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?

Does a Discovery Institute Talking Head Understand the Concept of 'Self-Respect'?

I certainly wouldn't have believed it of Cornelius Hunter!  See if you agree, check out this post by Hunter at the Discovery Institute's (DI) Evolution 'news' and Views (EnV):  "How Big Is Evolution's Closet?".  It's pretty bad, in my opinion contains more than a little pent-up hostility.

First off, what is the guy trying to say?  He claims that Evolution:

"repeatedly fails its fundamental predictions, and is unable to explain even the basic facts, well, there is bound to be doubt."

Now, how does he justify this comment?  Well, an anonymous 'friend' told him:

"that all across the country, life science professors "have told me in private they have questions about evolution . . ."

Now before getting into what I feel is a bunch of pent-up hostility, I would like to remind you of the DI's penchant for playing word games.  Look at the phrasing:

"questions about evolution"

So what?  Many actual scientists have questions about a lot of things, especially their own specialty. If they didn't, then where would new discoveries come from?  How do you think Evolution went from Darwin's very original theories to this massive set of well-supported theories that has caused one biologist to write "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (a 1973 essay by the evolutionary biologist and Eastern Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky.) Questioning is a scientists' job!  The difference between a scientist and a pseudo-scientist is that a real scientist looks for actual answers while a pseudo-scientist starts with their desired answer and then spends the rest of the time rationalizing.  The other difference is real scientist's questions lead to breakthroughs, while pseudo-scientists never question, they already have their answer so they never see the need to question.

Hunter tries to make the idea of 'having questions' a bad thing.  He further tries to make it sound even worse with this little bit of ridiculousness:  

" . . . keeps their identities secret"

Hunter doesn't even identify his 'friend'.  So now I have to ask, does Hunter actual know how science works?  Has he bothered to learn anything about evolution?  Apparently not, but then in addition to being a 'fellow' at the DI, he teaches at Biola University, an private Evangelical Christian Bible College, so it is understandable that he may not understand anything about Evolution, after all Evolution is actual science.  Apparently scientific methodology hasn't made much of an impression on him either.

The reason I question his understanding of scientific methodology is because you know what happens to scientists who make unsupported statements?  It's called unemployment.  So, tell me, where did Hunter support his original allegation about Evolution?  As you can see, he didn't.  Oh he gave the impression of support with his anonymous friend commenting of equally anonymous sources.  Think about the reception of a scientist who tries that?  "I discovered 'X' and my proof is  . . . well I can't tell you because someone might get in trouble!"  Oh yea, imagine that reception!

Come to think of it, isn't that similar to what Richard Sternberg for the Sternberg Peer Review Controversy? He claimed that Stephen C. Meyer's pseudo-scientific paper was peer-reviewed, but the peer reviewers remained anonymous fearing retaliation.  If these reviewers actual existed, the journal in question has serious doubts the reviewers had the credentials to be qualified to review the paper, the paper that was later rescinded because of Sternberg's actions.  Oh, and never forget that Sternberg was an unpaid volunteer editor who had already put in his resignation papers at that journal and later ended up working for Meyer at the DI.

This isn't the first time the DI has played these type of word games.  I would like to remind you of the infamous 'dissent' petition, what I usually call 'The 700'.  The wording of that petition was also carefully done, fairly innocuous phrasing designed to mislead.  You can read much more about it from the NCSE right here.  But the parallels are there, taking great care in creating words that can mean many things and then spinning it after the fact to mean what you want.  Of course since Hunter did all this citing of anonymous sources, no one can check . . . not like the NCSE did when the original petition was made public.

I also don't particularly like Hunter using the 'closet'.  Everyone knows the most common use of the closet metaphor involves gay people who haven't yet gone public with their sexual preferences.  It's even led to the terms 'out' and 'outed' from that metaphor.  Is he seriously claiming that there is a collection of closeted life science professors who have doubts about evolution.  He said 'questions', but he implied 'doubts'.  First off, I don't believe Hunter -- he is a 'fellow' at the DI and you know how 'honest and trustworthy' those less-than-stalwart fellows have been in the past.

I mean if I said that I know an NFL coach. . . who in High School loved romantic comedies, Streisand records, and . . . whatever else . . . but I can't name him because the players and fans might react negatively.  See what I mean?  Completely unsupported allegations, just supposition.  Or maybe I can further say that there are many players who know this coach likes those things too . . . but I can't name them either!  See what I mean, Hunter loves to say stuff and the fail to support it.  We've discussed him before, most recently in "So Who Has their Head in the Sand?".   How can you believe anyone who does such things?  We don't trust them, we can't trust them, but they can be entertaining.  Just in case anyone was wondering, I have no personal friends from HS who are NFL coaches . . . I was just making a silly example, so if you ask me to point fingers, I am going to laugh myself silly!

As for the 'closet', I do agree there are many folks who have not 'come out of the closet' concerning one thing or another, the usual reason is fear although it could also simply be a wish for privacy.  So what Hunter is saying is one of the standard, and unsupported, lines from the DI.  That anyone who disagrees with actual science is somehow ostracized and therefore afraid to speak out.  They, the DI, has been selling that line for years, yet have they been able to support this assertion?  No, they haven't.  Oh, they like to parade various people around and call them martyrs for the cause, but the reality is they aren't. These are people who allowed their religious beliefs to interfere with the professional responsibilities and then discovered that those beliefs weren't going to protect them when they were held accountable. We most recently discussed a bunch of those folks here.

So you can see, Cornelius Hunter is a lightweight when it comes to 'questioning' evolution.  He likes to play word games, make unsupported statement and imply things.  Yes, Hunter and the DI would love for us to believe there is a host of scientists prepared to jump out of the closet and support Creationism . . . but real scientists 'question' evolution in order to expand and add to the science; pseudo-scientists, like Hunter here, have to imagine closeted supporters.  Hunter also said:

"No evolutionist who has ever peered into a microscope can look in the mirror and maintain self-respect. "

Looks like another case of projection.  Biologists probably have no self-respect issues.  It's only liars who would have trouble seeing themselves in a mirror.  I'm sure Hunter sees himself as some sort of Creationist super-hero with a cape and a Bible picture on his chest.  But most pre-teen boys eventually grow up and stop relying on fairy tales and imaginary friends.   Hunter has a lot of growing up to do, not only does he imagine this host of closeted-Creationists ready to burst out, but now he had his 'friends' telling him about what their imaginary friends are saying.  Like most creationists, once you hear something that agrees with your personal philosophy, you refuse to listen to anything that contradicts it. Luckily, real scientists continue to listen, question, and think.

So Who Has their Head in the Sand?

Interesting article, but one that seems to be nothing more than a wonderful example of quote-mining. By now, you are probably more than familiar with the concept of quote-mining, that is taking a quote out-of-context in such a way to change its meaning.  There have been many instances of quote-mining, one of my personal favorites is here with Ben Stein quote-mining Charles Darwin, and doing a pretty poor job.  In any event, my opinion of quote-mining is that it is a reprehensible tactic and one usually used by the loosing side of an argument when they seem to feel they have nothing left to loose.

Here in the new post 'Irony Alert: Michael Shermer on "When Facts Fail" ' from the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution 'news' and Views.  I had to read through it twice to get the point the author, Cornelius Hunter, was trying to make.  What it looks like to me is he is insinuating that folks like Michael Shermer are engaging in the exact behavior that he [Shermer] was writing about, that is the refusal to change ones mind when confronted with facts that contradict 'beliefs'.

So, instead of listing all the 'facts' about Intelligent Design that Michael Shermer might be refusing to consider . . . oh wait, there are no facts about ID.  So I guess Hunter had to take a different path, in fact [pun intended], the only path open to him.  So what he does is list a whole bunch of stuff, claiming these were all examples of facts failing evolution.  But are they?

One example Hunter uses is, the emphasis is Hunter's:

"Early trilobites show all the features of the trilobite group as a whole; transitional or ancestral forms showing or combining the features of trilobites with other groups (e.g. early arthropods) do not seem to exist."

Since this is from Wikipedia, let's look at it a bit more in context:

"Evidence suggests that significant diversification had already occurred before trilobites were preserved in the fossil record, easily allowing for the "sudden" appearance of diverse trilobite groups with complex derived characteristics (e.g. eyes)." (Wikipedia: Trilobite)

To get the entire explanation, you really should click on the link and read it all for yourself.  Hunter took only one line to try and make his case.  Of course it doesn't present the complete picture -- after all the more complete context doesn't support his contention -- hence quote-mining.

The bottom line, which Hunter failed to mention, is really two-fold.  The first is that the evidence supports that the majority of the evolution of trilobites precedes the time periods when bony structures formed and started leaving detailed fossils.  So, on the one hand Creationists like to claim there are no transitional fossils and on the other when there are not clear transitional forms, they claim that disproves evolution.  Really?  How . . . two-faced.

The other thing you get when you read it is that science is honest about the things we do not know.  Instead of making definitive statements you see terms like 'do not seem' and 'evidence suggests'.  That's how science works.  The things we don't know or aren't sure about are openly identified.  It identifies areas where we need more work.  Look at what we know today compared to what we knew 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago.  Can Hunter really claim this is some sort of fact failure?  The only failure is in his imagination.

A quick Google of some of his other 'failed facts' show similar issues, Hunter simply is representing them as fact failures, however they really aren't at all.  Some of them are reasonably understood, from an evolutionary standpoint, others less so.  But at no time can you call these failures.  Only a Creationists would call something we don't understand to the nth degree a failure.  I guess having a deity you can rely on to give you all the answers means you have no failures . . . also you have no successes.  After all, how many scientific advances can identify the point where Creationism/Intelligent Design entered and added something to the whole?  Yea, I get the same answer.  There aren't any!  Planes fly not because a deity wills it, but because of our understanding of many scientific theories. 

All Hunter has proven is science doesn't know everything.  Of course the scientific community has never said that it knows all.  That's a lie put forth by anti-science organizations, like the DI.  One of the common anti-science tactics is to build a strawman argument, demolish it and claim a victory.  In this case, the strawman is that science knows all, and then you point out a few things where the science isn't complete and claim science is all screwed up.  So which side is actually being honest in this discussion?

Actually this is a common tactic.  Remember the Dover Trial and Michael Behe?  Unlike Hunter here, who is only a Fellow at the DI, Behe is a 'Senior' Fellow, I'm not sure if that means smarter or simply older. Here's a quote from the decision:

"In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (Wikipedia: Dover Decision)

So, I would also like to address this idea of Hunter's from a different angle.  Take any scientific theory, say Light, Gravity, Germs, or even Evolution.  Look back on a timeline and look at the changes to the theory as you go further and further back.  You will see an almost constant evolution [used in the context of 'change over time'] of the theories.  Does this sound like a community of people who reject new ideas and cling to their belief set?  Scientific advances are not made by re-hashing the old!  It would be hard to call them advances if all we are doing is running in place.  Picture the medical community of Darwin's day.  How would you like to be treated by those medical techniques?

So, Hunter . . . who has their head stuck in the sand when faced with fact that refute their belief system?  It sure doesn't sound like the scientific community is guilty here, but can you say the same?