Posted by PvM on June 19, 2004 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

No false positives? So what? All science is tentative, isn’t it?

Such seems to be the common response of ID proponents when ID critics show that the claims about reliability of the Design Inference are unsupportable. Let’s first look again at the claims made by ID proponents as to the exact nature of the explanatory filter, the Design Inference and its reliability. Once I have established the relevance of the reliability criterion, I will explore the recent objections and arguments from ID proponents. I will use claims and observations from many resources to show how the arguments from ID proponents fail to address these issues. In addition I will show how ID critics have made a compelling argument that the theoretical foundation of ID is fundamentally flawed.

Continue reading  “Icons of ID: Reliability: Do we care?”

Posted by Richard B. Hoppe on June 19, 2004 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (0)

Having recently (finally!) acquired a digital camera with pretty good zoom capabilities (10x optical, 3x electronic), I’ve been lurking around the place taking pics of little things, pushing the zoom to the max.  This is my favorite so far, what I think is a Celastrina of some variety/subspecies, though the notched wing is a teaser.  (Is there a lepidopterist in the house?)  I’m particularly taken with the pattern of alternating black and white on the antennae.  Click here for a larger image (27K), and here for a still larger image (47K).

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 17, 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

The Evolution Conference 2004 begins in little over a week (June 26th to be exact).  This year it is being held at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, CO.  This yearly conference is the biggest in the field of evolutionary biology.  (Next to, of course, the secret meetings in the White House basement where we worship Darwin, push our conspiracy forward, and destroy all the evidence that disproves our religion.)  The Evolution Conference is jointly sponsored by the Society for the Study of Evolution, the Society of Systematic Biologists, and The American Society of Naturalists.

This year’s schedule includes symposia on estimating clade ages, adaptation during ecological invasions, biological diversity, teaching evolution, sexual dimorphism, and evolution of plant phenotypes.

I will be attending, but not presenting anything.  Will any of our readers be going as well?  Next year’s conference is in Alaska, and I hope to present some of my research there.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 17, 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Les Lane made a comment on my site about an op-ed in the Pioneer Press. The thing is supposed to be a "rebuttal" to a lovely piece by Lisa Peters that I praised earlier this month. It isn't. It's standard creationist hackwork, a compendium of cliches and lies that we have all heard repeatedly.

Creationists have a real advantage when doing this kind of thing. They can lie brazenly, and in a single short sentence declaim something with absolute confidence that is nothing short of an outright fabrication, and it would take me an hour to adequately dissect their words and show how fraudulent they are. Take, for example, the title of the op-ed:

Evolution is a theory in crisis

It's a lie. Here, this guy, Bob Hazen, has written a fairly long piece in which he makes assertion after assertion, and he has the gall to start it with a bold lie as the title. Here I am, trying to make an honest and thorough reply to the article, and I'm finding it hard to look past the title. Shouldn't I just wad this newspaper up and throw it in the trash, not bothering to reply to such garbage? Yes. Unfortunately, it's the editors of the Pioneer Press who should have instantly canned this kind of crank nonsense, so we, the informed readers, are stuck with the pointless chore of plodding through, making note of the foolishness therein.

You see, evolution is not in crisis. It's a healthy, active science, inspiring investigators and guiding research in the field and the lab. The theory is supported with near-unanimity by biologists; the few who disagree are generally crackpots and people driven by an unscientific religious agenda. The only people who claim it is a "theory in crisis" are creationists, who want to pretend there is honest doubt where there is none.

Continue reading "Creationist lies in the Pioneer Press" (on Pharyngula)

Posted by PZ Myers on June 16, 2004 | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tangled Bank #5 is now online at Borneo Chela. This time around we have a solid evolutionary theme going, but that isn't always going to be the case: if you've written anything on biology, natural history, or medicine, send it in to host@tangledbank.net for the next edition, which will be hosted by Johnny Logic on 30 June.

Posted by Mark Perakh on June 15, 2004 | Comments (42) | TrackBack (0)

On April 21, 2004, a debate was conducted at the Veritas forum at UCLA. It consisted of two parts. In the first part Michael Shermer who is the editor of the Skeptic magazine and director of the Skeptic Society (based in Los Angeles, CA), argued in favor of a materialistic worldview against Jeffrey Schwartz who is a professor at UCLA and is conducting research in the human brain’s activity. In the second part Niall Shanks who is a professor of philosophy (and an adjunct professor of physics and of biology) at the East Tennessee State University debated William A. Dembski, who is an intelligent design advocate with doctoral degrees in both mathematics and philosophy plus a degree in theology. Each of the four participants of the debate has published several books. The debate which was moderated by a professor of philosophy Dallas Willard was taped and broadcast on C-SPAN 2 channel on June 12, 2004.

Continue reading  “Three SH's and one D”

Posted by Matt Young on June 15, 2004 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

My son-in-law, Todd, has a 2-year-old mutt named Rico.  Rico may be about half Labrador retriever and half German shepherd, but he may also be a Heinz hound (57 varieties).  I often tease Todd and Rachel about the way they anthropomorphize their dog.

The other day, I went to their house, and Todd was hanging clothes in the back yard.  I sat on the stoop.  Rico promptly came over and dropped a tennis ball at my feet.  He plainly wanted me to throw it and (I thought) pantomimed turning away from me and running.

I told Todd that I had just read in Science about another dog named Rico.  That dog supposedly had a vocabulary of 200 words and would fetch various toys on command from the owner. Without turning from his clothesline, Todd said, “Rico, why don’t you get the rope?”

Continue reading  “Anthropomorphizing Dogs”

Posted by PvM on June 15, 2004 | Comments (55) | TrackBack (0)

In this installment of Icons of ID I will explore the evolution of the reliance of Dembski’s ID arguments on the No Free Lunch Theorems. While originally Dembski was suggesting that the “No Free Lunch Theorems” play a major role in his arguments against Darwinian pathways, he seems to have changed his tune when it was pointed out that his application of these theorems was flawed or as Wolpert, who is one of the original authors of the these theorems mentioned “written in jello” and “fatally informal and imprecise”.

Continue reading  “Icons of ID: No Free Lunch Theorems”

Posted by PZ Myers on June 15, 2004 | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Don't be shy! We're looking for new entries for The Tangled Bank, and if you've written anything about biology, natural history, medicine, etc., send a link to host@tangledbank.net. Today is the last chance to get submissions in for tomorrow's list (hosted at Borneo Chela), so send something to Jason now! It's a painless way to quickly get linked from a number of science-oriented sites.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 14, 2004 | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Minions of the Discovery Institute don't restrict themselves to only fighting for the indoctrination of high school students with creationism—they've also got a wider goal of infusing society with their anti-science dogma. One Discovery Institute Fellow, Wesley Smith, has been all over the place ranting against stem cell research lately, typically with as little actual grasp of the facts as the DI usually brings to bear against evolution.

For instance, how is this for a lovely title: "Embryonic Stem Cell Research Likely Won't Cure Any Diseases"? Now that's doom-and-gloom for you. The gist of his argument is that 1) biotech companies are not getting rich on embryonic stem cell research now, and 2) it won't work anyway. The first point is irrelevant. Basic research often isn't going to be immediately profitable, which is why we need government sponsorship; that our current administration has actively crippled this kind of research might, perhaps, be contributing to the reluctance of the biotech industry to leap into it.

His second point is backed up with some incredibly dishonest quote mining. What he does is quote scientists as being discouraging about the prospects for the research, while omitting key conclusions that contradict his points.

Continue reading "Stem cells, Alzheimer's, and the contumely of the Discovery Institute" (on Pharyngula)

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on June 14, 2004 | Comments (46) | TrackBack (1)

The Panda’s Thumb will be going through some changes.  Where we once were a bland caterpillar, we are going to emerge soon as a beautiful, elegant butterfly.  (Or nasty maggot to shit-eating fly, take your pick.)  Some might say that PT is evolving, but no we are developing, growing into adulthood.  We will have fur where there wasn’t fur before, our voice will deepen, and might even grow a breast or two.  So please bear with us as we make the changes.

Posted by PZ Myers on June 14, 2004 | Comments (14) | TrackBack (0)

There is an online petition for UK citizens to protest creationism in education. Sign it if you agree with this statement:

We, the undersigned, feel it is an inappropriate use of taxpayer's money (and inappropriate within the UK National Science Curriculum) to teach religion in the science classrooms of UK schools. We feel is more appropriate that religion be taught as a separate subject from science. We want religion taught as a separate subject from science and the science taught to our (the nation's) children to reflect our scientist's current best understanding of the world & universe around us.

Posted by Nick Matzke on June 13, 2004 | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)

I am mostly a biology person, and PT is mostly a biology blog, but I think we can all take a moment to have a gasp at the results of the first moon flyby of the Cassini-Huygens mission to Saturn. 

Quite an improvement over the last few days, eh?  Check the continually-updated latest images from Cassini page at JPL, where you can view the images at almost whatever resolution you desire.  The Cassini team will probably be adding images rapidly from now on.

Continue reading  “Say Hello to Phoebe”