Cherry-Picking, the new Normal? I, for One, Hope Not!

Interesting post over on the Patheos Blog Unsystematic Theology: "A Big Problem with Intelligent Design: “Don’t Look at My Bad Side”"  It reminded me of people who prefer to cherry-pick rather than look at a complete picture.

The idea of cherry-picking is to only pick the things you like, or want, and ignore the rest.  It's a logical fallacy called 'fallacy of incomplete evidence' and, more specifically, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.  Sound familiar?  Between the pseudo-news services of Fox and Breitbart and the hamster-haired lying misogynist we certainly see examples of cherry-picking on a daily basis.  Although since ol' hamster-hair creates his own 'facts' out of thin air, he might not be guilty of cherry-picking as often as folks like Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter.

The shame is that it's a fairly common practice and one I've found many Creationists employ, especially when discussing their faith.  Take a look at the Old Testament.  When you read the Bible you read a lot of serious stuff, including slavery, genocide, murder, prostitution . . . you know the things Christians like to say they are against.  The New Testament shows most things in a much rosier light, sort of like the Old Testament God created marijuana.  But do most Christians pay much attention to the darker side of their holy book?  No, they cherry-pick the stuff they like and try and ignore the rest.  Some Christian religions even argue that people shouldn't read the Bible, but only hear about it through views filtered through their various clergy.

Creationists of the Intelligent Design (ID) stripe do something identical.  They look at biology and marvel at the complexity, the beauty, and the functionality and claim that such things could not have occurred naturally.  But they ignore, or rationalize away, the simplicity, the ugliness, and the non-functional that also exists -- like I said -- cherry-picking.  They also like to ignore actual scientific evidence that doesn't support their ideas -- which is currently all scientific evidence -- while twisting science to try and make it sound supportive of Creationism.

Questions like 'why is there sin, cancer, evil, or even carnivores?' tend to rationalized away by most theists using stories involving human failure, sin, and Adam (of Adam & Eve fame, not Levine).  ID proponents simply ignore them.  They like to claim they are focused on biology, and yet their guiding document says that one of its goals is:

"To see design theory application in specific fields including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics, and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology. ethics, politics, theology, and philosophy in the humanities, to see its influence in the fine arts." (Wedge Strategy Document, page 4)

So while ID proponents like to avoid conversations that bring up the darker-side of their belief set -- because they are 'focused on biology' -- their objectives go far beyond biology.  They want to be firmly entrenched in biology before opening other conversations about things they would rather ignore, including minor details like the identity of their design and the age of the Earth.

We discussed the issue with identifying the designer just recently ("Why Won't ID Proponents Identify Their Designer?"), but forgot to mention this quote:

"ID is an intellectual movement, and the Wedge strategy stops working when we are seen as just another way of packaging the Christian evangelical message." (Philip E. Johnson, Inteview Citizen's Magazine (1999))

Johnson is considered the 'Daddy Rabbit' of the modern ID movement.  He also formulated their 'big-tent' approach.  Here is a brief explanation of that example of cherry-picking:

"Intelligent design has been described by its proponents as a 'big tent' belief, one in which all theists united by having some kind of creationist belief (but of differing opinions as regards details) can support. If successfully promoted, it would reinstate creationism in the teaching of science, after which debates regarding details could resume." (Wikipedia: Intelligent Design Movement)

So theist groups are supposed to ignore their matters of faith until such time science is pretty much trashed and then 'let the debates begin'.  I can see why many religious organizations dismiss ID, especially after the cavalier way ID proponents dismiss their beliefs, calling them 'differing opinions'.  So we have both avoiding identifying their designer and ignoring the many differences between religious beliefs in order to attack actual science.  Some serious cherry-picking there!

I almost want ID proponents, and their 'big-tent' to win, just to see the carnage that follows in the ecumenical debates.  I know, I know, it wouldn't be worth it, but oh to have a bowl of popcorn to see a cage match between Stephen C. Meyer and little kennie ham!

I do so enjoy ID proponents who claim science is too unwilling to examine alternative views -- and yet how often are theists willing to look at alternatives? Let's ask Wild Bill Dembski, once the darling of the ID Movement, who was threatened with being fired if he failed to toe the theological line.  His own comments show how truly close-minded theists can be. Here's a small quote:

" . . . this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness." (Dembski: Disillusion with Fundamentalism)

Since then, he's left the fold and apparently resigned his senior fellowship at the DI. Theists do some serious cherry-picking, and if you pick the 'wrong' cherries, you will more than likely get kicked out of that particular theist club organized religious group.

So, you see, cherry-picking is a fairly common tactic and can be the result of a conscious decision or even an unconscious prejudice.  What's important, is not just to recognize when you are doing it, but try and avoid it.  

You might be asking yourself if scientists are ever guilty of cherry-picking, and the answer is  -- of course.  However, you have to remember that science is also a self-correcting activity.  What one scientist publishes, other scientists attempt to replicate.  Logical fallacies, such as cherry-picking, in data or methodology can't be hidden under such scrutiny (just ask the Cold Fusion guys: Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons).  

But what mechanism does theology have to correct its cherry-picking (and other logical fallacies)?  Looking at the evidence of folks like Ham and Meyer, there is none.  Meyer writes a book, get critiqued and then writes a second book claiming to address his critics and then fails to do so.  Little kennie says anything he wants and then cites the Bible and God as his source -- oh yea, lots of self-correcting there.  The cherry-picking is more the normal course of events than an exception.

The DI's Michael Denton makes a Prediction -- Yes, believe it or not! Unsupported, but still a Prediction.

The Discovery Institute (DI) did something out of the ordinary, well for them it's out of the ordinary.  In this post from their Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV), "Genetic Similarities Between Fins and Limbs -- Evidence for Evolution, Maybe, but Not for Darwinism", Michael Denton said this:

"There never were any transitional forms making both dermal bone and endochondral bone. Organisms made one or the other.There never were any transitional forms with fin rays and digits. And I predict that no matter how extensively the fossil record is searched, the phenotypic gap between fins and limbs will remain even as the genetic gap continues to diminish. "

While we could get into one of the usual arguments about how there is much more to Evolution than the work of Charles Darwin, something the DI only seems to remember when it suits them.  Usually they equate all of evolutionary theory with Darwin's work as a strawman so they can try and tear away pieces.

I do have a biological question about one of Denton's statements, he said "Organisms made one or the other".  That's not true is it?  Granted I have to go back a number of years to a biology class, but aren't there examples of both in the human body?  Let's try Wikipedia:

"A dermal bone or membrane bone is a bony structure derived from intramembranous ossification forming components of the vertebrate skeleton including much of the skull, jaws, gill covers, shoulder girdle and fin spines rays (lepidotrichia), and the shell (of tortoises and turtles)." (Wikipedia: Dermal Bone) 

"Endochondral ossification is one of the two essential processes during fetal development of the mammalian skeletal system by which bone tissue is created. Unlike intramembranous ossification, which is the other process by which bone tissue is created, cartilage is present during endochondral ossification. Endochondral ossification is also an essential process during the rudimentary formation of long bones, the growth of the length of long bones, and the natural healing of bone fractures." (Wikipedia: Endrochondral Bone)

That's what I thought, Denton's comment is wrong.  Humans produce bones using both processes.  Plus when you read the original article Denton started with, You have someone studying a subject for 20 years and then based on one article in the NY Times, Denton makes some erroneous statements, strange conclusions, and ends with a ridiculous prediction.

Even with that, what I found most interesting was this declarative statement, Denton's prediction.  He says 'no matter how extensively the fossil record is searched', really?  Isn't he making several assumptions?  First of all, is Denton a Paleontologist?

No, he's a Biochemist with a philosophical agreement with the ID community.  In fact he wrote one of the earliest books that influenced Phillip E. Johnson in his drive to form the Discovery Institute and legitimize his religious beliefs as science. That book (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis) was reviewed by actual scientists and they said that the book distorts and misrepresents evolutionary theory and contains numerous errors.  So, we have a Biochemist making predictions about the fossil record.  Anyone else see a problem with that?

Next issue, Denton seems to think the fossil record is a complete record.  Doesn't he realize that we are making new fossil discoveries all the time?  Paleontologists are still discovering, categorizing, and studying all the time.  As new discoveries are made, the fossil record changes, usually becoming more complete and better defined.  We discussed a good example of this back a few years ago.

Finally, the last part of his 'prediction' is his assumption that as the 'genetic gap' shrinks, and by that I believe he's saying that as we learn more and more and connect the fossil lineages closer and closer, there will never be a direct connection between limbs and fins.  So . . . I have to ask this, is Denton acknowledging that Intelligent Design in nothing more than a God-of-the-Gaps argument?

OK, maybe not 'god' of the gaps, but definitely using perceived gaps to try and make an argument against current evolutionary theory, oh wait, not current evolution, but 150-year old 'Darwinism', how could I confuse the two.  Denton called this a prediction, but in reality it's his opinion.  He might be right, but then how many opinions and even predictions opposing Evolution have come true?  Anyone else remember the "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism".  If you haven't read it, you might give it a go.  It's a nutshell view of the many 'predictions' made against evolutionary theory and how none of them have come true.

Back to his prediction.  Since the two bone formation processes (dermal and endochondral) are two different processes that produce different types of bone, would there be an expectation of a transitional form demonstrating one type to change into the other or is it more likely that one may replace the other?  I don't know what future discoveries will be (and neither does Denton), but I think what Denton's done is take two widely different things and then predict they won't intersect.  What this reminds me of is a common Creationist complaint about a dog never giving birth to a cat.  His 'prediction' seems to be highly improbable -- by design.

Can it be stated any clearer: Intelligent Design is Creationism.

The Discovery Institute (DI) is at it, whining and complaining when someone says anything about Intelligent Design (ID) that might be critical, this time the target is the NY Times.  George Johnson wrote a piece for the NY Times Science section that briefly mentioned ID in "The Widening World of Hand-Picked Truths" and, of course, since it mentioned ID, the DI, in the guise of one of their rabid attack Chihuahuas--davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, had a typical knee jerk reaction to it.  Here's what George said:

"Like creationists with their “intelligent design,” the followers of these causes come armed with their own personal science, assembled through Internet searches that inevitably turn up the contortions of special interest groups. "

It's easy to see why klingy is upset, I mean how on-target do you have to be before you make him, and his masters, nervous.  How many times can they deny ID = Creationism?  How often does the DI claim to be doing science, yet show no evidence of actually doing it?  Sounds like a definition of 'personal science' to me.  And if the DI isn't an example of a Special Interest Group, I don't know what would be then, and list all their tactics, like 'Teach the Controversy', is a good example of their contortions!  "Is It "Delusional" to Think Darwinism Is on the Ropes?" is the post and Klingy has a lot to say, as usual, but I want to concentrate on this part of his comment:

"Now, as I've point out before, Johnson like many mainstream science journalists is woefully uninformed about ID -- as the confused conflation of intelligent design with creationism demonstrates."

Yes, he's stated over and over again that Intelligent Design is not Creationism.  Does anyone buy that?  Let's concentrate on the NY Times.  Their coverage of Modern Intelligent Design goes back to the mid-90's.  Let's take a look at what I think is the first article in the NY Times on the modern ID Movement:  "Christians and Scientists; New Light for Creationism".  Here's a few quotes, the underlining is mine:

"Since his [Phillip E. Johnson] conversion to evangelical Christianity at the age of 37, Mr. Johnson has written three books attacking evolution. He says he is aiming to challenge not merely the secularism of universities but of an entire culture that he says rests on the scientific assumption of ''naturalism'' -- the idea that the natural world has no supernatural supervision."

While it's easy to see Johnson hasn't changed his tune since then, but I still have one issue with comments like this.  Science doesn't make an assumption of naturalism, it's more of a constraint.  Think it through, how does one develop, test, and then put to use supernatural explanations?  While Johnson will never admit it, you cannot.  Therefore science focusing on natural explanations is the only direction it can go.  Science does not address the supernatural because it cannot.  Supernatural explanations are pretty much useless, whether you are talking about a deity, a ghost, or other para-psychological 'phenomena'.  Here's another quote from that article:

"Another ally of Mr. Johnson is Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University who contends that the molecular machinery of cells is so complex and interdependent that this is proof of purposeful design. Mr. Behe's book, ''Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,'' was chosen as 1997 Book of the Year by the evangelical monthly Christianity Today. "

The NY Times has been covering Creationism and Intelligent Design for years and the two have been linked consistently, not by outsiders, but by ID proponents own words and actions.  It does go back much further than Johnson, the daddy rabbit of the DI.  Here's one from 1864:
"RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY, OR PROOFS OF GOD'S PLAN IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND ITS ELEMENTS." the last paragraph includes:

" . . .in which the scientific information is of the latest character, to the arguments from special adaptation, and the general plan, as furnishing unquestionable proof of intelligent design. With some cautionary remarks on the necessary limits of scientific and religious thought . . ."

So it seems no matter how far back you, the concept of ID is religious.  The modern movement of ID grew out of Creationism and never strayed far from its roots.  You really can't tell them apart, so much so that a simple cut and paste was used to change a Creationism text into an Intelligent Design text, or does klingy think we have forgotten 'cdesign proponentsists' and 'Of Pandas and People' so quickly.  What if the Evangelical audience that supports ID suddenly transferred their support elsewhere, you would be saying "What Discovery Institute?" 

Sorry klingy, your complaints don't add up.  As for the rest of your whine, is it delusional to think 'Darwinism' is on the ropes?  In a word, yes.

Aside from disagreeing to his pejorative use of the word 'Darwinism', what support does he have that the Theory of Evolution is on the ropes?  None.  Oh, he occasionally points to the DI's list of 700, although now I think they are over 800.  Gee, how long have been collecting signatures?  5 years, 10 years.  I have to check.  Oh, 2001, so 14 years, and they finally got passed 800 and only a small percentage of them actually work in biology-related fields (about 25% according to a 2001 NY Times article and as of 2007 the biology-related signatories represented .01% of working biologists, not 10%, or 1%, not even 1/10th of 1%, but 1/100th of 1%).  I wonder why klingy doesn't bring up the 6900+ signatures of scientists who support Evolution, over 65% are in biology-related fields.  In 2005 those signatures were collected over a 4-day period . . . 4 days!  I guess I can see why klingy tends to forget about that.

So what support does klingy offer that Evolution is endangered?  Do we suddenly see Evolution not being referenced in PubMed?  Ah, poor klingy, PubMed references Evolution only about 415,274 times.  Now I am sure many of those aren't addressing biological evolution, so I adjust the search parameter to 'biological evolution' and the number dropped all the way down to 64,801 for that specific phrase.  Just for fun, how does 'Intelligent Design' stack up?  Klingy might be impressed, 187 references, but it looks like many of those aren't saying nice things about it.  Sure, evolution is on the ropes, really?  Can't tell that from working scientists.

Do we find colleges no longer teaching Evolution?  Other than places like Falwell's Lament, aka Liberty University, only evangelical schools seem to teach Creationism/ID, and even most of those at least pay some lip service to evolution.  Why is that?  Search for yourself, they are in a significant minority.  So . . . if ID is not Creationism, why are only a very few non-secular schools teach it?  At most non-secular and secular schools, Creationism might be mentioned in a historical context, but when it comes to real science, it's barely a footnote.  So it doesn't look like it's on the ropes in higher education either, in spite of all the efforts of the DI to destroy science education.

Do we find any scientific arguments against evolution?  Nope, only philosophical ones, mainly motivated by religious beliefs.  Poor klingy! I mentioned once, but let me expand a bit, if ID is not Creationism, why are the only people who seem to take ID seriously are Evangelical Christians?  Yup, while there are a few exceptions, like klingy, the clear majority are Christians of the Evangelical variety.  So, scientifically, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with Evolution.

Another question, who hosts ID 'conferences'?  Universities?  Colleges?  Scientific organizations?  No.  It's Christian groups, churches, and school ministries.  Other than self publishing in their own journals and publishing groups, where do ID proponents publish?  Scientific journals?  Science Presses?  No, they publish mostly in the religious imprints or popular publishers whose requirement of support is damn near zero.   Where are ID books, like anything written by Stephen C. Meyer, found in libraries and bookstores?  The non-fiction or science section?  No, Christian Fiction is where I see them.  Does anyone other than the DI think Evolution is on the ropes?  I think 'delusional' is a pretty way to express it.  I'm sure there are others, but this one works for me.

OK, I know we'll be posting on this topic over and over again, since the number of times folks like klingy and little casey luskin claims the two are unrelated seems to be to closest we will ever get to infinity, I just don't want anyone to fall for their claims.  ID = Creationism, no matter what the ID marketing department says.

What is the source of morality?

A common theme running through many a post by one theist or another is that without religion, you cannot possibly be moral.  I disagree, but maybe not for the reasons you might think.  The question to isn't what is the source of morality, but whether or not the source is important?

Morality, in it's simplest form is nothing more than behavior that is characterized as 'good' or 'bad'.  It's a standard that is set by society.  Regardless of the source, morality is what tends to keep people from doing things they realize are unacceptable to the society they live within.  The issue at hand isn't whether or not a particular behavior is moral, but is the source of the standard important to the application of the standard.

There's where I have issues with the whole religion = morality argument.  Yes, some of the moral standards we live with can be traced to one religion of another.  Others can be traced back to one legal system or another.  Still others have formed through custom and courtesies we see and practice ourselves.  Regardless of the source, morality is a driver of a surprising amount of our behavior.  Most of us try and make daily decisions based on our understanding of morality, often unconsciously.  I mean we rarely think specifically about morality unless it's a blatant issue, like abortion or pedophilia, but our morality comes out in much smaller ways.  How we treat other people, how we communicate, how we go about our day-to-day lives.  We might consider morality as we read about the latest school shooting, or how other people are treated around the world, but while we think about it, do we consider the source of the morality?

Rarely!  The source is less important than the imprint it left on us.  I look at it this way, it is immoral to murder someone.  Does it matter to me whether or not I learned it as part of the 10 Commandments or that I learned it from watching the news and forming an opinion?  When I consider the concept, the source is pretty much irrelevant.  For one reason or another I am full of what I consider 'moral' standards.  I am sure my upbringing as a Catholic was one of the sources, but they also include my parents and the rest of my family, my friends, my education, and most especially my own experiences added to the mix.  All of these things have formed various opinions that I use to judge my own and other people's behavior.  When I hold the door open for someone, it's a moral decision born of politeness and also of education from my mother and father.  My mother expected it and I saw my father do it regularly and I more or less picked it up.  Sure earth shattering it's not, but it's one of the judgements I make about my behavior and recently it made me think about the source of my morals.

I started a job in a secure building, one you needed a swipe card to enter.  The rules were such that if you let someone else in on your swipe, you could get fired.  So I had to develop the most uncomfortable behavior of literally closing the door in someone's face so the locking mechanism can engage and they can swipe themselves into the facility.  It might not sound like much, but it was one of the hardest things I ever had to do.  Closing a door in anyone's face is really hard, but it was actually harder when it was a woman.  Yes, it might be sexist of me, but that's how I was raised.  The first time I did it, I could see my mother standing over to one side looking at me with a very disappointed look.  I knew the rules and I am sure the lady behind me knew the rules, but it made me very uncomfortable performing that very simple act that in any other environment would have been considered rude and  . . . yes . . . immoral. Again, not earth shatteringly immoral, but immoral just the same. 

I am sure technically since it was an enforced rule you could argue that it is moral of me to shut the door in their face, but that didn't change how it made me feel.  Last night while I was think about it, one of my favorite online comics, Jesus and Mo had a perfect one and one that followed some of what I was thinking:

I haven't read the study they reference (Morality in everyday life), but the idea that theists and atheists could be identical in a moral sense made me think again about the source of my personal morality.  Once again I came to the conclusion that being moral is about behavior and the source that drove that behavior is immaterial to the result. 

So when any theists makes a claim of moral superiority simply because they are a theist, it makes no sense.  Believing in a religion doesn't make you moral.  It's your behavior stacked up against what society considered morality that makes you moral.  So when someone like kennie ham lies to get someone in an interview (Turnabout is fair play!) and even using the excuse that God will forgive such a little transgression because it's for some higher purpose, his beliefs matter little because his behavior is immoral.  When Philip E. Johnson (One of the founders of the modern Intelligent Design Movement) commented "When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble." he should have been addressing the morality of their position rather than simply complain about the lack of scientific progress.

My conclusion is being a theist does not make you a moral person, just like being an atheist or agnostic doesn't make you immoral.  It's your behavior in large and small things by which you are judged by your fellow human beings.  Lies, distortions of the truth, and deliberate mis-characterizations are immoral whether you think you have a deity looking over your shoulder or not.

5 years later

Doing my usual wandering around the web, I frequently check out PZ Myers 'Pharyngula' blog and am rarely disappointed. Today was certainly no exception. He linked to an article published 5 years ago. An interview with several Intelligent Design proponents, including Phillip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Paul Nelson. I had seen excerpts of some of the comments before, but I hadn't read the whole article.

PZ focused his comments on one question in his blog post "Put your affairs in order, biologists. Your time is nigh!" That question was "Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?" Of course Dembski predicted the demise of evolution. Nelson was actually a little better claiming the biggest challenge is "to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design." Well in the past 5 years we have yet to see any sign of crumbling in evolutionary theory, we also have yet to see any sign of an actual 'Theory of Biological Design." I was also struck by the fact Nelson didn't include the word 'Intelligent' in his response. I was also interested in the rest of the article and here are a few things that struck me.

Johnson immediate brought up the whole 'prejudice' line in his first comment. How A.E. Wilder-Smith and and Michael Denton were "brilliant men were noticed to some degree, but prejudice prevented their ever gaining a fair hearing." AE Wilder Smith was one of the people pushing the dinosaur and human footprints existed at Paluxy River. You know, the ones found to be doctored and carved. So it's 'prejudice' to expose a fake? Denton seems to have changed his mind. In 1998 he published his second book, Nature's Destiny, which appears to assume evolution as a given. He no longer openly associates with the Discovery Institute and they no longer lists him as a fellow. Funny, this interview was in 2004, yet Johnson makes no mention of Denton's 1998 work. But he does adhere to the party line, claiming prejudice and discrimination as the reasons why Intelligent Design can't seem to get off the dime. Interesting how it doesn't stop real scientists, but it does seem to be a major roadblock to the pseudo-scientists.

Johnson's next comment just killed me "Freud, Marx, and Darwin were all revered as major scientific heroes throughout the twentieth century. Of the three, only Darwin retains any scientific standing."

First of all, Sigmund Freud has no scientific standing? Since when? Granted some of his ideas have been superseded by recent work, but the Father of the psychoanalytic school of psychology still has a great deal of standing. Like Newton and Darwin, his work only went so far. People kept taking it expanding it in many areas and even replacing it in others.

Now Karl Marx, revered? At least that is the Marx I think Johnson was referring to. I doubt it was Groucho, Chico, Harpo, or Zeppo (or the lesser known Gummo -- yes, Gummo, look it up). First of all while I recall studying up on Marx a bit, I would never put him in the same class as Freud or Darwin. In his own lifetime his was a relative unknown. I think this is the first time I have seen those three names linked in such a fashion, but it also plays to the Discovery Institute party line of linking Darwin with Hitler, eugenics, and racism. Why not communism?

Another question was "What are the implications for morality of Darwinism and intelligent design?" To which Johnson replied: "The fundamental issue is whether God is real or imaginary. An imaginary God has no moral authority. Intelligent design is bitterly resisted because it threatens to allow God to re-enter the realm of reality as the object of public knowledge."

This is a mis-characterization, to say the least. The reason Intelligent Design is contested is simply the precise reason mentioned by Nelson. There is no theory supporting it. There is no work, no evidence, no explanations that can be taught as science! Until that happens it deserves to remain lumped in with Astrology and the other wanna-be sciences. The fact ID is so tightly woven with God and Creationism is mainly because of Johnson's own words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy):

• "If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind."
• "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
• "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
• "So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do."
  

So, in other words, Johnson is still trying to remove the specter of 'God' from Intelligent Design and he has failed. Without an 'Intelligent Designer' his ideas have no place to go. Here we are 5 years after this interview and Intelligent Design still has no theory, it has no support other than some degree of popular support. Even though the Discovery Institute opened its own lab, there is still no theory. For all it's marketing, which this interview is certainly a part of, there is still nothing to teach other than as a failed philosophy. There is nothing to present to science. My expectation is there never will be because rather than just buckle down and do the science, they are spending all their time marketing.

OK, enough from me. Go see the article for yourself and enjoy. There is so much more to read there. I have only scratched the surface. Here are a few phrases that caught my eye:

• [ID's] main importance is cultural
• People’s intuitions will continue to lead them to see the design in biology
• More than half of the work of the ID community is still directed to pointing out the problems with Darwinism
• biologists even now freely employ the concept of design, saving themselves from charges of heresy by arbitrarily attributing the design to natural selection. [huh?]
• [Dembski actually said this] Natural selection acting on randomly varying replicators is fruitful and certainly a factor in biology

There you go, please read it., laugh at the funny parts and think how much of this will change int he next 5 years.

I honestly believe ID proponents would rather cry "Prejudice" than "Eureka!"

Stephen C. Meyer has a new book coming out

As I have said before that I don't trust much of anything that comes out of the Discovery Institute. Here is a case in point, an announcement of a book that hasn't hit the shelves yet. I plan on pointing out my current objections, then I will read the book and report back then. I know, people may think I am already prejudiced against the DI, and they are sort of right. Prejudiced involved pre-judging. My opinion of the DI is not a pre-judgment, but an opinion based on the tactics and strategies they have exhibited so far. I expect this book to be nothing more than the same and I expect the DI to meet my expectations. If you want to think I am prejudiced, then you explain to me how lying, mis-representing science, and pretending to be the victim of an imaging persecution are positive role models in today's society? If you can do that then maybe you might have a reason to think I am prejudiced.

OK, to the new book. The DI has done their usual trumpeting:

As we are ever quick to point out here at ENV, the case for Darwinian evolution has been crumbling in recent years as scientific research points to design in nature. Now a unique, new argument for intelligent design is about to revolutionize the debate over evolution.

On June 23, Dr. Stephen Meyer's long-awaited Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) will break open the radical and comprehensive new case, revealing the evidence not merely of individual features of biological complexity but rather of a fundamental constituent of the universe: information.

Let's just take a quick peek. Has anyone actually witness the crumbling case of evolution? With the DI's failures in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Florida, Oklahoma, California, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Pennsylvania . . . to name a few, I would think the DI is much closer to crumbling. But I guess if you keep saying the same thing ver and over again, someone might believe it to be true. What did PT Barnum supposedly say, "There's a sucker born every minute" and WC Fields said "It is morally wrong to allow a sucker to keep their money." Well either way they both seem to apply to the Discovery Institute.

Next point, "scientific research points to design in nature". Another question where is this research? Who has seen it, who has published it, who has peer reviewed it? Pretty bold claim for something that no one has seen evidence of all this scientific work? The same scientific work that Michael Behe said wasn't being done by anyone as late as 2005?

I do love the phrase " a unique, new argument" because it would be entertaining, if nothing else, for an actual unique new argument. So far things have been pretty much at a standstill. Oh, I mean a standstill over on the DI side. On the evolution-side nothing as stood still as the research and scientific work rolls on. Just look at PubMed and search for the articles about evolution for an idea.

Usually the term "long-awaited" means there have been people eagerly awaiting for it's publication. Who has been waiting for this? No one know. I know lots of people who have been waiting and been severely disappointed in the publications of Behe, Dembski, Wells, and even Meyer before. But rarely does 'eagerly' apply. It will be interesting to read some of the criticisms of Meyers latest, but I guess we have to wait for it to come out first.

Another question? If this book is going to "break open the radical and comprehensive new case" why is it being published by HarperOne, an imprint of Harper-Collins? I am not saying anything negative about the publisher, I mean they publish what they hope will sell. But Meyer is repeating a significant problem when using a popular press publisher. There is no requirement for proof of his work. Now if he had real scientific evidence he would be publishing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. But no, he aims at the popular press with a requirement of proof and support of Zero! The smells typically fishy to me!

OK, this is the last comment I wish to make right now. The Amazon.com description of the book is

"The first, major scientific argument for Intelligent Design by a leading spokesperson within the scientific community."

Let's see, so all the other Major Scientific Arguments were what . . .prattle? SO this line says we can dismiss all the books by Johnson, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Klinghoffer, and even Meyer's himself because this is the FIRST! In a word bull! It's just the latest! I also have a problem with Meyer being described as "a leading spokesperson within the scientific community". He is a leading proponent of Intelligent Design. He is by no means a representative of the scientific community, let alone a leading spokesperson of that community.

OK, enough said for now. I do look forward to reading this book and seeing how well it lives up to the hype. Yes, I am skeptical, but that skepticism is based on the history of the DI and Stephen C. Meyer, who has done nothing but disappoint and disillusion so far.

My thoughts on a few books

I was asked, on Topix:

Can you recommend a good book that does a fair job of presenting both sides of the argument? Perhaps one that contains excerpts and articles of both sides?
If no such book exists, perhaps one should be written

My reply [slightly edited] here:

I'm not sure such a book exists, because in my mind there is no 'fair and balanced' way to compare apples and oranges. There are a number of books that present parts of the Creationism/ID argument, but I have found no one book that explains all the pieces and parts. Johnson's "Darwin on Trial", and Denton's "Evolution: Theory in Crisis" do a good job of presenting part of the case for ID. But neither book explains the supposed science behind ID. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" tries, but all he offers are philisophical arguments. These books tantalize us with scientific claims that none of them seem to bother supporting. I don't recommend anything by William Dembski, he doesn't seem to realize that pulling numbers out of the sky is not mathematics. Wells and West do nothing but parrot other peoples philosophies and add little to the discussion. And anything by Luskin is nothing but pablum to the people that already support ID. He adds absolutely nothing and understands even less. Of all these people only Behe is actually a scientist, a biochemist who teaches at Lehigh University. Johnson and Luskin are lawyers, Dembski a supposed historian of science, and the rest have assorted degrees, but have never worked in science or biology.

Ken Miller and Jerry Coyne offer a lot on the scientific side. Millers "Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" and Finding Darwin's God" are great books, as is Coyne's recent "Why Evolution is True" is a near perfect read. Both are biologists, which adds a level of credence to their work that the Discovery Institute wants and has yet to achieve.

If you want to get into the debate itself, Eugenie Scott, especially her "Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction" is a great book for getting into this debate on many levels. If you are after something quicker, the white paper "Understanding The Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals" written by Barbara Forrest is a solid start. Dr. Forrest was a witness for the prosecution during the Dover Trial, and one the defense tried their hardest to have excused. Her testimony did almost as much damage as Behe's own to the defense position.

My favorite book on the Dover Trial is Lauri Lebo's "The Devil in Dover". This is a terrific work that digs into more than just the argument, but how if affected the people involved. Edward Humes "Monkey Girl" is better on the details of the trial, but the personal nature of the characterizations Ms. Lebo describes really brought the trial up close and personal.

One thing I have noticed, and I am sure someone like marksman [a Topix frequent poster supporting Creationism/ID] will disagree, is that the pro-science side presents the Creationist arguments much fairer than the Creationist side presents pro-science arguments. The pro-science side makes much more of an effort to understand the Creationist arguments, whereas the Creationist side usually seems to slant the pro-science position into something they start trying to refute even before they are done presenting it. I see it as a form of intellectual dishonesty that seems to permeate their work -- Quote-mining is a wonderful example of this. Johnson, Wells, and Luskin seem to be pretty prone to quote-mining.

Talk.Origins contains some more info on quote-mining in their "Quote-Mine Project". Well hope you check out some of the books, even the ones on the Creationist/ID side can be interesting. It does make it harder for Creationist/ID Proponents to move the goal posts if you can give them their own words back at them! I do recommend going to a library rather than spending money and supporting the Discovery Institute.

Argument XVII - Equivalent sides? (Part II)

I take serious exception to the characterizations of this article: "Good News: Most Want Both Sides of Evolution Debate Taught"

Now before getting into my other objections, here is the quote that just plain pissed me off:

"Many Darwinists are trying to paint supporters of academic freedom as some kind of crazy, fringe element," said Candi Cushman, education analyst at Focus on the Family Action. "The truth is, the majority of parents want their kids to examine all the scientific evidence, to engage in critical thinking and to have classrooms that are academically challenging — not controlled by political correctness.”

I have never, ever painted such a picture of a supporter of academic freedom! I am a supporter of academic freedom! I am an avid supporter of academic freedom! I am also a teacher and I use the concept and the reality of academic freedom on a weekly basis.

In addition, let me be clear . . . I have NEVER seen one article, web post, book, or anything other form of communication from a supporter of Biology, Evolution, and Science say anything negative about a supporter of academic freedom! And if you have been reading my blog and the links to various places from my blog you know I have been doing my best to remain informed and involved in this whole discussion. This characterization is base libel.

Now I do understand West, of the Discovery Institute, and his confusion on the topic. I even agree with some of what Candi Cushman said, I agree that the majority of parents want their kids to examine all the scientific evidence, to engage in critical thinking and to have classrooms that are academically challenging.

The problem I have is what does supporting Intelligent Design have to do with academic freedom? The bills being introduced in some states use the term 'academic freedom', yet do not address the issue of academic freedom. The Wedge Document, the guiding document of West and the Discovery Institute, does not address the issue of academic freedom, in fact if you read their strategy the very LAST THING in the world they want in academic freedom. The author, Phillip E. Johnson's own words betray them:"

• "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
• "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."

How can anyone who wishes to bring in a patently religious and metaphysical set of ideas, ideas with no scientific validity, into the science classroom be an exercise in academic freedom? Would it be academic freedom to teach Astrology in Astronomy class? No, of course not! Yet that is the precise argument that West and Cushman are trying to sell!

I haven't seen the poll, just the simple fact it was commissioned by the Discovery institute makes it suspect, I mean they aren't exactly unbiased are they? However if it is like some of their previous polls I can pretty much imagine the questions asked. I mean if someone called me up and asked me "Do you want schools to examine all the scientific evidence, to engage in critical thinking and to have classrooms that are academically challenging?" I would answer yes. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable question, but it does mean I support Intelligent Design in the scinece classroom in any way. It's like when someone says "Darwin is false, 68% of Americans believe in God!" What does believing in God have to do with Darwin? Intelligent Design, in fact Creationism is whatever dress you wish to dress it up in, has nothing to do with science and supporting it in the science classroom is actually anti-academic freedom!

I also disagree with Cushman using one of the DI's favorite terms, "Darwinist". Just what exactly is a Darwinist anyway? It's a pejorative term. It's an insulting phrase designed to label people who support and understand Evolution. Her use of such a term tells me she is not much more just a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute than someone with a honest opinion on academic freedom. Why don't we call aerodynamic engineering "Wrightism" and pilots and even airplane passengers should be "Wrightists". We don't because aerodynamics is an engineering science! It's not based on faith, but on the evidence. That's why Biology is not "Biologism" and Evolution isn't "Evolutionism", they are not philosophies, like Creationism, but sciences based on evidence, testability, and predictability. Labeling anyone as a Darwininst is a misnomer, and one that reveals Cushman's bias!

Judgement Day rebuttal Continued

After laughing uproariously at slides 1 through 3, I started my day today with a look at slide 4. Is the Discovery Institute going into stand-up comedy?

They are accusing evolution of a "bait and switch"? Remember the stories about the pot calling the kettle . .oh never mind. Their comment: “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes and then over-extrapolating to claim that such modest evidence proves Darwin’s grander claims. Since evolution has been proven to have occurred, and the processes for evolution have been described in the theory, and speciation is part of the evolutionary theory, what bait and switch has occurred?

Oh the artificial dichotomy over micro and macro evolution? I've already discussed this so here is the nutshell version. Micro-evolution is the study of genetic evolutionary changes. Take micro-evolution and add in 3-4 billion years and you have what is now being called macro-evolution. Intelligent Design proponents hold that micro-evolution has happened, but belief macro-evolution, better known in science as speciation -- the evolutionary process by which new species arise -- can only occur by the hand of God/Designer. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are exactly the same thing, the same processes! The dividing line came about when Creationists/Evolutionist found they couldn't easily ignore all the evidence for evolution.

By getting back into the gaps idea, they are just rehashing old arguments. The God is in the Gaps. They are ignoring the macro-evolution experiments on generations of fruit flies and bacteria, but then we all know they are good at ignoring that which they disagree with.

My favorite item on this slide is the closing "According to UC Berkeley law professor and Darwin-critic Phillip Johnson, “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble."

What possible motive could the Discovery Institute have for not mentioning that Phillip E. Johnson is one of the co-founders of the Discovery Institute and the apparent designer of the Wedge strategy for gaining popular acceptance for Intelligent Design as the first step in "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God." Its goal is to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values."

Why would they only mention that he is an evolution critic and not mention he's a founding member? Why only mention his UC Berkeley ties? Well to give his words more validity that if the reader knew the deck was stacked once again. Gotta love consistency in their approach, but then it's all documented in their Wedge Document so they do have a game plan to follow.

Slide 5 confused me a bit. But then I remembered that Behe is an ID poster Child. I seem to recall his testimony was less than positive for the Intelligent Design part of the table, but here they expound on their point of view forgetting that Behe admitted his idea did not attack natural selection and that all of the "irreducible complexity" examples he used in his book, like bacterial flagellum, human blood clotting factor, and the immune system have had much more research done to show the evolutionary pathways their formation may have taken. "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" showed a reenactment of an attorney placing a pile of research on the desk where Behe was sitting about all the science behind the evolution of his examples and he simply decided to ignore it. In the trial transcripts his words were that he didn't find them persuasive. They forgot to mention that!

But even after all of that they still find time to wax poetic on his ideas. Idea which has had no science behind them, that no one is performing experiments to prove -- again, his admission under cross-examination. I guess they might be less happy with Behe now, but he's still a shining example of Intelligent Design marketing at work!

More slides later, I have to get some real work done. Can't spend the day having only fun!

Arguments VI -- Gaps in the fossil record

I hadn't thought about this one recently, until someone reminded me of it. There are gaps in the fossil record. Now when I first learned this, way back in my first dinosaur class in elementary school, I wasn't a happy camper. I mean back then dinosaurs were Cool and anything that didn't directly tie back to dinosaurs was not! I guess I was all of 8 or 9 years old and anything that was missing, like fossils, were crimes against nature -- to my thinking back then.

Nowadays I understand a lot more and I think even later in elementary school when I learned how fossils formed I understood why there weer gaps and some of the gaps might never be filled. But back then I still didn't like it!

The only thing I don't like today about the gaps is how Creationists/Intelligent Design supporters have tried to use them as rationale for the failures of science to answer questions. What i hope you understand is that the gaps were expected and predicted by paleontology theories. The reason is quite simple, the formation of fossils is a rare event. The conditions that allow a fossil to form are pretty exact and specific. The right materials, moisture content, even pressure and other conditions must be there in order to form a fossil. Most organisms never have the opportunity.

Of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents point to the thousands of fossils and claim how can this be, there are tons of fossils. Well when you look a the age of the Earth and the billions of years involved, translate that to how many organisms have lived upon this planet? Only a very tiny percentage of them will die and eventually form a fossil.

Then of course some of the Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents claim the Earth is only between 6,000 and 10,000 years old, depending on which group of them you happen to be talking to, and attempt to steer the whole conversation away from the gaps.

So, as I said science not only knows about the gaps, but expected there to be gaps. It would be totally amazing if there was an unbroken string from the original organism through modern day man of fossilized remains. In fact that would cause paleontologists to be more concerned over the validity of their finds than having gaps. You can read more about fossils here.

But Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents will continue to point to the gaps as evidence of the weakness of science. What they tend to forget is that a gap can one day be filled. We are still finding fossils and learning. They prefer to put their God/Designer in the gap and say, see God/Designer did it. The problem I see with the God of the Gaps story is that what happens when we find a fossil to fit one of the gaps? What will their story become then?

Of course Creationists/Intelligent Design proponents have more issues with the fossil record than the gaps. I've mentioned a few in other posts, like their disbelief in transitional fossils and their claim that radiocarbon dating isn't accurate, and their general disbelief in thermodynamics. Like the fossil gaps they like to point at science and make wide claims about its inaccuracy and inapplicability. I wish they would focus more on the science of their own ideas. Tearing down science doesn't mean as much when they use science to try and validate their own pet ideas. Oh there are gaps in the fossil record -- but here is Intelligent Design -- yea that makes sense.

I will close by saying once again that there are gaps in the fossil records expected gaps, explained gaps, and predicted gaps. I would really like to know how that advances Intelligent Design because from what I have read, including books by Behe, Johnson, Dembski, and Coulter, there are gaping fissures in Intelligent Design that no one seems interested in filling.

US Student scores grim!

This is a headline that should be in bold print above the fold of every newspaper in the US, but alas it's relegated to the back pages. That in itself is shameful. But please read the article! It's worth considering. Especially the closing line: "The United States will never take the lead in science as long as state departments of education are willing to sacrifice the integrity of the classroom to politics."

Look at what it's saying! Now this isn't the only problem with science education, but it is one that can cause serious and expensive issues. I'm sure the people of Dover PA could have found other things to do with their school budget than pay for an expensive legal proceeding brought about by a small group of incredibly small minded people attempting to inflict their personal views on science education. Add in the fact they LIED about their motivations under oath just really irritates the hell out of me.

As long groups such as the Discovery Institute use politics and lawyering rather than science we will have this problem. When they try and confuse by using two definitions of the word 'theory', one supports their contentions and use the other one to prove to the world evolution isn't factual we have a problem. When they, after failing to eradicate evolution education, try a new tactic called "Teach the Controversy" we will have this problem. When they discount millions of years of evolutionary evidence for their own purposes we have this problem. This was typified by Michael Behe when faced with a literal pile of evidence that the examples of irreducible complexity he wrote about in his book "Darwin's Black Box" were in fact not irreducible at all , he said that it wasn't good enough. Over 50 articles on the evolution of the immune system, articles he hadn't even read and he claimed it wasn't good enough to refute his idea of an irreducibly complex immune system. See what happens when you close your mind!

Tactics change and so must our responses. In recent months the hue and cry over "Teach the Controversy" and "Free Speech" have been used to inject Intelligent Design into the science classroom. The politics of the school board are being manipulated to replace the science that should be used to determine what gets presented to our young.

Briefly let's address controversy, as in what controversy? The Modern Synthesis of Evolution is a widely accepted scientific theory with support in many disciplines of science including Paleontology, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, just to name a few. Intelligent Design advocates point to contentions in how things occur and the fact work is still going on, as it is in all branches of science, as some sort of deep seating dissatisfaction with Evolution. The only people with that level of dissatisfaction are the William Dembski's and Phillip E. Johnson's of the world. Scientists have no controversy and for years ignored the Intelligent Design political movement until it started interfering with the education of our young.

Is Free Speech an issue? More smoke and mirrors. When they failed to get Evolution banned by law they [Creationists and ID Supporters] tried new ways to get a foot in the door. Claiming that denying students a hearing on Intelligent Design and not allowing it in the science classroom is a violation of free speech. Hmmm since when do we design curriculum based on free speech? In order to be a topic in a science classroom, it must be a science, a level Intelligent Design hasn't reached yet. All the rhetoric in the world doesn't make something a valid scientific theory! It requires explanations that don't end with "And the magic occurs!". It requires experimentation, it requires publishing not only opinion, as folks like Johnson, Behe, and Dembski do in the popular press, but publishing details, explanations, and experimentation results for other scientists to see. Even unpopular ideas have become accepted scientific theories once the finding and data are completely presented and the ability to refute starts to die off. Look at the struggle for Plate Tectonics to be accepted. It was a long arduous struggle and resulted in an increase of scientific knowledge.

That's the route that must be taken before Intelligent Design belongs in the science classroom. The longer we dither and delay, the longer people like Ms. Comer are removed from positions by Creationists with hidden agendas and the longer a school board has to argue over which textbooks to use because of a personal bias against evolution the worse our science education will become and it will be a much harder road back from the abyss of ignorance.

Coexistence I - Can Creationism and Science coexist in the same person?

Oh My God, I hope so! Many of the most famous scientists throughout history were not only deeply religious but many of them were Theologians themselves. Religious conviction didn't stop Gregor Mendel from his genetics theory (which is part of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution). Charles Darwin himself was trained as a theologian. Even today many seeking graduate degrees have found they can believe in religion and still be a scientist. Check out this article in the NY Times.

A line from the article I liked is: "Steven B. Case, a research professor at the Center for Research Learning at the University of Kansas, said it would be wrong to “censor someone for a belief system as long as it does not affect their work. Science is an open enterprise to anyone who practices it.”

Here is where I have problems with people like WIlliam Dembski, Michael Behe, Philip E. Johnson, and other current ID propoents. They let their beliefs color their work. During the Dover trial Michael Behe admitted to the lack of science in the current understanding of Intelligent Design. William Dembski creates esoteric math that not even other esoteric mathematicians can understand in what appears to me to be a serious effort to bullshit people into agreeing with him. Maybe Phillip E. Johnson doesn't belong in that group, he's not a scientist in any way -- he's a lawyer. But right now when anyone claims scientific proof of Intelligent Design, they are LYING!

I respect anyone who can objectively look at experiments and evidence and not allow their personal beliefs to interfere with their results. It should go without saying that I have issues with those people who allow their beliefs to color their thinking. Read about Behe's mousetrap and see what I mean. In my opinion when Behe discusses Intelligent Design he should remove his mortarboard. He doesn't have a doctorate in Intelligent Design and his PhD in Biochemistry should not be used to push pseudo-science. Take a look at Dembski's math and see the artificial and constantly moving line in the sand he draws to 'prove' his specific complexity silliness. Have a laugh at "Darwin on Trial" by Johnson for the longest and most drawn out tautological argument I have ever seen. At no point does he prove the theory of evolution is in any danger other than by lawyering arguments. He certainly proves he's a lawyer and used many legal hair splitting concepts to create the semblance of controversy.

OK, another bottom line for me. Regardless of beliefs, the ability to not allow your thinking to be prejudiced in some direction when the results don't support it is a positive thing. It's OK to have expectations -- science requires expectations, but when the results don't support them you have to be able to step back and explore why rather than force the results into the framework of your beliefs! Just ask Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and many others who were able to see past their beliefs and come to many conclusions that are still as applicable today as they were when they were formed.