When Does Opinion Trump Evidence?

Several researchers used the word 'perfect' in their paper "Perfect chemomechanical coupling of FoF1-ATP synthase" and you know what that means to the Discovery Institute (DI), here is the DI's last paragraph on the topic:

"If you can think of any machine in your experience that is perfect yet flexible, it probably did not come about through blind, aimless natural processes. Let’s stop allowing Darwinians to get away, unchallenged, with saying they “have evolved” to perfection." (Evolution 'news' and Views: Molecular Machines Reach Perfection)

Because the researchers have shown a transfer of energy without loss and used the word 'perfect', that should immediately discount Evolution.  Now, what evidence does the Discovery Institute offer to discount the possibility of this molecular construct having evolved?  None what-so-ever!  What they are offering is their opinion, nothing more.

You see, whenever anyone doing real science offers results of any kind, the Discovery Institute tries to take it and either casts it as support for Intelligent Design or a negative against Evolution -- or both -- but they keep missing a key point, evidence.  Where do the researchers, not the DI talking heads, but the researchers discount evolution?  They don't!  In fact, did the study include how such a system came about?  It doesn't look like it.  But the DI takes the abstract for a spin and lo-and-behold it supports an anti-evolution argument.  Imagine that?  When all you have is a nail, everything looks like a hammer!

Yes, the energy transfer in this example appears 'perfect', that is 'without loss', but nothing in the research discounts evolution.  Look at the footnotes, look at the references and tell me where evolution is discounted.  Don't look in the 'minds' of the DI talking heads because they discount evolution as their default position.  It doesn't matter what they are looking at, it discounts evolution!  Their perspective is 'We don't agree with evolution because of our religion, therefore evolution can't possibly explain anything -- and someday, God willing [pun intended] we will prove it!'

Now, new question, an odds question.  What are the odds of this specific molecular construct not having evolved?  I would say the odds are pretty low.  No, I am not going to bore you with a nonsensical calculation (that's Dembski's job), but I ask that you look at the evidence.  Has anything stayed exactly the same?  Has any current molecular construct been found to have not evolved?  Look at Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' where he detailed his opinion on a number of biological constructs and claimed they could not have evolved . . . and yet when faced with over 50 papers describing the evolution of those constructs (during the Dover Trial), papers he had not reviewed, he said they were not enough.  The odds of this specific construct not having evolved seem pretty minuscule.

Things are always evolving, changing.  While some organisms haven't done a great deal of changing, there is still evolution in their past right through to the present.  There is absolutely nothing that says they will not evolve as time goes on, just like there is nothing that says humans will not evolve.

One common theme in Creationist circles are examples like the Alligator and how it hasn't evolved in millions of years . . . that is those Creationists who buy into the Old Earth.  The problem is they think too small.  If Alligators didn't evolve, where did Crocodiles come from?  They really need to do their homework a little better.  All they have done here is insert their opinion as if it is a conclusion, all designed [another intended pun] to cast doubt of evolution -- without a single bit of evidence supporting their doubt.  I recently read the term "Merchants of Doubt", which seems extremely applicable.

So if what the DI says is true, then these molecular constructs should stop evolving -- yet once again the evidence is stacked against them.  There isn't anything that we know of that has not evolved nor that does not have the potential to continue evolving, no matter how 'perfect' is may appear to us today.  The best the DI has is things that an evolutionary path hasn't been described . . . yet.  And they get upset when they get reminded that they are nothing but a re-statement of the old god-of-the-gaps argument.

Shouldn't a Critique Actually Critique?

Here we see one of the usual tactics by those less-than-stalwart fellows at the Discovery Institute (DI).  Simply put they take the work by other people and rather than doing any actual research, they simply editorialize it to spin it in either an anti-evolution or a pro-intelligent Design way -- or both when they think they can get away with it.  This is one of the anti-evolution ones: "“Shared Error” Argument: Olfactory Receptor Genes Prove Common Descent?"

Professors' Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight co-wrote a book, Adam and the Genome, which has apparently annoyed the DI. One interesting note that instead of referring to the authors as 'professors', Cornelius Hunter (DI talking head, although not a very prolific one), says this:

"co-authored by theistic evolutionists Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight"

Venema has a PhD is Biology and is a professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. McKnight has a PhD from the University of Nottingham and is a professor at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in Lombard, IL.  Obviously anti-evolutionist Hunter has little regard for them and immediately labels them as an enemy of the ID crowd.  I figure I can call Hunter that in the same way he referred to the two professors as theistic evolutionists.

You see the DI doesn't like Theistic Evolution for a few reasons:

• Theistic Evolution more wraps a theistic explanation around evolution, where the DI wants to throw evolution out completely so they can slide in their own theistic explanation.  
• The DI likes to disavow themselves of their theistic underpinnings and hide their religion.  Anything that smacks of religion is something they run away from as quickly as their little legs can carry them.  
• Theistic Evolutionists tend to be quite critical of the DI and its quaint little notion of Intelligent Design.  As we know anyone critical of the DI and ID is the treated with disdain by the DI.

I believe they would prefer all theistic evolution proponents would drop their religious concepts and get under the big-tent of anti-evolutionism until such time as evolution is abolished and then they can fight out all the details with all the other various theistic groups.

Yes, I am writing about two theists who wrote a book, but I am not critiquing the book, I am critiquing how anti-evolutionist Hunter critiqued the book.  Did he offer any support for the various things he said?  No.  His main argument is a common one at the DI.  Basically, he says biology is complicated, thereby it cannot have happened through a natural process, like evolution.

There, you can read his much longer diatribe, but when you boil it down, that's what you get.  If you really want to dig deeper, look at his basic issues with the book:

• Issue 1: "First, the olfactory system is profoundly complex." See, complex and we know how the DI deals with complexity
• Issue 2: "The olfactory system is no exception. Its several fundamental components, if evolution is true, must have evolved several times independently." A re-statement of being complex.
• Issue 3: " . . . the strength of this evolution argument is lack of function, but that renders it fallacious."  This is not an argument as much as an unsupported statement -- another favorite tactic.  Where is his support for this statement?  Nowhere to be found.

That's pretty much it.  His functionality whine completely ignores the genetic evidence for common descent.  But that's how the DI works, builds up an argument on one facet and completely ignore other facets.  Then they go on as if their argument is gospel without a single supporting fact -- just more opinion and wishful thinking.

Anti-evolutionist Hunter sort of quotes Elliot Sober, which makes me think this is a quote mine:

"Evolution fails to explain how even a single gene could evolve, let alone the entire olfactory system. In fact the presence of supposedly useless structures, such as pseudogenes, is hardly a plus for evolution. As Elliott Sober has pointed out, there is nothing about this story that provides a positivistic argument for evolution."

I believe Sober's quote concerned the discussion whether the gene or the genome is the evolutionary 'target'.  Sober is a noted critic of the 'gene-centered view of Evolution', so the evolution process for a single gene wouldn't be overly important to Sober.  It is funny that Hunter would quote Sober, who is a noted critic of Intelligent Design:

"This article reviews two standard criticisms of creationism/intelligent design (ID)): it is unfalsifiable, and it is refuted by the many imperfect adaptations found in nature. Problems with both criticisms are discussed. A conception of testability is described that avoids the defects in Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion. Although ID comes in multiple forms, which call for different criticisms, it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory."
(Elliot Sober, 2007, What is wrong with intelligent design?, Abstract) 

Gotta love that last piece: 'it emerges that ID fails to constitute a serious alternative to evolutionary theory'.  I bet that's one reason Hunter tries to work in a quote-mine from pro-evolution Sober, I mean if you can use some of your critic's words, you can make it sound as if he isn't really a critic.

I have to wonder how he and Behe, who agrees with common descent, get along?

Texas, Don't Take This Wrong, But You Are Sounding like South Carolina

I don't know if you remember, but back a few years ago (2007 and 2008) South Carolina elected a home-schooling conservative to head their state school board and one of the first things she [Kristin Maguire] did was violate procedure to try and reject the science textbooks already selected by the school board appointed working group.    It led to more hearing and delays as she brought in a couple of Creationists to object to well pretty much the usual stuff, mainly evolution.

So why would Texas remind me of that?  The state school board set up a panel to streamline science standards.  Even before they started work, members of the school board did their best to stack the deck with evolution-deniers -- much like Maguire did in her textbook complaint.  Even with two confirmed evolution-deniers on the panel, the panel voted to remove some of the anti-evolution rhetoric put in back in 2009 by the school board when it was headed by the creationist dentist, Don McLeroy, who made Texas a laughing stock.  Even with this preliminary vote, creationists are up in arms because of it. (Discussed in the Austin American Statesman and Pandas Thumb)

How I see the parallels:

1. Creationists do their best to stack review panels with unqualified people (Creationism ideology more important than scientific credentials)
2. They allow process to run until they don't like the outcome
3. Then they get all upset and start trying to trash the whole thing.

Texas, you deserve better, but until you let your voice be heard in the ballot box, you are going to continually allow your children's education to be held hostage by Creationists who are trying to make sure your children are taught their philosophy and not actual science.  I really feel for you, each and every one.  Here is something I wrote back in 2007.  It was directed toward South Carolina, but it's just as applicable to you, Texas, today:

"My question is to the people of South Carolina? Is this the direction you want to go? Ms. Maguire and friends are re-treading the direction other states have tried and failed, sometimes in embarrassing and expensive ways. Do you want your Biology teachers teaching religion to your kids? Do you want a narrow fundamentalist Christian viewpoint from determining the contents of your textbooks? Do you want to start the process of removing science from your curriculum?" (Ms. Kristin Maguire strikes)

Well, do you?  South Carolina wound up dropping Ms Maguire for reasons unrelated to conservative and anti-science positions.  You really need to re-examine the people on your school board.  Shouldn't the number one priority be the education of your children?  I would have thought so.

Surprise . . . Surprise . . . Surprise . . . Politicos who pander for Votes . . . Wow!

One of my Google Alerts pointed me to "Lawmakers might introduce ‘anti-evolution’ legislation to appease religious constituents, researchers theorize".  I've spoken about politicians who support pseudo-science pandering for years.  Nice that someone is actually studying it . . . although was it really necessary?  

I recall a study from a long time ago about the military applications of the Frisbee.  It was given up when it was determined that a Frisbee doesn't go where you wanted it to go.  I recall another one that determined mothers prefer children's clothing that don't require ironing. . . so I think there are some things that maybe don't need to be studied to death.

As for the pandering politicians, I agree that politicians are supposed to support their constituents, but does that mean helping them over a cliff?  When a politicians sponsors a bill -- one they know will not pass -- for the express purpose of appeasing part of their constituency . . . aren't they wasting time and resources that could be put to productive use?  How many man-hours went into the 110 anti-evolution bills from 2001 - 2012?  What an absolute waste!  I mean some folks get up in arms when a state spends hours debating the State Bird, or the State Reptile.  Shouldn't folks realize how wasteful this is as well?

Some might point to Tennessee and Louisiana, the only two states to pass anti-evolution bills, as successes . . . but you do realize neither state has put those bills into much practice.  They fear, and rightly so, the legal cost once they do.  Louisianan tried to add some built-in measures to make it hard to challenge in court , , , but those haven't been tested yet either.  It cost one school system in Dover PA over a million dollars . . . what might it cost those two states?  All for a few politicos gain a few more votes . . . and become laughingstocks at the same time!  

I know it's not going to stop.  Most politicians aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack.  Why focus on actually educating their constituents when pandering is so easy.  If the majority of their voting constituents wanted to act like lemmings, I am sure a pandering politician will be more than glad to help . . . as long as they vote before jumping!  All too many politicians are so incredible short-sighted. Is there some partial-lobotomy before they get sworn into office?

Is it Permissible to Question Science?

With the departure of little casey luskin, the job of 'Chief Poster of Serious Inanities' seems to be falling to davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  He has a pretty idiotic little post over on the misnamed "Evolution 'News' and Views' site called "The Myth of the Objective Scientist".  The majority of the article is typically misguided, it's the 'conclusion' that he takes it from misguided to foolish.

OK, if you don't want to read his post, I suggest you read the article klingy references first, "The left’s own war on science".  I really suggest you read this before you read klingy's spin.  More importantly, I suggest you read the whole article, something I have a feeling klingy never bothered to do.

Here is my summary of the situation.  Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon did some long term scientific work.  Along the way he MAY have done some things that were less than kosher in the eyes of other anthropologists.  I word it that way mainly because I am not equipped to pass judgement on his work.  I am getting my information from other sources.

A journalist, Patrick Tierney, wrote a book that made serious accusations against Chagnon and his collaborator James Neel.  The charges were so serious that the American Anthropological Association, which set up an task force to investigate.  The down side here is that the nasty stuff got publicized well before any investigation, so Chagnon lost in the Court of Public Opinion.

Here is my problem, did klingy mention the results of the investigation?  No!  The fact the investigation occurred was enough for klingy to come to his spin-based conclusions.  Before getting into that, the results were exoneration for Chagnon and Neel on the serious charges supposedly uncovered by Tierney.  The ethical debate over anthologists' behavior when conducting studies is ongoing, as it should.  When questions arise, they should be dealt with, possibly changing the rules about anthropological studies.  But this exoneration was ignored by klingy.

So what did klingy get from all this.  He makes one point, scientists are people.  Gee, I don't know about you, but I sorta had that one in my head already.  No one ever said scientists were some inhuman automaton that can achieve some unheard of level of objectivity.  What has been said, and proven over and over again, is that Science can be an objective process.

Yes, I said 'can be'.  By itself, it isn't objective, but the process lends itself to a level of objectivity.  Look at what happens when a scientist screws up.  Pons and Fleischmann's Cold Fusion Experiment is a good example.  Rather than take their results at face value, other scientists attempted to replicate their work and when no one could, their results were relegated to a footnote in history rather than a startling breakthrough. Hwang Woo-suk's cloning experiment is another.  Scientist messes up, and it is uncovered and dismissed.  That's part of the process!  It leads to much more objectivity than many processes in other fields!  No one claims scientists are perfect, but the process -- the use of actual scientific methodology -- tends to reach much more objective conclusions.

Those are just two examples, but when you look at the hundreds and thousands of scientific discoveries that do pass through the many gauntlets of scientific methodology, including examples of scientists going against current orthodoxy, you cannot argue with the success of science.  Look at the example of Chagnon.  After all his work, there were complaints, much motivated by political reasons.  Were mistakes made?  Maybe, but the serious charges were false and the integrity of the overall work restored.

But, of course, klingy doesn't go the extra mile and actually investigate.  He read part of one article and takes it as confirmation of his own biases.  Here is his closing:

"Misled by the myth of objectivity, many in the media and in education are themselves blinded. And so you have a dynamic that goes beyond a vague confirmation bias to an absolute insistence that when it comes to certainties like Darwinian evolution, no challenge is permitted and anyone willing to consider counterevidence is demonized as a "creationist."

So according to kling, challenges to evolution are not allowed.  Hmm, how many times has someone over the last 150 years questioned parts of the Theory of Evolution?  I couldn't possibly count them.  But they do tend to fall into two broad categories, scientific challenges and philosophical challenges.

We have scientists who raise objections, do the scientific work and that work improves the overarching theory.  People like Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould are perfect examples.  There is a long list of scientists who have added to the body of science, including evolution, and they do so by re-examining the current state of knowledge.  Something klingy seems to think cannot be challenged.  If science is so set-in-stone, then how are any advances made at anytime?  They are made by doing to actual work!  Not marketing, not whining, not lying . . . but actually doing science!

The other category of objection are people, like klingy and his buds at the Discovery Institute, who object for philosophical reasons.  The majority of those are actual, honest-to-god (pun intended) Creationists of one stripe or another.  Many simply object, quoting various religious tracts, and refusing the accept the scientific validity of evolution as a whole.  These folks come in a variety of types:  Old Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Evangelicals, Hamians (little kennie ham's followers), to name a few.  The honest ones self-identify as Creationists.  Other Creationists are much more stealthy, maybe 'closeted' is a better term.  They hide their religious motivations, dress up their ideas in scientific-sounding language, and market them all the while trying to segregate themselves from their religious beliefs . . . at least officially.  Sound familiar?  These folks are not Creationists because they object to Evolution, they are Creationists because they hold a religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation.

Do you see how foolish his conclusion is?  Over the years there have hundreds, even thousands of examples of actual scientific objections to Evolution.  Some of them gathered and garnered the evidence to support their objections, thereby improving the validity of the theory.  Many of their ideas don't work out, but at least they made the effort!  That's the part klingy seems to forget.  If your objections are actually based on science, do the work to either support your ideas, or abandon them as unsupported.

If your objections are based on your religious philosophy, at least be honest about it.  But no, look at what he says: that support for evolution is only some form of confirmation bias because any sort of objectivity of a scientist apparently impossible.  And if you dare to object, you get labeled as a creationist.  What a load of nonsense. 

So the answer to the question I started in the title, Is it permissible to question science?  The answer is that it is not only permitted, but encouraged.  The requirement is you question with science and you be willing to do the work to either support your ideas or see them eventually dismissed.  If your objection is based on philosophy, then you should really look at your belief set.  If you believe some actions by a capricious deity, you probably are a creationist.

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy,

"If you demand your religious beliefs should be taught in science class as if they are science, youuuuuuu might be a Creationist!"  

And, for the record, klingy, I believe you are one!  I think it's time to come out of the closet.

Hey Discovery Institute, there is a difference between Criminal and Unethical

Davey 'klingy' Klinghoffer is at it again, trying to make it sound like we should feel sorry for Intelligent Design (ID) proponents.  Sorry, klingy, it's not going to happen.  Here's link to his post:  "Prosecute Darwin Skeptics Under RICO Act?"  Like he has done before, he's drawing an imaginary parallel to gain some level of sympathy. Do you feel sorry for ID proponents? I certainly do not.

First the article he quotes, he does quote, but then he blows it all out of proportion, at least that's how I see it.  Look at his own quotes:

' . . . prosecute groups that "have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change." ' 

Look at the quote carefully.  No one was advocating prosecuting climate change deniers, but those who are using such denial as a means to forestall our responding to it.  Whether you agree with it or not, Climate Change is a potential danger, and, again whether you agree, some effort should be going into examining that danger and developing plans to deal with it.  Anyone who knowingly is taking actions to 'forstall' a response is not acting in a particularly wise fashion.

A parallel is made, in the original article, to the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is helping to deal with the issues around tobacco and dealing with the actions the tobacco industry undertook to forestall any response on the dangers of tobacco, actions they successfully delayed any organized response for decades.  Would anyone deny that their actions were detrimental to the American public, yet it was certainly good for their profits.

Another example, leaded gasoline.  In the 1920's the dangers of lead as a gasoline additive was known, but the industry that produced the lead additives fought any changes.  They even funded a prominent scientist to stall any serious examination of the dangers of lead.  It took 50 years before the United States finally acted.  Guess who funded most of the research into the dangers of lead additives?  The lead industry, of course.  Again, their actions delayed dealing with a serious problem for decades and yet that industry profited greatly during those decades.

See a trend?  Even when something currently common is found to be a significant danger, there is a core element that continues to profit from it . . . and they fight any changes that will cut into their profits.  Sounds like the current Climate Change arguments, doesn't it.

The article is NOT planning on prosecuting just any climate change deniers, but those who deliberately take actions designed to delay a response.  Now, why would any group want to delay a response?  Guess who funds a great deal of climate change research?  The oil companies, of course.  So the real thrusts of the possibility of legal actions isn't someone who is expressing an opinion, but a coordinated group action designed to profit by America's inaction.  Remember, it was the action of the tobacco and oil companies that eventually led to their legal issues, not simply an opinion.

So now let's get to klingy's whine.  Would anyone put intelligent design proponent actions in the same category?  Not by a long shot.  The main reason is how much impact have they really had?  They are an annoyance more than a danger.  So trying to draw a parallel at this point in time would be ridiculous.  While their actions are self-serving, they haven't reach a point where their danger is more than theoretical.  Again, it's their actions that could lead to some sort of action to censure them, and to date their actions have been pretty minor league compared to the oil or tobacco companies.

Is it possible at some time in the future their actions could present a danger to the point of legal action?  I have to say yes.  Since their actions are motivated by religion, have there been examples, recent examples, where religion was used to interfere with medical services?  If you need a few examples, I posted these last month: Ian, Neil, Matthew, Austin, Amy, Robyn, Andrew, Harrison, Nancy, Dennis, Arrian, Zachery, Troy, Shauntay, and Rhett.  So until the DI's efforts start having a much greater negative effect on biology, medicine, or other sciences to the point where lives are endangered, they will keep being more a mosquito bite than a significant problem.

Climate Change deniers, specifically those funded by the oil industry, have a lot in common with those who denied the dangers of tobacco and lead while continuing to profit from them.  It was their actions and the impact of those actions that caused the various responses.  To date, the DI hasn't done anything that I think could be considered illegal.  Think it through -- when you know tobacco is dangerous and you claim otherwise so you can continue profiting from it . . . that's illegal, hence the use of the RICO Act.  In my opinion the DI's actions fall more into unethical.  For example is it ethical to change the definition of the word Theory when trying to contrast a scientific theory with just an idea?  Or to deny the religious underpinnings of ID?  How about to try and change the explanation of real scientific work, claiming it in some way supports ID?  Or claiming Evolution's imminent demise?  No, these things are not illegal.  Foolish, certainly, and I believe unethical, but not illegal.  You might by what standard of 'ethical behavior' am I using to judge.  ID is a religious proposition, and when asked 'unofficially', ID proponents like to identify the intelligent designer as the Christian God.  Well I was brought up in that particular faith and guess what one of the sins you would confess every week?  Lying, of course.  So when I look at the actions of the DI, I can only call them unethical, because it's not up to me to call what they do as a 'sin'.  I guess they are more like little kennie ham (AiG and Creation 'Museum' infamy) than they would like to admit, especially when it comes to lying for Jesus.

One last comment by klingy:

"I hesitate to even articulate this, for fear of putting an idea in someone's mind. On the other hand, Darwinists don't need me to help them cook up schemes for striking out against dissenters."

Don't worry klingy, no one outside of your little circle of science deniers pays much attention to your ideas.  The real scientists working in evolutionary biology have no problem with dissenters.  Ones who are working with actual science often lead to changes in evolutionary theory (evo-devo, punctuated equilibrium . . .).  Dissenters who push pseudo-science, like the Discovery Institute, tend to get ignored.  It's when they impact science education that they get any attention.  Why do you think they target high schools?  You would expect they to take aim at science, but for that they have to do science.

If Evolution is ever replaced, it won't be by the Discovery Institute!

I hadn't run in this before, which is not surprising since I took a bit of time away from blogging, but after it being pointed out to me on Facebook, I just have to add it to my collection.  It's from Karl Giberson, Ph.D, posted on HuffPo two years back: "Evolution's Refusal to Die".  It ties well into things I like to say, like science's self-correcting nature.  I do love this line:

"Evolution is no more ill than heliocentricity, atomic theory or quantum mechanics is ill."

and his closing:

"The historical lesson is clear, even if the anti-evolutionists can't see it: Science is open to correction. In the event that evolution does become a "theory in crisis," we will read about that in Scientific American, Nature and Science, not the blogs of the anti-Darwinian culture warriors." 

I, and many others, have said time and time again that when you look back at all the things Creationists like to point out as weaknesses in science, like Piltdown Man or Cold Fusion, you will find that it certainly wasn't the armchair Creationist that discovered the problem, but other scientists replicating the work.  When you see the advancement of science from Newton to Einstein and beyond, again the armchair Creationist were nothing but a nay-sayer and the actual work was again done by real scientists, not folks like those at Answers in Genesis (AiG), the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), or the Discovery Institute (DI).  I have asked and no one has bothered answering, what scientific advancement can you point to that had Creationism at its core?  Not a single one!  Pointing out historical scientists that may or may not have been theists is not the same thing.  What scientific advancement can you lay at Creationism's door, not a single one!  Should make you think, shouldn't it?

If ever the current Theory of Evolution is replaced by a better, more encompassing explanation, it's not one dreamed up by theists as a way to bolster their own faith in their particular religion, but by real scientists, doing actual science, in accordance with methodology that doesn't require the actions of a deity.

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.

Sorry Darwin, it isn't your Evolution anymore? Are you kidding?

"Horizontal Gene Transfer: Sorry, Darwin, It's Not Your Evolution Any More" by Denyse O'Leary, one of the Discovery Institute's mouthpieces.  She said something that supports something I have been saying for a while, that the DI really has been living in some sort of time warp and evolutionary theory hasn't advanced since Darwin's day.  Her article about horizontal gene transfer (HGT) didn't seem all too off the mark, until she, of course, had to wax philosophical in claiming that HGT in some way diminishes Darwin.  Isn't this an argument science deniers, like Denyse, have been saying for decades?

The claim in her title, that 'it's not Darwin's evolution any more' is pretty ridiculous.  I realize that the DI would like to be arguing strictly against what Darwin knew in the middle of the 19th century, but  the Theory of Evolution has undergone many changes and additions over the years.  And while Darwin might not recognize much of the modern theory, he would certainly recognize certain specific features of the theory.  His contributions are not the whole of evolutionary theory, but they will continue to be important parts of the whole and underpin many current parts of the modern theory.

How many times has something new supposedly sounded the death knell of evolutionary theory?  The ones that come immediately to mind include Genetics, Gene Flow, and Punctuated Equilibrium, but there have been many more.  Every new discovery seems to energize folks like Denyse to announce the imminent demolition of the theory of evolution, and yet it still stands.  I think the wrecking ball they keep claiming to have is made of wet tissue paper.

I remember a post by Glenn Morton a few years back called:

"The Imminent Demise of Evolution:  The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism" 

For some reason he took down his site, but it was preserved at this link.  It makes interesting reading.  On a pretty regular basis one Creationist or another has been announcing the demise of evolution to the amusement of many for a long time.  I think it was in 2004 when Wild Bill Dembski was quoted in a Kentucky newspaper saying:

• [That] all the debate in this country over evolution won’t matter in a decade.
• By then . . . the theory of evolution put forth by Charles Darwin 150 years ago will be dead.
•  . . . the model of evolution accepted by the scientific community won’t be able to supply the answers.
• I see this all disintegrating very quickly

This certainly wasn't Dembski's first try at predicting things.  He once offered a wager:

"I’ll wager a bottle of single-malt scotch, should it ever go to trial whether ID may legitimately be taught in public school science curricula, that ID will pass all constitutional hurdles."

Obviously he said that BEFORE to Dover Trial.  I wonder if he ever paid off?  Does anyone know if he did?

Denyse's little post might indicate a small shift in gears.  After decades of being laughed at for predicting the demise of a real actual scientific theory, she's now more trying to marginalize Darwin's contributions.  But she fails as humorously as the rest.  HGT doesn't diminish Darwin as much as it makes the overall theory of evolution stronger.  I don't recall anything in Darwin's work that says Natural Selection is the end-all of evolution, in fact I recall passages that offered questions that he couldn't answer, questions that opened the door for much of the future work on evolution.  For example, Darwin had no idea of genetics, which was one of those ideas Creationists tried to beat over Evolution's head, and yet ended up becoming one of the strongest supporting theories of the over-arching Theory of Evolution. 

HGT was actually first postulated in the 1950's, so I think Denyse might be a little off.  But then, since the majority of the DI seems to argue against things from the 1850's, maybe she could be considered one of the most progressive of the DI'ers?  Just a thought.  The metaphor of a tree-like structure may no longer be the best way to look at gene transfer, but then so what?  The phylogenetic tree may someday be replaced with the phylogenetic network, but then a metaphor only goes so far anyway, doesn't it? 

If history teaches us anything, and I mean real history, not the time bubble the DI wishes they lived in, that one day the Theory of Evolution will be very different than it is today.  We will continue to learn more and more and the theory will change.  But it will not invalidate what Darwin did, it might provide many details about things he didn't know about, or things that were technically beyond the capabilities of 19th century science.  But the future version of the TOE will be better and have more explanatory power than the current theory.  That's how science works.  You might notice that Denyse doesn't offer anything to HGT, but it is real scientists working on it that are making the discoveries.

On the other hand, Denyse's masters at the DI will still be trying to diminish Darwin without making any progress to offering a viable replacement, especially a replacement that meets their criteria of being theistically-friendly.

Sh** or get off the Pot II

Recently I have been posting about how the DI whines when a real scientist offers a possible evolutionary explanation for various biological structures.  Frequently the response has been something like when little casey luskin he quoted Wild Bill Dembski::

"What's needed is a complete evolutionary path and not merely a possible oasis along the way. To claim otherwise is like saying we can travel by foot from Los Angeles to Tokyo because we've discovered the Hawaiian Islands. Evolutionary biology needs to do better than that. (William A. Dembski, Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses.)"

It's a common theme a demand absolute 100% proof, which is nothing more than another marketing tactic.  Science is more about small steps than trying to solve questions in one large discovery.  By demanding more than science actually delivers in a single step is an effort to make science appear weak.  Yet, what have folks like Dembski delivered at all?  That's why it's a tactic.  Science hasn't asked intelligent design 'conjecturists' for a complete solution, all they have done is ask that folks like Debmski support their own work, something they have never done. 

That same level of perfection is never required by those same conjecturists when talking about their own design ideas.  Case in point a new book announcement by little casey himself:  "New Book, Cosmological Implications of Heisenberg's Principle, Argues for Purpose and Design in Nature", by Julio Gonzalo.  Little casey starts by name-dropping his connection with the author and plug something he wrote last year.  Funny how the author's collaboration with casey isn't mentioned in the authors bio on Amazon.  Well anyway, I think this is supposed to be a review of sorts.

This 'review' is like so many others from the DI shows nothing but casey agreeing with everything the author says.  You can see why, when the author says things like:

"Modern science is therefore a monumental proof that the natural world as well as man's intellect are contingent and are due to an all-powerful and intelligent Creator. "

Little casey jumps right on and starts fawning.  But my question is where is the critical thinking that casey demands of biologists?  How can this author get away with a theme in which:

" . . . the universe requires an "intelligent Creator"

How can casey so easily buy into statements like:

"Gonzalo discusses the theism of both Planck and Einstein and concludes that the fundamental invariant truths of nature they discovered point to an intelligent creator"

If a real scientist made a comment like that and redefined other scientists work, especially taking it to areas unintended by the original scientists might seem reasonable, but when real scientists do it, they show their work, they support it.  How many years have we been waiting for design conjecturists to do that?  The issue is that when the philosophical agreement is there, casey treats anything said as gospel, not a single critical thoought.

One of my recent posts mentioned quote-mining and mis-characterizing other scientists work to place it in some context that appears to support Intelligent Design.  I think that is exactly what you are seeing here.  Gonzalo examines the theism of Planck and Einstein?  Really?  And somehow reaches the conclusion that they are pointing to an intelligent creator.  Gee, what a surprise!  Sounds much more like twisting what you are reading until you get to the point you already planned to reach anyway.

What bothers me isn't that Gonzalo isn't supporting his work, it's that little casey never asks for it.  Do you think a scientist making any public announcements would get away with that from the DI?  No way in hell!

It's well past the time when you, the DI, need to apply those critical think skills you claim to be promoting.  You need to seriously take a look at your own methods and even your motivations and really consider them.  I know you won't, but you need too.  Your impact on science has been minimal, although you do your best to damage science education.  Until you buckle down and either do the work or walk away because you cannot support your work, you will continue to be a bit of a joke and relegated to the same dusty shelf holding the Astrology and Parapsychology books.  I know the DI will continue to fawn over anyone who says things they agree with philosophically, and even if they don't, the spin-miesters at the DI will make it sound as if they do.  After all, it's what they do!

That is not what happened! Sternberg redux

Little davey klinghoffer, who I less-than-affectionately call 'klingy', is re-writing history . . . again.  In a recent post he whines about he Smithsonian's treatment of Evolution.  Nothing really new there, but this line caught my eye:

"That corollary is not stated in the museum exhibits, but the Smithsonian is the same national institution that drummed out evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg for admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit."

Bullshit!  That is not what happened, and I think klingy knows it, but you don't sell being a victim by admitting when you have less-than-honest about the events, do you?  He even has a link to the DI's take on things, which he wrote!  Does he dare link to the Wikipedia page, the one called the "Sternberg Peer Review Controversy"?  Of course not, because that one certainly doesn't paint Sternberg as a victim, or him being 'drummed out' of the Smithsonian.

When I picture being 'drummed out', I picture a military ceremony where the offender, usually following a court-martial, is stripped of the badges of their office and summarily removed form the military post while a row of drummers perform a drum roll during the serious parts.  When I think of Sternberg's departure from the Smithsonian, I picture more a little boy running away thinking he got away with something. 

Sternberg, an unpaid research assistant and voluntary editor of the Biological Society of Washington, took it upon himself to be the sole reviewer of a paper by Stephen C. Meyer.  Not only was Sternberg not qualified to review the paper [based on his education and background], his relationship with the author meant he should have recused himself from the process.  In other words, Sternberg violated the established process in order to publish the paper in a respected peer review scientific journal paper that did not meet the standards of publication.  That's why I think of him as someone who thinks he got away with something.

Of course immediately upon publication, the Discovery Institute lauded over Meyer as having published the first Intelligent Design supportive article in a peer review journal.  And, of course, they immediately started whining and crying when the journal released this statement repudiating the article:

"The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history." 

The journal wisely didn't publish a rebuttal, since the DI would have further crowed about it, more than likely claiming "See, there is something to ID because we have a paper and a rebuttal in a peer review journal!"

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) had this to say about ID:

 "Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:

• Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
• Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
• Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
• Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;"

That's not the AAAS's complete statement, you can see the rest by clicking the link above.  What I found interesting is that they made that statement in 2002 and re-published it in 2013.  Doesn't look like much has changed in ID research, does it?
               
Some other interesting facts, Sternberg, who had already resigned as editor, kept working there in the same role as an unpaid research assistant for 3 years.   I will admit that some organizations move slow, but three years is an awfully long 'drumming out'.

In an interview with Barbara Bradley Hagerty, National Public Radio's religion reporter, said Sternberg himself believes intelligent design is "fatally flawed."   Hmmm, so according to klingy calling intelligent design 'fatally flawed' is the same thing as 'admitting that doubts about Darwinian theory could have some merit'?  I don't think so!

Sternberg is also signatory to the incredibly foolish petition "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism", which I usually refer to as the '700', you know the list that supposedly shows a bunch of scientists who scientifically don't like the current theory of evolution.  But in reality their dissent has little to do with actual science, but a more evangelical difference and often the affiliations were overly inflated.  I recall Sternberg was also mentioned in this post from a few years back:

"Also, in early editions of the list, Richard Sternberg was described as "Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution" though Sternberg was never a Smithsonian staff member, but an unpaid research associate. At the time of signing the list Sternberg was the outgoing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a minor biology journal, where he played a central role in the Sternberg peer review controversy. Later versions of the list dropped mention of Sternberg's affiliation with the Smithsonian in favor of Sternberg's alma maters, Florida International University and Binghamton University. At present Sternberg is a Staff Scientist with GenBank, the genetic database at the National Institutes of Health."

Do you know where Sternberg works now?  According to the DI website: 

"Dr. Sternberg is presently a research scientist at the Biologic Institute, supported by a research fellowship from the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute."

If you aren't aware, Biologic is the pet lab of the Discovery Institute.  So after publishing a paper by Meyer, who is one of head honchos at DI, Sternberg now works at the DI's pet lab and his funding comes from the DI.  The only thing that could make that look any shakier is if Sternberg was a relative of Meyer!

If this were a TV drama, I could easily see Meyer something like this to Sternberg:

"Yea, Richie, I know it'll put an end to your scientific career, but think of the brownie points you'll get from God!  We'll also get lots of mileage painting you up as the victim, like we did for Guillermo and Caroline.  Besides you've already quit so I'll hire you once the legal stuff blows over!"

OK, so now you know why I write a blog and not screenplays!

So what we have here is klingy's re-telling of the past, primarily to paint Sternberg as some sort of victim, a status klingy claims for all supporters of ID, regardless of the reality of their stories.  Spinning tales like this may make good press, but it does make it easy to see why the DI's publishings are usually in the Christian Fiction section of a bookstore.  To bad they do not use the same energy and zeal in performing science!

Kirk Pt IV: Scientism!

Kirk's back in his series on how bad science is and why we should just trust in God and forget all this thinking.  I mean where does thinking really lead you?  I guess curing disease, flying, the Internet would have all happened anyway if we had only given up on science and stayed on our knees, right?

Today's topic has the usual philosophical bent, and one he tries to broadly brush all of science in the worst possible way, "The Corrupting Influence of Scientism" is his latest and I think the most entertaining of his posts to date.

First of all what is 'Scientism', and the truth is no one really knows.  Here is a copy from Wikipedia on the many dictionary definitions of Scientism [I numbered them for easier reference]:

1. The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists.
2. Methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to the natural scientist.
3. An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities.
4. The use of scientific or pseudoscientific language.
5. The contention that the social sciences, such as economics and sociology, are only properly sciences when they abide by the somewhat stricter interpretation of scientific method used by the natural sciences, and that otherwise they are not truly sciences.
6. "A term applied (freq. in a derogatory manner) to a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge and techniques; also to the view that the methods of study appropriate to physical science can replace those used in other fields such as philosophy and, esp., human behaviour and the social sciences."
7. "1. The collection of attitudes and practices considered typical of scientists. 2. The belief that the investigative methods of the physical sciences are applicable or justifiable in all fields of inquiry.

When Kirk uses the term, he is using the 6th definition.  When he says 'Scientism' he is certainly using it in the most derogatory way possible.  This is another post that supports the DI tactic of "Teaching People to Mistrust Science".  The real question is Kirk's definition of 'Scientism' a significant problem?

Wait a minute, Kirk seems to change his definition of 'Scientism'?  In his very first post of this series of his "Should We Have Faith in Science?" he defined scientism as  . . . here, let me quote him:

"As a scientist, I am increasingly appalled and even shocked at what passes for science. It has become a mix of good science, bad science, creative story-telling, science fiction, scientism (atheism dressed up as science), citation-bias, huge media announcements followed by quiet retractions, massaging the data, exaggeration for funding purposes, and outright fraud all rolled up together. In some disciplines, the problem has become so rampant that the "good science" part is drowning in a mess of everything else."

I added the bolding and underlining so you can more easily pick out his comment.  So, in his first in the series, he defines 'scientism' as 'atheism', yet in this post, he changes to definition a bit. . . here, let me quote this definition from his current post:

"Scientism is the belief that science is the best and only trustworthy method to discover truth. Supernatural explanations are a priori ruled out. The result is atheism dressed up as science."

Oh, so now Kirk's problem of 'scientism' is not allowing supernatural explanations in science.  Things are taking a very different turn, isn't it?  Instead of addressing a belief in the omnipotence of scientific knowledge, refusing to allow supernatural explanations is the key to Kirk's complaint, no matter how he tries to dress it up.  Not sure I have things right, here's another quote from Kirk:

"Scientism lobotomizes the quest for knowledge by turning a blind eye to God and the supernatural."

So this whole discussion of 'Scientism' is nothing but a smokescreen Kirk used to hide his religious motivation, let's examine the root of his prejudice.  Don't worry, I'll return to the smokescreen later, but first a few words about why allowing supernatural explanations might be a problem.  While I could get into all sorts of things like philosophical and methodological naturalism, I want to focus on something much simpler and state categorically:  "I will support the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science when  supernatural explanations work!"  I know, if Kirk or his friends at the DI read this, they might quote-mine part of this line and use it to paint me as a theist who wants my science to include the supernatural, wouldn't that be fun!

But seriously, think about it, do supernatural explanations work?  While people like to claim the power of prayer, is it reliable?  Is it repeatable?  Is it even predictable?  Is any supernatural explanation, whether it is ghosts, parapsychology, or Creationism/Intelligent Design useful or even usable?  In a word, No!  If you cannot use it, what good is it in explaining the world around you?  Other than a warm feeling when you think the world aligns with some personal philosophy, it doesn't seem to produce any tangible results!

Look at how successful science is, and has been! Would science be as successful with the inclusion of the supernatural?  Hmmm, let's not forget how long did the supernatural did dominate our explanations of the world around us?  How successful were those explanations?  Not very!  Would expanding the definition of science to include the supernatural actually offer any realistic benefit, other than a warm feeling to people who believe in the supernatural?  That's exactly what Kirk is talking about.  Just like Michael Behe testified about during the Dover Trial.  While he [Behe] tap-danced around it in a variety of ways, in a nutshell he testified that to include Intelligent Design in science, the very definition of a scientific theory would have to be widened to the point where Astrology also being admitted.  That's pretty much what Kirk is asking for here, isn't he?  Scientism = Atheism, so let's add in religion and make science better!  But will it?  Sure doesn't have as good a track record as actual science!

I've asked this question before, but now I would to direct it to Kirk.  Kirk, do you actually put fuel in the fuel tank of your car?  Why do you do that?  You know why, and I know why, it's because of the science -- real usable, predictable, and repeatable science minus any supernatural explanations.  While you might pray when the needle gets close to 'E', it's the activity of putting more fuel in your tank that allows you to continue driving.  If you want to prove to supernatural explanations are just as reliable as natural ones, hop in your car and see how far you get on prayer!

Now, for fun, let's look at Kirk's smokescreen.  But not as defined by Kirk, but let's use definition #3:  "An exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation, as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities."  Can this be a problem?


It certainly can be!  I'm the first to admit, and I have said it time and time again, scientists are human beings and they are subject to all the perils and foibles that come with being human.  In other words, sometimes they screw up.  The over-application of any philosophy or prejudice can certainly impact any endeavor, even science.  But as I have also said time and time again, science has methodologies that help deal with the possibility to such prejudices affecting outcomes.  In fact now that I think about it, didn't I already discuss this in addressing one of Kirk's earlier posts?  Yes, here it is:

"What's interesting about Science is that is a self-correcting activity.  Think about it, science works, the explanations match the available evidence and when they can no longer do that, they get discarded.  That's the concept of being self-correcting.  When it doesn't work it gets kicked to the curb.  The road to an accepted scientific theory is littered with ideas and explanations that failed at some point.  Some of the possible reasons include Kirk's little diatribe.  When scientists are guilty of anything Kirk doesn't seem to like, their ideas end up among the discarded.  There is a level of actual scientific support required before ideas move forward, something ID proponents can't seem to reach."

So, another question for Kirk.  If we allow supernatural explanations in science, what are the methodologies to determine the success or failure of a supernatural explanation?   I didn't see anything in your post addressing this?  Did I miss something?  While you are a little entertaining, I have seen a common thread in your posts.  You like to whine, but have you offered one suggestion to improve science and scientific methodology?  Letting in the supernatural might give you a warm feeling, but will it improve science?

One last point, and one of my pet peeves, as you probably know.  Why is Kirk trying to throw religion into science and yet the DI, who are posting Kirk's mental meanderings, still insisting there is nothing religious about it?  I know, it should be glue by now, but until the DI comes clean about their motivations, I'll keep beating that dead horse!

Teaching People to Mistrust Science

What a surprise, the Discovery Institute (DI), through one of their favorite mouthpieces little casey luskin, doesn't like how Intelligent Design (ID) is represented.  Except for their own publications, have they approved of anyone else's explanation of ID?  I don't recall any!  But this time I think it's a smokescreen whine, covering up a more serious issue, encouraging the mistrust of science.

The latest is a post by casey over on ENV is "The Danger of Capitulating to "Settled Science": Cambridge University Press Book Misrepresents ID".

First off, why does the article have to start with a blurb about a professor at a religious college that resigned over theological views on human origins?  After all, the DI keeps trying to claim there is nothing religious about ID.  Does anyone actually believe that?

So this article supposedly centers on a review by the departing professor on a book by Benjamin C. Jantzen, An Introduction to Design Arguments (Cambridge University Press). The majority of the article from little casey is the normal whines and complaints about how no one in the world seems to understand ID, except for those less-than-stalwart Fellows, and Senior Fellows, at the DI.  That' a problem for another post, I found two other themes I wanted to address.

The first is one I have commented on before, how the DI loves to complain if any biologist doesn't provide an complete end-to-end explanation of a potential evolutionary path from one structure to the next.  If not, they tend to immediately dismiss anything said, regardless of how compelling the concept.  Yet when they offer their own concepts and philosophies, they offer no corresponding level of completeness.  In fact when you ask for it, they seem to have any number of rationalizations why they don't really have a clue.  This is an example of raising the goal posts for everyone else, yet they don't even bother kicking the ball while claiming a score.  In other words biology must be absolute or it should be rejected, but the DI is allowed the treat supposition as absolute and demand time at the science classroom lectern.  Doesn't much wash for me!

The other theme is one I haven't examined before, and the more critical one. Little casey quoted Jantzen:

"The ID camp does a disservice to the predominantly conservative Christian community to which it appeals by conditioning that community to mistrust science. Its arguments depend on accepted, settled science getting things wrong. "

Here casey gets incredibly defensive, his defense is claiming that they [the DI] are not teaching people to mistrust science, but to think for themselves.  Sorry casey, that doesn't fly!  Here are a compile of examples (italicized comments are mine):

• Demanding 100 certainty from science for anything any scientists writes.  How can you possibly tell me that something like that doesn't leave a negative impression about science!
• Evolution is just a theory.  Let's drag all scientific theories down to the level of just being an idea, this way ID can be claimed to be equal to actual scientific theories.
• Teach strengths and weaknesses.  It's not about teaching weaknesses, it's about convincing people there are weaknesses, real or perceived.
• Teach all aspects because of academic freedom.  Yet actual academic freedom has nothing to do with teaching religion as if it were science.
• Equate real science with religion.  Darwinism, anyone?  It's not an 'ism', it's real and it works!  How often do they try and identify evolution as a religion?  Too many to count.
• Mis-quote and quote-mine real science and scientists.  Darwin and the eye, for example, Stephen J. Gould as well.
• Mis-characterize issues like Piltdown Man as bad science.  Even though scientists are the ones who uncovered the problems and never bought into it to begin with.
• Question science, scientists, science methodology without any actual complaints, just innuendo and mis-characterizations of science.  Kirk Durston's recent posts (here, here, and here)

Sure, this has nothing to do with people mistrusting science.  Nothing they have done could possibly have a negative impact on people's perception of science . . . yea right!.  Their tactics are more to bring down science instead of building up their own ideas.  Think about most everything you read from the DI, are they doing the work supporting their own ideas or are they spending more time tearing down science and science education?  It certainly seems to latter to me.

So, it looks like while they claim otherwise, what they are actually doing is trying to handicap science.  But for a moment let's look at their rationalization, teaching people to think for themselves.

While this sounds like a laudable idea, how real is it?  Do we teach people to treat their own diseases, build their own rocket ships, or even their own cars?  No!  We have experts to do these things and we accept the fact we are not all doctors, rocket scientists, or even car designers.  Yet the DI wants everyone to be able to pick and choose which science they want to accept?  Really?  Why would that be the case?  I think when your ideas cannot stand the light of science, sell rather than do any science.  Tell people you are only thinking of them, and then do your best to have real science, you know the stuff that actually works, shoved aside.  I have often called the DI a marketing organization but I am starting to re-think that.

I think the DI is more of a religious ministry.  Think about it, since when does a religious ministry really want you to think for yourself?  It's just another tactic!  Think about more open religious ministries and their message.  While they give voice to freedom of religion, what they are usually saying is 'my religious freedom, not yours'.  Isn't that what the DI is doing, their ideas rather than real science!

Yes, they claim not to be a religious organization, but isn't that wearing quite thin?  Here are some of their Wedge Strategy 5-year goals, those under the heading of Spiritual & cultural renewal:

• Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism
• Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)
• Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions
• Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

How much of this sounds more like a religious ministry than an organization dedicated to science?   Read the whole wedge strategy and you get the impression science is nothing but a tactic, an afterthought.  And, again from the document itself, biology is only the first area to be addressed, other scientific disciplines, social sciences, and humanities are also in the target list.  I think the DI needs to change their tax status to a religious ministry.  At least is would be more honest!

Kirk Pt III: Fantasy and Science

Kirk Durston has yet another post and this one is much less interesting.  Before getting into it, I wanted to comment on the title "Confusing Fantasy with Science".  I don't think real scientists have a problem with confusing the two, after all at one point all science started out as fantasy, didn't it?  Someone had an incredible idea and did the work to not only prove their idea was reality, but take it to a point so that architects and engineers could take the idea and turn it into useful and practical stuff, stuff that actually works.  Sometimes the idea didn't even originate with the scientists, they just happened to be the ones who turned an idea into reality.  Jules Vernes' works are excellent examples.  We've been to the moon, although not using a giant cannon.  We have submarines that travel considerably longer distances than 20,000 leagues, don't we?  Many of the things we see as ubiquitous today were once solely within the realm of science fiction and fantasy.  Cell phones, computers and doesn't the Apple Watch remind anyone else of the Dick Tracy two-way wrist unit?  If real scientists got confused between the science and fantasy, I doubt their success rate would be very high.  They might imagine, but they would never be able to put their imaginations to such practical applications, would they? 

OK, on the Kirk's article.  He starts off with a lie, at least in my opinion it's a lie:

"In order for atheism to survive the advance of science, it must come up with a natural explanation for the origin of the universe, the incredible fine-tuning required for the universe to support life, and the origin of life itself."

The first part of his comment seems pretty ridiculous, "In order for atheism to survive the advance of science . . ."  By definition atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.  Why is that predicated on anything science comes up with?  The rest of it is just as bad, why does atheism have to develop a natural explanation of the origin of the universe?  Why does it have to explain something that exists only in the imagination of people like Kirk, the so-called 'fine-tuning' argument?  The only way I think any of this could happen is if Creationists are suddenly about to have a breakthrough in which science confirms, undeniably confirms, the existence of  deity and the host of things Creationists insist could have only happened through the actions of said deity.  I don't see that happening, although I bet Kirk is hoping it confirms the existence of an evangelical Christian God, or else the newly identified deity might not take too kindly to Kirk.  Atheism requires nothing like this, so why would Kirk word it this way? 

I think he's doing a couple of things.  First off by stating it this way, he's trying to equate science and atheism, which is a common, and yet disreputable, tactic and one frequently used by the Discovery Institute and their friends.  Science is not 'atheistic', nor is it 'theistic', at best, neutral.  By trying to equate the two, he's attempting to sell people who do believe in one deity or another that they cannot accept science without dropping their belief.  If that were the case then why do so many scientists profess theistic beliefs?  While it's true that the percentage of scientists who profess such beliefs is lower than the general population, it's also true that the better educated you are, the less likely you are to share some theistic belief set.  No wonder the DI is so intent on damaging science education!

Second, I think he's doing a little projection (the defense mechanism).  How I see things is that while claiming atheists have to explain the universe, the reality is if a religion doesn't come up with supernatural explanations, it will not only fail to survive the advances of science, but it will fail to gain adherents..  I mean when you think of it how many supernatural explanations and entire religions have fallen by the wayside of the decades and centuries?

While they blame science, it's not science that is disproving God, it's that people try and use God as an explanation for something they do not understand -- a very self-limiting process.  Once we do understand it better, the God explanation falls flat.  While they like to blame science, the reality is they are doing it to themselves by clinging to superseded ideas in the perception that they are somehow protecting their cherished beliefs.  The reality is they simply look foolish!  This is also know as the "God of the Gaps' argument, and we'll be discussing that more later.

But back to Kirk.  I think he's also using another tactic.  By claiming that atheism HAS to accomplish certain things, he knows that any answer science comes up with will never satisfy someone like Kirk or any of his friends.  Which means as long as he doesn't accept the answer, he can keep claiming science as some sort of failure.  Sort of like the child who sticks his fingers in his ears and making nonsensical noises to avoid hearing something he doesn't want to hear.

I don't believe this line is true either:

" . . . scientists have pointed out that the universe appears to be unbelievably fine-tuned to be able to support life".  

Scientists have not done this in any way, in fact they have shown the opposite.  The majority of the universe we have discovered, granted is a tiny part of the whole, but it is incapable of supporting life as we know it.  You would survive for how long on the Moon, or Mars, or Jupiter if you were suddenly transported their in your shirt sleeves?  Minutes, seconds, even less?  I know Creationists like to point out that the Earth and the Universe is somehow fine-tuned, but that doesn't fit the evidence, not that they will ever admit it.

He also states that Eugene Koonin basically says life is highly improbable, therefore "Koonin's solution is to propose an infinite multiverse".  Eugene Koonin did not propose an infinite multiverse, at best he philosophically thinks that it might increase the odds of life forming somewhere.  But it has nothing to do with the fine-tuned idea.  The multiverse is more a philosophical question than a scientific question and has been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, and even science fiction.  But scientists engaging is a debate doesn't automatically make it a viable scientific theory, which Kirk seems to want it to be so he can try and poke holes in it.

What he is doing is another common tactic.  Building a straw-man so he can tear it down.  In this post he's redefined atheism, misrepresented science claiming that it has 'proven' the fine-tuning nonsense, and it looks like he's quote-mining Eugene Koonin to build a straw-man.  Halfway into Kirk's article and he's already used a number of disreputable Creationist tactics.  The Discovery Institute must be so proud.

He finally got to his main argument, that  . . . well let him tell you:

"So the multiverse has become atheism's "god of the gaps" but some scientists point out that multiverse "science" is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, "they are not observationally or experimentally testable -- and never will be."

His link is to his own blog where he postulates that the whole idea of the multiverse is mainly to avoid the idea of one unseen creator.  So according to Kirk science invented a whole concept just to avoid the possibility of one particular version of a deity?  Sounds more like something Creationists did, as in Creation Science, when they invented a whole new conceptual view of religion in order to avoid facing the reality of science.  So much projection in one short posting!

In order for the multiverse to be a 'God of the Gaps' argument, some scientists would have to stand up and claim the multiverse is the answer for a specific set of questions for which there is no other current answer, or one for which current answers are rejected at least by the scientist making the multiverse claim.  That's how the God of the Gaps argument works.  We see it every time someone like Michael Behe tries to pass of irreducible complexity as science, or Wild Bill Dembski tries to convince us of his specified complexity filter, or any time kennie ham posts  . . . well . . . anything.  What we see are 'explanations' devoid of any scientific support other than wishful thinking.  Is that what we see when scientists debate the many ideas about a multiverse?  The four types, the nine types,and all the potential permutations?  It's still way too soon to call the multiverse the answer to anything, while no one knows what future discoveries might change that, Kirk is trying to discredit it already. 

At this point the multiverse is an idea, barely a hypothesis and one they readily admit may never go much further.  There are any number of ideas about it,  I think Kirk is more afraid of what the multiverse would do for his religious beliefs. Imagine if we found a multitude of other universes and what if none of them provide any evidence of a deity? 

It seems that Kirk doesn't want scientists to be able to imagine and debate fantastic ideas at all.  After all what is Creationism/Intelligent Design but a flight of fancy centered around a narrow view of one particular deity.  How dare scientists make flights of fancy of their own, especially ones that fail to pay homage to Kirk's version of a God!

What Kirk appears to fail to realize is that where innovation comes from?  It doesn't stem from staring at the tried and true, but from an individual, or group of individuals, looking at something from a unique angles, developing the ideas, and proving the ideas in ways no one previously had imagined.  Not all ideas will pan out, as Kirk and his buddies prove on a daily basis.  But it's that fantastical thinking that offers a way to the future that Kirk wants to deny to anyone but I guess himself.

Let's see so far, Kirk has questioned belief in science, the peer-review process, and now the multiverse.  And yet is all three posts he hasn't really offered anything but the usual creationist canards about science and how scientists work.  At best he's reiterated some of the negative aspects of science -- things already recognized and often being addressed by real scientists, while at the same time he's misrepresented a great deal, like peer review, the multiverse, Eugene Koonin, and even the God of the Gaps argument.  You're not doing to well, Kirk.  And I thought your posts might be a bit more fun.  Hey Kirk, don't you have anything original?