More on the Odds argument

Just read an interesting article, Dr. Olivia Judson, Biologist and columnist for the NY Times, wrote a column called "The Repeater". I recommend her work to anyone! Not only well thought out, but entertaining as well -- something you cannot always say about science columns, articles, and books. In fact her book "“Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation: The Definitive Guide to the Evolutionary Biology of Sex,” is unbelievably creative!

But back to this article. What is discusses is the evolutionary differences between a species of fish that was trapped in isolated lakes by the retreating glaciers. The differences between the fish are pretty spectacular. My take is that this article shows that there are more forces than just mutation going on in Evolution. When a Creationist/Intelligent Design supporter whines about the odds of evolution, random mutation and chance, or similar comment, they fails to realize that many of the evolutionary changes we have seen are not all the result of mutation, but simply in how a specific gene is expressed. This means that the odds, for those who are trying to calculate, or life evolving are even lower than you think because many of the changes you calculated as mutations are in fact already built-in functions of the existing gene. Differing environmental factors cause the gene to be expressed in different ways. You really need to read the article!

What the article also does is support common ancestry. By examining the genes across species, Dr. Judson discusses how the same gene does some of the same work in multiple species. Until genetics this wasn't recognized as common because we didn't know the mechanism. But when the same gene is found in human beings and stickleback fish, and in each one the gene is part of the system to regulate skin pigment. Sure doe make one think!

Thanks to the Dr. J of Biology!

Humor III

I was hurting because this one had me laughing so hard -- well it was trying to, but I was looking at it while in a meeting and I guess I pulled something form smothering my laughter. Just imagine if science turned the tables and used the same tactics on Creationist/Intelligent Design proponents that like to use on us. You have to read the latest from Unconfirmed Sources.

(Jackson County Florida) Ucs News : Supporters of Intelligent Design, the new Creation Science, were dealt a major set back by the 5th circuit court. According to a court decision released today, Judge Davis Smith ruled that Evolution must be taught in church Sunday schools. The case of Moore vs. the Church of the Holy Moment is a landmark, The judge ruled that the science of evolution must be given equal time with the myth of creation. According to the 58 page decision "If creationists want to infiltrate public schools they better be prepared for scientists to visit their churches.

Church members are torn over the controversy, while many believe the schools should be teaching creationism in biology classes they are themselves disgusted the ruling of the court. "These judges can't tell us what to teach our children! they can't decide to push their view point in our church!" Stated an angry Sunday school teacher.

The court ruling also requires the Church to attach a sticker to their bible covers.

"This Bible Contains material on creation. Creation is a theory, not a fact, regarding the Origin of Species. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered in the light of modern science."

Oh yea, like we would get a chance at affixing sticker to their Bibles! Oh but the mental imagery is the best! Their tactics in Dover, PA, and Atlanta, GA, and other areas turned back on themselves! I love the irony.

We could augment this by voting to not allow the use of the Bible during services, just like Ms. Maguire tried to do in South Carolina, or even arrange to fire a clergy person because they sent off an email about an Intelligent Design speaker in Texas. Oh I Love it! Now I am going to get a wrap for my ribs before I do any more damage!

Arguments X - The Odds

OK, let's talk about odds, because that seems to be a recurring theme in arguments against Evolution. Now let me be straight, just because someone is arguing against evolution, that doesn't mean they are in any way supporting Creationism or Intelligent Design -- but sometimes they think that. I don't. I see them as two separate discussions, as you would know if you have been reading my blog.

So the odds. The argument goes something like an email sent to me by Barbara Price:

Ted,

Perhaps you can tell what the odds against humans forming by “random mutations" is?

Then tell me the odds of this happening with 150 million living creatures?

On a planet that is located in just the right distance from the right type of star?

I suggest that you see the video Privileged Planet.

If, after answering the above questions accurately, you still believe that we are the result a chance happening, I suggest that you go to Vegas. You will find the odds of getting rich at the roulette table very believable.

Dan

Not sure why the email address was from Barbara Price, but the letter was signed by Dan, but that was neither here nor there.

The basic bottom line here is a typical argument from personal incredulity. In other words someone refuses to accept evolution as an explanation so it must not be true. Extended that if evolution isn't true, how do I justify that to myself -- well let's concoct some explanation that makes evolution not possible and then I can prove it to myself. This is also a form of tautology, but again arguments from logical fallacy are really a side note in this discussion.

Let's talk odds, what are the odds of life forming? I'll be honest with you, I have no idea! What are the odds of non-living matter forming into living and reproducible matter. Oh sorry, the main hypothesis of Abiogenesis says that nonliving matter may have been reproducing first and then the living part came later. But whatever the hypothesis, the odds aren't something I feel anyone can calculate. Here's the good part, I don't have to! Here is the one logical part of the whole odds argument folks like Barbara/Dan here forget. It doesn't matter how long the odds were, it happened! Even if Abiogenesis was the most far fetched, illogical, highest odds concept in the universe. I don't care if Las Vegas would bet the entire planet against it happening. The truth is, it happened! Odds are irrelevant because as low as the odds might be, they can still happen! I've drawn to an inside royal flush and got it -- talk about long odds!

William Dembski likes to throw out odds for various biological events, but his numbers haven't made it past the giggle test. I mean he loves to spout off of the odds of something like a bacterial flagellum appearing all at once and fully intact, ready to do it's motor-like job. But evolutionary theory has explained that parts of the flagellum existed previously and had a different function. When you take that into account, the odds drop down to something even he says are reasonable. Of course he bases his work on Michael Behe's work of irreducible complexity, so you know he will never admit that something came into being over a long period of time and as pieces and parts.

The other parts of the odds argument usually being out how slim the idea that human life could have formed at all. They point to things like a single evolutionary change and say the odds of that change happening are astronomical. Here is the other area their argument falls flat. Is there something about the human form that is so perfect you think evolution was heading in this direction on purpose? Touching the metaphysical wine a bit I think. So what if a specific change occurred and that is the change that propagated throughout a population. There is nothing that says that it is the best change, only a change. So if different evolutionary changes were made, life could be very different than it is today. But it would still be life. Someday we might find life on another planet, intelligent or not. We might find life that looks and acts very different than we do. Are they not life ? Or will our belief system relegate them to some lesser-life category? You see the odds are again meaningless because things could very well have happened a different way. Even most doctors agree we are still evolving to walking upright and many of our changes are still more adapted to being less on our feet.

BTW, if you watched the video he was talking about, it's another red herring. The number 150,000,000 is supposedly the number it would take to have a large enough gene pool to be able to reproduce to what we have today. He asks how 150 million creatures could have all mutated to DNA all at the same time and I guess all in the same geological area. Of course his argument doesn't recognize that DNA came well before the need for such a large gene pool. In fact if the theory is correct, RNA and DNA were formed before multi-cellular organisms. So again his odds argument is meaningless.

OK, so to me any discussion of odds is irrelevant. The odds may be long, but under evolutionary theory they aren't as bad as Dembski and company want you to think. And when you factor in a time frame of millions and billions of years, the odds aren't so slim at all. Let us also not forget that evolution is going on today. In a few thousand years we might not recognize the human race. It certainly would be interesting to see if we are still having this argument then.

OMG, you are going to love this one! A 'science' experment in Creationism

The Creation Ministries has a little web page they call "Creation Based Science Projects" I've listed the first one here.

What you need for the experiment:
a large wing flight feather (find at a hobby store or on the ground at a park where ducks live)
a tack or small nail
a wooden stick
a clay base
a portable hair dryer

What you do:
Tack or nail the feather to the stick with the shorter barbs pointing down. Ensure that the feather can swivel around on the nail/tack. Push the stick into the clay base. Use the hair dryer to blow air toward the feather from different angles.
What are the results of the experiment?
You now have a working model of how a feather aids flight. When the air moves over the feather, in the normal position, it will lift upward.

The instructions to form a bird's feather are found in their DNA. This information is different from genetic information which forms fingernails on people or scales on snakes. Feathers are extremely complex. For a great Science project research and discuss the extreme complexity of the feather's structure, various types of fliers (birds, insects, mammals, reptiles); the DNA code barrier; and the mathematical impossibility of these different kinds of flying motions "evolving" by random chance.

Talk about intelligent design!!

OK, Now I hope you read it carefully. It's a cute little experiment that shows a little of how air moving over a feather is part of what makes a bird fly. You can repeat the same experiment with your hand out a car window, just cup and angle your hand to feel the different forces acting on it. But that's not the good part. I am trying to figure out how this is project is Creation-Based? Then I read the second to last line: "For a great Science project research and discuss the extreme complexity of the feather's structure, various types of fliers (birds, insects, mammals, reptiles); the DNA code barrier; and the mathematical impossibility of these different kinds of flying motions "evolving" by random chance." Can you believe this? The Creation Ministries leaves it to the person doing the experiment to go forward and do a "Great Science Project". How incredibly stupid is this? Here we have the Creation-Based science project for you to do that really has nothing to do with Creation, but Aerodynamics, and then we tell you to go off and do the research yourself to turn this into something Creation-based! If I paid money for this, I would be looking for a serious refund!!!!

Read the rest of them, you will find they are all like that. Simple experiments that have nothing to do with Creation. But at the end they make a leap and tell you to go forth and preach the gospel according to the Creation Ministries. It's hilarious!

Intelligent design sans religion in the debate editorial

Another article, another person who refuses to separate their belief from actual science. In the Daytona Beach News Journal Online, "Intelligent Design sans Religion in the Debate" is a nice try, but a pretty obvious ploy. The Author, Mr. Daniel Price, does a Discovery Institute trick and claims to remove the idea of religion from the debate and then expresses his facts covered in his belief, or in this case his disbelief of evolution. Nothing new here, but it does show you how some people can convince themselves of just about anything.

My posted response to the article:

The reason the 'debate' still rages is because a small segment of mostly Christian fundamentalist want the Bible treated as a biology/Astronomy/Cosmology/Geology/Physics textbook. The very idea that Evolution is correct damages their frail egos! 11,000 Christian Clergy have signed a letter stating Evolution is an accepted fact and not teaching Evolution is a disservice to our young (http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/rel_evol_sun.htm). Every major scientific organization in the world has accepted Evolution as a valid and compelling scientific theory and that it is the basis for much of Biology. The only people who disagree are fighting against it for religious reasons, no matter how they try and hide their arguments in scientific sounding terms. Just look at this article and the wording: "So let's remove the issue of religion from this discussion . . .", "Let's look at some cold hard facts.", and "The fact is we are too complicated to not have a creator." sounds like rational arguments, but they are all arguments from personal incredulity. In other words "I do not agree, thereby it cannot be true!" That is what is known as am argument from fallacy, and a pretty poor one at that.

But when one's world view is upset, one tends to fight back. They tried for decades and were pretty successful keeping Creationism in the classroom, until recent years. Did you know the Butler Act, the law John Scopes was convicted of violating in the 1925 Scopes Monkey wasn't repealed until 1967? In the 60's and 70's many states required Creationism be taught alongside Evolution -- if Evolution was taught at all. It wasn't until the 80's when science got the upper hand in public school classrooms. And that has been like a sharp needle to avowed Creationists.

We will have to keep fighting this battle, luckily it is a political battle and not one in the science community. But we will have to keep fighting if we want a real education for our children! I for one plan to keep at it!

Luckily there also seems to be plenty of people who don't want a group like the Discovery Institute, or any narrow fundamentalist viewpoint from contaminating education.

Ben Stein thinks Guns kill people, not people kill people

At least that's what I have to believe after reading "Why Darwinism is so Dangerous" in the Christian Post. I mean what else would you think after a line like "Stein pointed out that Darwinian teaching on natural selection and random mutation "led in a straight line to the holocaust and Nazism." Darwin wasn't alive at this point and that anyone can take any theory they like and use it to justify the worst actions in human history. How many acts of evil have been perpetrated by people for religious reasons? The belief that "God is on my side" can do, and has done, tremendous damage throughout history. Does anyone really think Darwin's theories drove Nazi behavior?

"Darwinism taught that "you owe it to the superior race to kill the inferior race," he told reporters." is another line! Darwin never taught that, NEVER! Darwin taught that any change in an organism that could enhance survival could propagate throughout a species. He explained what had happened and started the ball rolling on how it happened. He never advocated wholesale murder! Damn the depths people will go to protect their little narrow view of the world!

Plus he also has not clue what Evolution really is, in this statement he confused Abiogenesis for Evolution. "Stein said he finds it problematic that Darwinism, which he feels leaves a lot of questions unanswered, is being touted in the academic and scientific circles as the only rational explanation on how life began." No, Evolution is the BEST explanation for what we have learned about how changed over millions and billions of years. That's all it is. It has held up under 150 years of scientific scrutiny and has been supported by a multitude of other scientific disciplines. Abiogenesis is a hypothesis, not a theory, and it is not part of the Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution. But let's not get confused by the facts as we read on.

"Who created these laws that keeps the planets in motion?" asked Stein. "These are fundamental questions" where Darwinism lacks explanations." No, first he starts with an assumption, that there is a who. Science only cares about the how and the what. Darwin never tried to answer his question and science has no plans to answer it.

Apparently his film supposedly focuses on Free Speech, which after reading the first part of this article I sincerely doubt. "The current system doesn't allow open dialogue, according to the makers of “Expelled.” The film highlights a number of educators and scientists who are being ridiculed, denied tenure and even fired in some cases for the fact that they believe there is evidence of “design” in nature or challenging the Darwinian orthodoxy." Are they being ridiculed, sure why not! I laugh at Michael Behe and William Dembski and their arguments all the time. Are some being denied tenure, sure are! Like Professor Gonzales, at Iowa State, because he FAILED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF TENURE! If his support of Intelligent Design caused him to fail in fulfilling his obligations, it's not free speech that is an issue, it's Professor Gonzales' own fault for not making the grade. Now let's look at the opposite side of the coin. Chris Comer in Texas, got fired for forwarding an email about a presentation by Barbara Forrest. Sure, slap an FYI on a presentation about a subject within your job description and you get canned by the Christian Fundamentalist Creationist who head your state school board. Oh, but will Ben Stein mention that? Chris Comer was doing her job and got fired, Professor Gonzales wasn't doing his and he gets denied tenure. No parallels there.

I have little to no respect for Ben Stein if this is how he supposedly explores a potentially interesting subject. He apparently doesn't understand Free Speech, or he would have picked a different subject. Yea, He'll be in that line, the one with folks waiting to get into heaven. I'll wave as I go past.

Talk about an upset worldview

"Understanding Intelligent Design Theory", an article in the Conservative Voice by Babu Ranganathan was an interesting read, but it also completely illustrates a point made by many people. scientists and theologians alike, that the main argument against evolution is an emotional argument because the very idea of Evolution completely upsets some fundamentalist religious believers view of themselves and their special relationship with their Deity. Not only does he completely misunderstand the role chance plays in evolution but is convinced that a natural process could account for life. In a single sweeping statement "Chance physical processes can produce some level of order but it is not rational to believe that the highest levels of order in life and the universe are by chance." he disregards all scientific evidence, explanations, and experimentation.

His also disregards the physics involved in amino acid bindings and falls on irreducible complexity, even if he doesn't use the term by saying "If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane." No one is saying the cell was partially created and just sat around for millions of years. There is no such thing as 'partially evolved'. The theory of evolution says that pieces and parts were forms and served other purposes and eventually formed a cell. That would be an example of mutation. When the cell reproduced, now we are getting to the actual evolutionary part. He is assuming that the cell is some complete and perfect biological organism, but as evolution says, all current forms are an intermediary between the past and the future. Who knows someday the cell might be replaced by a different type of biological mechanism. At least science is open to the idea.

My favorite quote is one he takes out of context form a Newsweek article, "What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility." I said in another post that if life were seen on another planet and even if we were there to observe the actual formation of primitive life from non-living matter, someone like Mr. Ranganathan would say something like "Just because it happened there, doesn't mean it happened here." Well what if life on Earth is the result of life coming about on another planet. Just one organism, it doesn't have to be a cell, maybe just a replicating collection of amino acids. How would that upset your view of the world, Mr. Ranganathan?

Obviously, from the rest of the article and links Mr. Ranganathan is one that places his faith at the forefront of any rational thought. He links to ICR, a Creationist organization, he quotes Duane Gish, another with the same world view. To them evolution is impossible and they make sure they believe it by piling on argument after argument that mean absolutely nothing. To them the only way to prove it is if there was someone standing there watching life form and then watching evolution in action over the billions of years. And from what I heave read of his writings, Mr. Ranganathan would only believe it if he was the one standing there.

The most fun thing about this article was that it did nothing to advance the understanding of Intelligent Design 'Theory" as the title says. It was another attack on not only evolutionary theory but other disciplines as well. My suggestion is to leash your toothless attack dogs, quite repeating the same old tired rhetoric and go back to the lab and prove your case. Just because you don't accept evolution doesn't mean you have advanced the cause of Creationism/Intelligent Design one little bit.

Sorry to upset your world view, but you have done nothing to prove your narrow view of Creationism. You do little more than put a box around your Deity that says that he is not omnipotent, but limited to flash-bang magic tricks to have created life. Luckily science will keep working and explaining the How and the What and theologians with a much more open mind and clearer view of the Cosmos will continue to help Man understand the Why.

Evolution is a matter of Fact, not Belief!

In a letter to the editor of the Orlando Sentinel, Eric Reinhold said "Evolution is a matter of belief, not fact" I made a few comments on the article and decided to send my own letter to the editor. Not sure it will make it, but here it is for your enjoyment, criticism, or just print it and throw darts at it:

In a letter to the editor from Jan 22 "Evolution a matter of belief, not fact" , Eric J. Reinhold stated "Evolution is not observable, repeatable or refutable, and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. " I couldn't disagree more. If you want to see an example of evolution in action take at look at your children, or someone else's. If you have ever once said "Little Eric looks just like his Daddy", you are seeing evolution! It is observable in the world around us, the entire science behind crop improvements and breeding animals for specific characteristics are also evolutionary. If you need repeatable, you need look no further than a good biology text that describes one of the multitude of evolutionary experiments with bacterial, colonies of fruit flies, and other organisms what have much faster generations that we slow-poke humans. Evolution has been other observed and observed repeatedly over the years. It is also quite refutable! Like any scientific theory, it is a snapshot of our knowledge at a given time. As we learn more, the theory changes. The Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution is considerably different than Darwin's theories. This new knowledge didn't invalidate Darwin's work, but it proved many of the mechanisms that his theories predicted. Darwin had no idea of genetics, but genetics has proven to be one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

To answer your three questions Mr. Reinhold, "What are evolutionists so scared of?", "Why are they so close-minded?", and "Why can't they study creationism?" I put to you that biologists who study evolution are not afraid of Creationism, or its little brother Intelligent Design. When such religious ideas attempt to be passed off as science, scientists became active in preventing a travesty in education! They are not very close-minded, unless you are referring to not willing to share the scientific classroom with unscientific ideas. At that point I want them to close ranks and prepare to repel boarders. If you want Creationism in science class, then why are you also not promoting Astrology in Astronomy class, Alchemy in Chemistry class, and Numerology in Mathematics class? Science dismiss all of these as pseudoscience, as well they should. Now if you think scientists are close-minded about valid scientific ideas, then you need a better science education yourself. Look at the changes in scientific theories over the past 100 years, or look even at the last 20. The rate of change has been remarkable! As we learn new things, the theories change and sometimes are replaced. But they are replaced by new scientific theories, not religious beliefs! As to your last question, the answer is that they can study Creationism, and many do. Many scientists are deeply religious people and have stated that the more they learn, the deeper their faith becomes. The only difference is they do it in a forum better suited for the study of Theology than today's public school science class. Theology doesn't belong in a science class just like biology doesn't belong in a theology class. My Biology teachers never whipped out the Bible to make a point and my parish priests never needed a biology text up there in the pulpit!

The Florida Science standards being voted on next month do not present the Theory of Evolution as a fact. They do present it as an important theory that underlays much of biological science. Evolution has been part of Florida science teachings for years, the word "Evolution" is finally being returned to it's rightful place in the new standards.

Nothing really new here, just trying to make the points and keep the conversation centered on what we teach our children in science class. That to me is the crux of the whole issue. Many people who are commenting against the new Florida science standards haven't actually read the standards. They are just reacting to the word "Evolution." Read them, see what they actually say, and then make your case. Don't try and use the inclusion of the word evolution as a reason to reject the standards. You [Florida] have taught evolution for years, you just avoided using the word.

Knee Jerk II - More on DI reaction to NAS book

The Discovery Institute is blanketing the news with their press release "The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism" They [The DI] have published a new pamphlet about the subject. OK, you know when someone lies to you, as the DI is known to do, how many people are willing to listen to them a second time? Do they get more truthful with time? Not to my knowledge. Let's see how they do, shall we?

They are off to their usual start, only this time they do agree with part of how the NAS defined irreducible complexity:

"The NAS accurately defines irreducible complexity — “If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly”—but then promotes a false test of irreducible complexity, wrongly claiming that if one part of the flagellum can perform some other function, then irreducible complexity is refuted."

But they are in denial over the evidence. Do they offer more than than just their own explanation? No, but they are perfectly happy to demand a full and complete accounting from Science. They want the complete evolutionary path, but are unwilling to describe the complete path on how the 'designer' did it. " . . .some sub-components of the flagellum can perform other functions is not sufficient to demonstrate a Darwinian explanation for the origin of the flagellum . . ." I like their new pet phrase "indirect Darwinian evolution" I wonder how many times that will come up in new press releases. OK, so far one denial over evidence and one demanding for a 100% answer. Yup, typical DI word play. They consider the challenge to irreducible complexity unresolved because science hasn't explained the entire path. What a double standard! So just what entire path has Intelligent Design laid out? "The Designer Did It!" Now we all clap our hands and sing "Kumbaya!"

I have news for them, This is a perfect use of falsifiability in science. If one little tiny piece of a mechanism that is supposedly irreducibly complex -- by their own definition --can exist and serve another purpose then the mechanism in question is not and cannot meet the definition of being irreducibly complex. Of course the DI doesn't go into what would make irreducible complex organism falsifiable, they just ask for complete and 100% perfect answers. By the way, the person offering the critique is William Dembski, whose own supposed mathematical support for Intelligent Design rests squarely on irreducible complexity, so we know why he's bleating like a sheep.

Let's move on.

Keeping with the irreducible complex stuff for a moment, you have to appreciate this line "Contrary to the NAS’s assertions, Behe never argued that irreducible complexity mandates that sub-parts can have no function outside of the final system." Here we have co-opting at the highest level and building new arguments for the future. Now when anyone points to a reason why a mechanism isn't irreducibly complex, the DI will just say they never said a mechanism had other uses. However, let me remind you that Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" makes no mention of other uses, but implies that something used in an irreducibly complex mechanism can only have the one use. Sure, he doesn't say it, but that's the implication of his idea. Just look at his examples! So we have one example of denial, one of example of demanding a 100% answer, and now one of co-opting. They sure are consistent, aren't they.

Next item: Splitting hairs, they are so good at this sometimes you don't even realize they are doing it. Check it out:

"None of this compares to the NAS’s most egregious error regarding the flagellum: the NAS states that “there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria.” While technically this statement may be true if one looks at the fine-grain of the amino-acid sequence of every single protein among flagellum-bearing bacteria, there most certainly are highly conserved flagellar parts and there is an identifiable core set of structures to the flagellar machine. In this regard, the NAS’s statement is extremely misleading and inaccurate."

This does remind me of one of their own critiques of evolution, they are saying the NAS is being too fine-grained in their explanation. Now where does that get us. I guess it means that the designer didn't use the exact same mechanism for the multitudes of bacterial flagellum. Hmmm, but in their critique of the PBS Nova show "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" The DI said "PBS ignores the possibility that such recurring fundamental genetic programs across species could also be explained as the result of common design, i.e. the re-usage of genetic programs that fulfill the functional requirements of animal development. Indeed, common design may be the best explanation for the many instances where these master genes control the growth of analogous body parts in widely diverse organisms where it is even not thought that the common ancestor even had the body part in question." So when they claim that commonality exists because of common design, that's OK. But if anyone looks deeper and realizes what we are looking at is common function, not common mechanisms, they are splitting hairs.

In another part of their critique of the show, they say "PBS asserts that “shared amino acids” in genes common to many types of organisms indicate that all life shares a common ancestor. Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry, but it must be noted that intelligent agents commonly re-use parts that work in different designs. Thus, similarities in such genetic sequences may also be generated as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than by common descent." See how neatly they try and co-opt the genetic answer for one of their own. Of course they have to say this because Michael Behe, the daddy of Irreducible Complexity accepts common ancestry, so I guess their best bet is to steal it. But once again do you see the theme? I see the appearance of design, so that must mean there is design. Bacterial flagellum is an example of design, see they are all functionally similar and the designer just re-used pieces and parts. Oh you mean they really aren't all identical and there are differences, well those differences aren't important, you are just being hyper critical!

Here is my favorite part:

“In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of the system. . . . Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation . . . given what we know about the powers of intelligence as opposed to strictly natural or material causes.”

and this one

"The flagellum is a self-assembling, irreducibly complex microscopic rotary engine that contains parts known from human technology—such as a rotor, a stator, a propeller, a u-joint, and an engine—yet it functions at a level of efficiency that dwarfs any motor produced by humans. In any other context we would immediately recognize such an information-rich, integrated system as the product of intelligence. The NAS can only dismiss the scientific case for the design of the flagellum by distorting the facts about the structure."

Yes, this is not only an argument from ignorance, but an argumentum ad hominem, that is an argument by attacking evolution rather than supporting their own position. It's also an argumentum verbosium, in other words if you keep saying the same thing over and over again you will convince some people.

This is clearly an argument by assumption, I assume it to be true, therefore it is true. They, the DI, want to see evidence of the designer that they will put forth any argument, they will mislead, misdirect, and out and out lie to maintain their point of view. Think of another logical argument, the argument from personal incredulity, "I cannot believe something so it must not be true". Well the Discovery Institute plays on that with a "I believe something so it must be the truth!" I have no problem with them wanting to believe it, but in their role as professional creationists, they insist of forcing their way into the science classroom -- and that I object too!

Who determines School Curriculum Standards?

I've started a little posting back and forth with someone who also reads editorials in Texas newspapers. His stand is interesting . .here, read it for yourself.

Robbie: " . . . The solution is simply to disband the chokehold the TEA [Texas Education Agency] and the US Department of Education has over the curriculum presented in the classroom by allowing parents the right to send their children to the school of their choosing and having individual school boards and PTA's set the agenda and curriculum for their individual school districts. Lets make the education of our young minds an individual community effort instead of the federal and state political wild card that it has become." another comment from Robbie: "While I am unaware of anyone suggesting the earth is flat, I do find it contrary to our country's design to allow a federal agency to dictate the curriculum of the classroom. School boards and PTA's should have the authority to design a curriculum based upon the needs of their students in relation to their communities and the standards that particular community upholds. Parents should be given the choice of sending their children to a school that upholds the particular standards of that family. It is quite arrogant of some people to take it upon themselves, in adherance with their particular beliefs, to push an education agenda upon other people's children. This is exactly what both sides of this arguement are doing, and the US Dept. of Education and the TEA have become politcal wild cards for each agenda. School choice and the design of their own curriculums will resolve this particular conflict and take the politics out of our children's education."

My response

Robbie, sSo it would be OK with you if a child attends one school and learns Astronomy and then moves to another and they teach Astrology? Because that is what you are saying. Let's create a PhD in Numerology for people to take. Feng Shui replaces Architecture, Alchemy for Chemistry.

I disagree! There has to be some leveling set of standards, or else nothing we teach will actually prepare our students for the future. Science should be taught in science class, and what determines science? Science has a huge community of people working in scientific fields. They have developed, over time, a methodology for what is science and what is not. Is it unanimous, no, but what developed by a committee ever is? But the vast majority of members of that community agree that Creationism/Intelligent Design does not belong in Science class. So rather than listen to the tens of thousands of scientists, you want to put it to a community vote to decide what is science? Sure, and when your kids go to school in another state they have to play catch up to learn things other states teach in elementary school?

Yes, the Discovery Institute can wave a letter signed by 700 Doctoral 'scientists' who say they dissent from Darwin. Only 700? Plus if you look at the list you will find only 128 biologists, and none of them are working in any field of evolutionary studies. Plus if you look deeper you will find the signers are Evangelical Christians, so their dissent has nothing to do with Science, but religious belief.

Ask the National Academies of Science what they think and what their members (over 2,100 members and over 200 Nobel Prizes between them) clearly support. They support science and when they say Biology, they include Evolution! Look up the requirements for membership, this isn't something you just call up and send in a check to join! These members are recognized for their contributions in Science!

So if Texas wants to teach science, they need to remove things like Creationism/Intelligent Design from curriculum consideration. Put them in a Philosophy class, or Sociology. You could use the Discovery Institutes's marketing campaign in a marketing class. But it is not Science and no PTA vote should have the power to make it so.

So his point of view is to allow local school boards and PTA associations to determine what we teach our children. To a point I agree. Local boards and PTA's should have input. There are things that might be endemic to a location that the school system could help. If an area has a lot of manufacturing, then I think courses in those areas would make a great deal of sense. Detroit probably has many automotive courses, perfect sense!

But there has to be a line to the power of the school board and PTA when you are advocating allowing them to re-define a discipline. Should they have to power to stretch the definition of science to include Metaphysics? How about let's redefine the value of Pi because the idea of a irrational number is just too hard for our students? Wasn't that tried somewhere? I forget. But let's redefine Mathematics to what suits us. Pythagoras, who was he? How about English? Remember the outcry when Oakland CA tried to institute teaching Ebonics?

I hope I have made my point. Input from local organizations are critical to the education of our young, but standards addressing things like the definition of science are equally as important. A PTA vote should not have the power to change what is science for one locality! HC SVNT DRACONES (Here be Dragons!)