by means of climate change or even locomotion. “

Or evolutionary changes in the other species with which they interact. If prey gets harder to catch, or predators get better at the catching, that could produce what’s been called a “biological arms race”, an example of what an engineer would call a “positive feedback loop” - it keeps going until some limit is reached.

Comment #23747

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 01:22 PM (e) (s)

just to indicate what seems to be popular with the majority, Nick pointed gave us a link to a rather disreputable journal, Cryptozoology…

and yet, the cable tv channel Animal Planets newest show is titled:

Animal X

er, can you guess what it is about??

people, we are LOSING the battle for the hearts and minds of americans.

the intellectual battle over evolution vs. creationsim was won hundreds of years ago.  How do we win the battle for the hearts and minds of the average american?  This has become an economic and political battle, now.

I guess what i am saying is that while the continuing replay of the evidence for evolutionary theory is always useful at the university level, this battle will really be fought at the “grassroots” level. 

I ran into a failure to realize this a lot when i was a grad student at Berkeley.  Profs just didn’t want to deal with the fact that to win this battle, they would have to become “activistis” *shudder*.

If you can work with your community, with your neighbors, with your local politicians, to educate them about the fact that science really does NOT threaten their faith, the current rise in the abandonment of reason might be stemmed.

as pointed out in the newest thread in the forum, IDers don’t gain much ground at the University level, they are however, gaining much ground at the grass roots level, which translates into political clout.

sorry, felt a need to rant :)

cheers

Comment #23748

Posted by Uber on April 7, 2005 01:33 PM (e) (s)

“It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell

Absolutely freaking hilarious to use a quote like this against evolution when it was meant to be used in the opposite direction.

Fall out of the chair funny.

Anyone who says their is no proof of evolution either has an ideological axe to grind, are uninformed, or are mentally incapable of understanding science and hence evidence.

Call it Uber’s trilemma.

Comment #23750

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 01:44 PM (e) (s)

“…A PhD makes him a better biologist than Atta was a pilot? I doubt it.”

no, in fact it makes him exactly the same: crash and burn.

pardon the rather sickening image, but it is appropriate in this case and others where people claiming to be “scientists” have turned their backs on everything it means to be a scientist.

Comment #23773

Posted by John A. Davison on April 7, 2005 04:26 PM (e) (s)

I am only sorry I didn’t get an invitation too. The fact that the establishment (Darwinian atheists) are boycotting this discussion is a dead giveaway of the insecurity of their paradigm. I think the membership of Panda’s Thumb may be in for some real surprises when this whole business is published and subjected to rational scrutiny by unbiased observers. No reasonable scientist is in a position to deny the reality of a past evolution and no reasonable scientist could ever believe that chance could have played any role in it. The only conceivable explanation is that evolution was an internally controlled, front-loaded and strictly emergent process for which the external world played virtually no role, exactly as ontogeny is controlled today. Get used to it folks because that is the way it really is or rather was. You see evolution WAS a goal directed, irreversible ascending phenomenon exactly like ontogeny and, like ontogeny, it was self-limiting and self-terminating. To continue blindly claiming otherwise is naked mysticism and ideological bigotry, unfortunately the prevalent posture at Panda’s Thumb, one of the last surviving bastions of  Darwinian mythology.

John A. Davison

Comment #23779

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 04:55 PM (e) (s)

John, you still haven’t convinced me you are not an alien yet.

<the establishment (Darwinian atheists)>

which establishment do you mean?  are all “darwinians” atheists by definition or by practice, in your mind?  What is it about those who utilize functional theories of evolution that makes you so afraid?

I can only image fear for your own beliefs being at risk that prompts you to post such unsupportable and ridiculous claims.

<this whole business is published and subjected to rational scrutiny by unbiased observers>

?? which whole business would that be?  and which “unbiased” observers would you pick to review the “whole business”?

<No reasonable scientist is in a position to deny the reality of a past evolution and no reasonable scientist could ever believe that chance could have played any role in it>

but you are not even a scientist, let alone a reasonable one.  so who are you speaking for?  It has been demonstrated time and time again that chance has been the ONLY role of any significance.  i would go farther and say that no RATIONAL, even more than reasonable, scientist would deny this.

<To continue blindly claiming otherwise is naked mysticism and ideological bigotry>

uh, hmmm.  that’s exactly what i would pose is YOUR position.  The question then becomes, why are YOU so insistent on it?  what can you provide as direct evidence to support it?  why are you so insistent on ignoring all of the evidence available to support evolutionary theory?

<one of the last surviving bastions of  Darwinian mythology>

lol. you mean other than every single university and college campus that teaches biology in the united states?

mythology *snort*  I wish some of the Greek mythology i studied actually had 1/1000000000 of the evidence to support any basis in reality as current evolutionary theory does.  it would make the world a more interesting place if there was actually some truth to it.  Imagine a visit from Zuess or Poseidon? 

You yourself recognize the invalidity of Larmarckism.  How did you come to that conclusion, if you would be so kind as to trace the key argument that made you reject it?

John - i truly feel sorry for you that the paradox of faith vs. observable reality has created such an imbalance in your reasoning.

I’m actually giving you credit for still being able to think.

OTOH, i guess your posts, since they are so similar and so easily debunked, might have an ulterior motive that you have not made us aware of?

At the risk of being dense and missing something that is only obvious to yourself, why DO you keep posting the same argument over and over again? What is it exactly that you hope to accomplish?  is there some overarching economic or political motivation?  do you fear for our souls, brother?  do tell.

If you just repeat the same mantra, rather than actually showing us what your motivations are, I will continue to think you an alien.

Comment #23782

Posted by sir_toejam on April 7, 2005 05:13 PM (e) (s)

a bit more…

John,

If you claim to be a scientist (not saying you do anymore, mind you), then please use the scientific method to show us how you came to the conclusions you so repeatedly post here.

just that simple.

otherwise, your explanations are philosophy, not science,