Posted by John S. Wilkins on May 01, 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (1)

A colleague in passing recently noted, of a committee we both endure, that "work expands to fill the amount of space allotted", and I casually remarked that it sounded a lot like a gas.

This got me thinking.

Continue reading  “The Ideal Gasbag Law”

Posted by PZ Myers on May 01, 2004 | Comments (16) | TrackBack (2)

I read this article with stark disbelief. It's a pandering bit of fluff for Hovind's "Dinosaur Adventure Land"...in the freaking New York Times. There is a very brief quote from Eugenie Scott, but otherwise the whole think is one happy ad for Kent Hovind and creationism, and it even glosses over his tax evasion troubles. Don't like Disneyland because they talk about dinosaurs living millions of years ago? Take the kids to Kent Hovind's backyard instead, where they can play on the swings while fundamentalists do their best to keep them ignorant and stupid!

Just how low can the NY Times sink? Pretty low, as this article shows. I rant some more about it here, but it's well-nigh impossible to adequately express my outrage.

Posted by John M. Lynch on April 30, 2004 | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Yesterday, I provided a brief examination of Behe’s scientific output since he published Darwins Black Box in 1996, and argued that his adoption of ID effectively stopped any research output. Just as a follow-up of sorts, let’s look at Jonathan Well’s whom we are reminded by Witham is a “biologist [and] design theorist”.

Continue reading  “Wells as Scientist”

Posted by PvM on April 29, 2004 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Gonzalez and Richards have posted a response to some of the objections by Kyler Kuehn raised to their Privileged Planet argument.

While I intend to address in more detail Gonzalez et al’s claims in the near future (I am recovering from a nasty cold) I would like to comment on some of their claims directed at Kyler Kuehn

The authors comment how Kyler Kuehn presented his arguments during the 2003 ASA meeting but then continue:

But Kuehn has since posted essentially the same critical response online, and presented on the subject at at least one public conference. Thus, a brief response is appropriate.

Kyler Kuehn’s response has been online for quite some time. I am not sure as to which public conference the authors are refering but since I used Kyler Kuehn’s excellent arguments in my rebuttals of the Privileged Planet I feel partially responsible for these “accusations”. If Kyler Kuehn’s posting of his powerpoint is a reason for rebuttal then why did Gonzalez and Richardson wait until now? The webpage mentions that it was ‘Last Updated by Kyler Kuehn, August 11, 2003 ‘

Continue reading  “Privileged Planet: The fallout starts”

Posted by PZ Myers on April 29, 2004 | Comments (15) | TrackBack (0)

Have you ever heard of the Manmin Research Center, and the Jaerock Lee Ministry? Neither have I, but William Dembski has—and he's been following it for years. He has recently even endorsed it.

The ministry of the Manmin Church is quite remarkable, and I have been following it now for several years. As a scientist, I tend to be skeptical about events that are supposed to be miracles. Yet as a Christian, I also know that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that there is nothing to prevent the power of God from working miraculous events. Having visited the Manmin Church and having seen the news reports of Rev. Dr. Jae-Rock Lee's ministry around the globe, I am persuaded that God truly is manifesting himself with works of power through this ministry. There is a great need for people to experience the power of God in their lives. I therefore commend "Manmin World News" for emphasizing this aspect of the Christian life that is so often neglected in the West.

--- Dr. William A. Dembski (Author of "Intelligent Design")

Continue reading  "Isn't that special?" (at Pharyngula)

Posted by John M. Lynch on April 29, 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

As part of an essay review I am completing, last night I finished reading Larry Witham’s By Design, which “recounts the history of the intelligent design movement [and] … shows how ideas and personalities mix to challenge deep scientific presumptions.” I don’t have time at the moment to go into it, but Witham’s work is deeply flawed as an historical study and clearly demonstrates his support for the design faction (not surprising giving his Unification Church background and friendship with Jonathan Wells). That aside (and it is something I will return to eventually), Witham makes much of Behe’s scientific credentials along with his “conversion” to ID being for evidential (rather than religious) grounds.  In Chapter 8 he states:

Although critics call his design idea a “science stopper” (arguing that if a designer is presumed, many questions about origins are settled by fiat), Behe keeps up his research. (p. 132)

Tom Woodward also makes much of Behe’s standing as a research scientist in his Doubts About Darwin (Baker House, 2003), another flawed and partisan history of design.

Let’s examine Behe’s publication record over the past ten years, concentrating on peer-review scientific articles (i.e. ignoring letters, op-ed pieces, etc).

Continue Reading Behe as Research Scientist (at Stranger Fruit)

Posted by Ed Brayton on April 29, 2004 | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

Anyone who has followed the evolution/creationism issue for any period of time is quite accustomed to seeing articles filled with the most basic factual errors, poor spelling and hackneyed arguments. But this article, written by someone named Brian Cherry in a webmag called the Washington Dispatch, may take the cake. It’s so badly written that for a moment, one suspects that it is a parody. Alas, it’s not. Mr. Cherry actually wrote it and, presumably, believes it. Unfortunately, he can’t even get the most basic facts right, let alone comprehend the larger issues he discusses. Let’s begin the fisking.

Who’s your daddy? It is exactly this sort of question that results in slapped faces and restraining orders if the query is made in a bar. When this question was posed to the State School Board of Ohio and framed in the context of human origins it sparked national debates and threats of lawsuits. The board was tasked with making the decision on whether or not students can be presented with an alternative to the theory of evolution. The alternative in question is the theory of intelligent design.

Mistake #1: There is no “theory of intelligent design”. At this point, ID is nothing more than a technical-sounding argument from ignorance. William Dembski, the leading ID advocate, defines an argument from ignorance as one that takes the form “Not X, therefore Y”. Yet even while denying, in rhetoric, that ID is based upon such an argument, he has created and developed a rather obvious one, the Explanatory Filter (EF). The EF is precisely this form of argument - “If not regularity and if not chance, therefore intelligent design”. This is not a theory in a scientific sense, and there is no actual explanatory model in place for ID. There is no model of how such design took place, by whom, or when. There is no actual positive research in favor of ID, there is only sniping at evolutionary theory as an explanation so that they can repeat the argument from ignorance seen above - if evolution doesn’t (yet) explain it, it must be ID. Sorry, this isn’t a theory.

Continue Reading  “Answering a Horrible Pro-ID Article” (at Dispatches From The Culture Wars)

Posted by Ed Brayton on April 29, 2004 | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

I would like to welcome two new contributors to the Panda’s Thumb crew.

Mike Dunford has been a contributor to talk.origins for so long that he almost doesn’t feel like the new kid on the block any more. Currently, Mike is an Nth year senior at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where he is (finally) completing his B.S. in Zoology. Following completion of his undergraduate work, he plans to continue to study evolution in island environments (especially ones with good beaches). Current interests include speciation processes in sympatric populations, and the evolution of introduced species. In the past, he has worked as a paleontological lab technician. Other interests include the history of geology, especially in 19th century England.

Paul R. Gross is University Professor of Life Sciences, emeritus, at the University of Virginia. His baccalaureate and doctoral degrees are from the University of Pennsylvania. He holds honorary degrees from Brown University and the Medical College of Ohio. He is a developmental and molecular biologist who has taught at Brown, Rochester, MIT, and the University of Virginia. A Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he served from 1978 to 1988 as President and Director of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, MA, and was Vice President and Provost of the University of Virginia, where he helped to found and served as Director of the Molecular Biology Institute. He is co-author with Norman Levitt of Higher Superstition (Johns Hopkins, 1994, 98) and with Barbara Forrest of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford, 2004).

A hearty Panda’s Thumb welcome to Mike and Paul. Protostome Pilsners are on the house for the next hour. Cheers!

Posted by John S. Wilkins on April 27, 2004 | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

A paper in the Journal of Physical Chemistry today reports that if you mix the right chemicals, a fungus-like structure spontaneously forms with a membrane across which reactions pass, and which continues to “grow” indefinitely, according to a Nature Science report.

The authors of the paper conclude:

This system may produce multicellular chemical structures, and separation of daughter cells form the mother cell has been observed. It is probable that a variety of inorganic systems could be constructed showing the same kind of behavior that we reported here. The spontaneous formation of cellular chemical systems that are sustained far from equilibrium may be an important step in understanding the possibility of the formation of different forms of life on other planets under other conditions.

Every month, it seems, the chemical difference between life and spontaneous reactions, is reduced, a process that has been happening since the early 19th century. But still some require intelligent intervention in the face of all evidence…

Posted by John M. Lynch on April 27, 2004 | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

Following on from PZ’s post below, if you read the original report from the conference you find the following:

Discussing the various scientific advances that have pointed more and more toward a Creator, the Cambridge-educated [Stephen] Meyer said “the future is very bright” for research into Intelligent Design.

He then revealed that donors have now contributed enough funds to create a laboratory for the study of biomolecular information at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute - a very significant development that could yield new breakthroughs.

“There is,” concluded Meyer, “a lot of good science in the pipeline.”

Just as well, because there has been bugger all in the five plus years since the Wedge was launched. Remember the key scientific research objective from the  Wedge document?

One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

Still waiting. Search the scientific citation indices for works by Behe, Dembski, Meyer, Wells, Nelson et al. for primary research that explicitly supports ‘design’ or even tests design as a null hypothesis. Have one beer for every paper you find. Come back here. You’ll be stone-cold sober.

It’s worth pointing out that some of their other objective have been met - “Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications” and “Significant coverage in national media”. Indeed they even have had some success in making “states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory”. Just no science.

Posted by PZ Myers on April 27, 2004 | Comments (28) | TrackBack (0)

At a recent ID conference, Phillip Johnson was awarded the "Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth" (I know, creationists, irony, yadda yadda yadda). He spoke, and this is the subject he chose to bring up:

In accepting the award, Johnson noted the pending U.S. Supreme Court case over the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and said that the next burning issue in our culture will be the fundamental question of whether or not God exists. In fact, he said the ultimate question of whether God is real or imaginary—and whether God's moral authority has any standing in American society—"is the most important issue since slavery."

"It is the issue that divides our culture and it needs to be addressed," he said. "Every politician should address the issue of the existence of a Creator.

Ah, but of course Intelligent Design is an entirely secular, non-religious, scientific program of research.

I will address the issue, though. Every individual is free to decide whether god is real or imaginary. Personally, I've decided that he's a worthless fantasy, but I don't get to try and compel others to think likewise. Similarly, some may believe otherwise, but they don't get to tell me that I'm fired from my job or should be thrown in jail or should suffer some quaintly evil Old Testament torture for my beliefs—it's that "liberty and freedom" thing, Phil. And because we are a pluralist society that supports diverse religious beliefs, "God's" moral authority has no standing in American society. None at all. It can be a matter of private conscience, but not public policy.

Don't expect the theocrats at the Discovery Institute to grasp that concept any time soon, though. Making their interpretation of Biblical law the ruling principle of the United States legal system is their goal.

Posted by John S. Wilkins on April 26, 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (2)

During the first world war, according to a hoary old tale, the message was sent from the trenches to the command post behind the main front of the British Army from soldier to soldier. The message was sent as Send reinforcements, we're going to advance, but was received as Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance. As things are transmitted, they change. School children are often introduced to this as the game "postman".

Continue reading  “Living Words: the politics of taxonomic objects”

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 26, 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

I have developed a revision of the MovableType plugin QuickCcode, named KwickCode, to suit the needs of our blog.  The syntax should be familiar to anyone used to posting on web bbses.  It comes in two flavors, one for posts and a restricted one for comments.

Continue reading  “KwickCode is Here”

Posted by Dr.GH on April 26, 2004 | Comments (38) | TrackBack (0)

Please note that these are all direct quotes from creationists taken from the many public domain creation/evolution debates. I have collected these for years, and many of the debate sites no longer exist. Even so, I wager that I could replace them today without too much trouble. I have arranged them some, but I have not altered original spelling or grammar. GH

Logic and Sweet Reason

“There is proof in math and logic… ok. I’ll give you proof.  You go first. “

Continue reading  “Creationists Explain Things: Logic and Sweet Reason”

Posted by Dr.GH on April 25, 2004 | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Please note that these are all direct quotes from creationists taken from the many public domain creation/evolution debates. I have collected these for years, and many of the debate sites no longer exist. Even so, I wager that I could replace them today without too much trouble. I have arranged them some, but I have not altered original spelling or grammar. GH

Dating Fossils

“Although personally, evolution is a load of crock. I think the fossil records speak for themselves in that area. As does logic.  If you truly beleive that all species are evolving, and changing and that the earth is a billions of years old, explain to me why all of the species alive today can be found in the fossil record from millions of years ago. Fossils are just creatures that died in the flood and were buried. All the sediment deposits and massive lava flows and oil deposits are the remnants of a tremendous global cataclysm.  It’s that simple and that’s all you need to explain it. It isn’t complicated.”

Continue reading  “Creationists Explain Things: "Fossil Dating"”

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 25, 2004 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (1)

In reforming its school system, Italy has dropped evolution from its primary and middle school curricula.

This isn’t exactly breaking news, but I’m just catching up with things following hospitalization.

A post by David Wilson on talk.origins translates one of the Italian news articles about this change and gives a summary of the situation.

Posted by Dr.GH on April 25, 2004 | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

Please note that these are all direct quotes from creationists taken from the many public domain creation/evolution debates.  I have collected these for years, and many of the debate sites no longer exist.  Even so, I wager that I could replace them today without too much trouble.  I have arranged them some, but I have not altered original spelling or grammar. GH

“Creation has just as much evidence as evolution does. That is a known fact. Besides it is just a theory.  If you really look at the evidence for evolution, and the evidence for creation, you will see that science supports a young-earth.  Evolution has NEVER been observed. That is a FACT. “

Continue reading  “Creationists Explain Things: Human Evolution”