Are Scientists really saying nice things about Doug Axe's new Book? Seriously?

One of the common themes the Discovery Institute is constantly rallying against is 'scientific consensus'.  Their group complains pretty loudly about how bad it is when scientists agree, because that is the path to intolerance and censorship . . . well you know the whine.  However, they also do like to publish claims about 'scientists' who agree with them.  Does anyone else find this amusing?  Scientific consensus is a bad thing, unless they are agreeing with us then it something to crow about!  But, as expected, what we are seeing here isn't really consensus among a group of actual scientists, all we have is typical DI spin.

Here's the post, by 'our favorite' little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer: "Axe and Undeniable -- What the Scientists Are Saying".  Before looking at the article, re-read the title.  The words that jumped out at me are 'the Scientists'.  So the question that follows is did a group of actual scientists say positive things about Doug's book on how intuition is more viable than rational thought when it comes to forming scientific conclusions?  Now read the article and you will find that there was no large group of scientists, there wasn't even a small group . . . what you have is several -- which is defined as more than two but not many.

As the Sensuous Curmudgeon pointed out, it's three . . . yes . . . three, which does meet the definition of several, but just barely.  I can see why they wouldn't accurately report it as "Few Scientists say nice things about Doug and his latest religious tract" . . . after all that would be a counterproductive spin.  But klingy implies more than just several by using 'the Scientists!

But here is the kicker, it's not just three . . . it's three who already agree with the DI and their many marketing schemes of the past.

• Michael Behe, who klingy forgot to mention is a Senior Fellow of the DI.  
• Marcos Eberlin, Professor of Chemistry at Brazil’s University of Campinas and the author of 'Life and the Universe by Intelligent Design'.  
• J. Scott Turner, Professor of Biology, State University of New York and someone previously identified as an ID supporter by none other than casey luskin himself.

Three current advocates of the DI and Intelligent Design (ID) support Doug.  That's a huge drop from the implied 'Scientists' to three already true believers, don't you think?  But it does repeat a common DI theme: one of the DI publishes a book and they gather a few of their current supporters and elicit comments they can publicize.  I remember commenting on this before, "That's it? An admission of failure?", where, if you recall, I listed a bunch of editorial reviews for one of Stephen C. Meyer's less laudable books -- although finding one that is actually laudable might be a stretch.  The list of 'reviews' was seriously stacked with DI and ID supporters:

•  Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, senior scientist emeritus (biologist) at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research.  Isn't he on the editorial board of 'Bio-Complexity', the DI in-house pro-ID journal.  He's written often for the DI and even been interviewed by casey luskin!  LOL!
• Dr. Mark McMenamin, paleontologist at Mt. Holyoke College and coauthor of 'The Emergence of Animals'.  And a long term critic of evolutionary theory.
• Dr. Norman C. Nevin OBE, BSc, MD, FRCPath, FFPH, FRCPE, FRCP; Professor Emeritus in Medical Genetics, Queen's University, Belfast.  Currently Nevin is President of the Centre for Intelligent Design in Scotland, sort of a low-rent version of the Discovery Institute.  I wrote about Nevin in "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!"
• Dr. Richard Weikart, Professor of History at California State University, Stanislaus; Author of 'From Darwin to Hitler'.  Did he forget to put on his resume that he's a senior fellow at the DI?
• Dr. Matti Leisola, Professor, Bioprocess Engineering, Aalto University, Finland (emeritus); Editor-in-chief, Bio-Complexity.  Bio-Complexity is the in-house journal of the Biologic Institute, a wholly owned subsidiary of the DI, in other words their pet lab.
• George Gilder, Technologist, economist, and New York Times bestselling author.  Who is, among other things a founding member of the Discovery Institute, a Senior Fellow at the DI, and also cited 129 times in the article database.

As you can see, the deck was stacked. You might also recall that Stephen [C. Meyer] was once claiming this about one of his ID books:

"First, the scientific community is not uniformly opposed to ID. My recent book on the subject received enthusiastic endorsements from many scientists not previously known as advocates of ID, such as chemist Philip Skell, a National Academy of Sciences member, and Norman Nevin, one of Britain's top geneticists."

I responded to this with:

"In my humble opinion Stephen C. Meyer is a liar. According to this quote Meyer states that Philip Skell and Norman Nevin were not previously advocates of Intelligent Design. Let's set the record straight, Skell is a Signatory of the very discredited "A Dissent From Darwinism", the list used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. Meyer is a liar, Skell may not have published a pro-ID fluff piece, but he is an advocate. Nevin is a supporter of "Truth in Science" a United Kingdom-based organization which promotes the "Teach the Controversy" campaign. It uses this strategy to try to get intelligent design taught alongside evolution in school science lessons. Meyer is once again, in my opinion, lying!"

What I find most amusing is that this time around, klingy could only round-up three?  What are the rest of them doing?  Trying to teach Donald Trump the intricacies of Intelligent Design?  Normally that would take about five minutes, but we are talking about 'the donald'.  The DI should be practiced at this, a while back they taught all of it to Ann Coulter, who then screwed it all up in another bombastic book.

In any event, there you have it.  The DI is really scraping up support for Doug and his effort to replace rational thought with feelings.  But instead of asking real scientists, maybe even objective scientists, they gather 'several' known ID supporters and stack the deck again.  And they wonder why real scientific journals don't take them seriously?

Wow, Ann Coulter is two-faced -- no surprise here

I forgot to mention in my last post. Ann Coulter, in an appearance on Sean Hannity's show last year claiming that there is a potential radiological hazard by the full body scanners. I did catch that video Ann Coulter Battles With Peter Johnson On The Use Of Body Scanners [Video]. I guess since it was posted 5 months ago it's OK that she changed her mind on radiation. So Body scanners are bad, but a potential core meltdown is OK.

I did enjoy that Ann Coulter was whining because Peter Johnson wasn't letting her get away with her usual style and kept after her to actually offer a potential solution. One of his last comments were spot on 'Ann, you have a complaint, but no solution.' [Yes, it's a paraphrase because listening to her again to get the exact wording is just not worth it.] She was so lost she expected Sean Hannity to come to her rescue.

Does Ann Coulter live on the same planet as the rest of us?

I haven't thought so for a long time and her column "A Glowing Report on Radiation" should clinch it for everyone. In it she claims:

" . . .anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer."

Ann Coulter is off her rocker. PZ Myers over on his blog Pharyngula had a few words about her and her less-than-educated opinion. Check out "Will radiation hormesis protect us from exploding nuclear reactors?" that goes into great detail. Does Ann own stock in Japanese nuclear power plants?

Anyone else remember "Erin Brockovitch"? The legal clerk who spearheaded the investigation of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) that resulted in a the largest settlement ever paid in a direct action lawsuit in US history. I recall one line from the film where PG&E where they had told residents of Hinkley Ca that the chromium that they were using was actually good for them. "PG&E had alerted the townsfolk earlier about the chromium but said that it was nothing to worry about, saying that chromium was in many multivitamins." Sounds like Ann Coulter must have had a previous job writing press releases for PG&E.

Ann, if radiation is so good for you, when are you flying over to assist in the clean-up efforts? Yea, like Ann Coulter would dirty her nails doing actual work when she can write columns and appear on O'Reilly and argue pseudo-science. Yea, Coulter and O'Reilly arguing science! I haven't had the stomach to watch the clip on Pharyngula yet. I might tomorrow. It's late here and I refuse to go to bed with their voices echoing in my ears. I'll also make sure I have an empty stomach as well.

PZ Myers said:

"Ann Coulter is blithely ignoring competent scientists' informed recommendations to promote a dangerous complacency in the face of a radiation hazard."

I think she must also own stock in a few Australian homeopathy companies as well.

Glenn Beck-erhead is wrong -- what a shock!

I caught part of a Glen beck episode mainly by accident. Now Beck, like Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh are pundits. I do not care for pundits in general -- Certain ones in particular. Now you might ask why I dislike pundits, it's easy. They say little and mean less. They are pseudo-journalists without any accountability for their actions. There are no ethics for pundits, they are actors playing a role, and the role means a loud, obnoxious mouth saying anything in order to gather an audience and inflame them. One important thing to remember is that pundits are NOT journalists. There are no ethical considerations. they can be as rude and pretty well say anything they want and get away with it.

Glenn Beck is a prime example. He recently was 'discussing' the relationship of Government, Religion, Science, and Commerce from a historical perspective. Of course then he admits to not being a history teacher! Well he sure proved that without a doubt. But my main complaint is his tactics. Just before one break he drops a bomb and then does what pundits do and walked away. Here watch it for yourself and identify the bomb and then wait for the follow-up -- like me you would still be waiting. Glenn Beck Part II. Watch the next part as well and you still won't hear him support his accusations. Why? Because he's a pundit and he doesn't have to.

He discusses Abolitionists, Josiah Wedgewood, and then mentions that two generations later, Wedgewood's great-grandson, Charles Darwin, is the father of modern racism. Aside from the obvious issues with math (two generations is not a great-grandson) but he drops his bomb and then walks away. He takes a commercial break and when he comes back, he fails to support his words. He says it, and then fails to support it. Plainly put Glenn Beck is wrong in typical pundit style.

Aside from his whining, there is no truth to Darwin being a Racist. There is no truth to Racism, eugenics, or Nazi-ism being caused or started by Charles Darwin or his scientific theories. To make a statement like that and then walk away just shows you what pundits are -- nothing! They try to inflame, but never explain. They don't care if the majority of the people who might have heard it know better -- they only care with their core audience, the ones who are making them wealthy, pay attention and nod their little ditto-heads.

Need more? When someone is discriminating what are they doing? They are making a judgment. They have made a decision that someone else is less than they are. Whether they are talking race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, religion . . it's all about judging, making a decision. Whether you are talking to a loud-mouth bigot or an ethnic cleanser -- it's all about judgment -- a decision. Someone decides that one group is somehow superior to another and then act on it. It doesn't matter what their rationale is, it's still a human being passing judgment.

Now where in all of Charles Darwin's work does he say evolution involved making a judgment on the superiority of one group over another? Look hard because you will not find it! The Theory of Evolution, and particularly Darwin's contributions, do not factor in any form of human judgment. It's not there, it's not even implied. Beck-erhead isn't the first to make this argument, He, little kennie ham, and even smaller-minded david klinghoffer should get together and pat each others back. But they all make the same mistake. They are lying to us, one and all. Here is what a few others are saying as well.

Glenn Beck on Darwin, the Dispersal of Darwin Blog
Glenn Beck on Darwin and Racism, The Sensuous Curmudgeon Blog
Glenn Beck Wrong on Darwin, Michael Zimmerman, Huffington Post

Glenn Beck does live up to his role as a pundit. He says little and means less. He really doesn't give a damn what anyone else thinks as long as some people buy his books, watch him on TV and listen to him on the Radio. He has his fans, and I certainly am not numbered as one of them. It would be nice if he would get educated on a subject before ranting about it, but that is much to much to expect. Besides, he would lose his audience . . . and his income.

I'll leave you with two of the quotes of Darwin:

"As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races. If, indeed, such men are separated from him by great differences in appearance or habits, experience unfortunately shews (sic) us how long it is, before we look at them as our fellow creatures." The Descent of Man

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil." On Origin of Species

Remember that last one is the one misused by bennie stein when he tried this same disreputable tactic in his mockumentary "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed" He strung together a few sentences from this complete quote to imply a very different message. Just another lie! I talked about Stein when I discussed Quote Mining. Beck finds himself in pretty poor company.

What's wrong with being 'Right'?

Over the past few years of blogging and commenting on the political anti-evolution sentiments I've come across a great many people who seem to think a number of . . . well erroneous things about this country. One of the most common is how this country is based on Christianity, and how that seems to rationalize some pretty bizarre behavior. Here is a quote I would like folks like kennie ham and others who are currently supporting the Christian Right. To folks who listen to right-wing pundits like Bill O'Rielly and Rush Limbaugh, or think Ann Coulter has anything useful to say. Right-wing conservative pandering politicians should pay attention as well.

"The national government will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality.

Today Christians stand at the head of our country. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit. We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theatre, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during recent years."

They are the words of Adolf Hitler from the address he gave after coming to power in Germany (from "My New Order, The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939", Vol. 1, pp. 871-872, Oxford University Press, London, 1942).

Does the source of the quote surprise you? Now you can try and rationalize this away all you want. But my real target for this post are those people who keep trying to tie Darwin to Hitler and Nazi eugenics. The next time that stupid little thought occurs to you, come back and re-read this one and remember just what Hitler was all about! You cannot justify tying a scientific concept for your own political purposes, remember you need to more than just make an unsupported claim. When you fail, like David Klinghoffer, Ben Stein, and Kennie Ham, you cast more doubt on your own belief systems because of your transparent attack.

Melanie Phillips is still wrong

Recently I blogged about Melanie Phillips and, in my opinion, either misguided or distortion of the relationship between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Apparently she was also taken to task over at Little Green Footballs, a much wider read Blog than my own efforts. I haven't read the LGF's post, but I am guessing we are in agreement because Ms. Phillips responded to LGF and she is still wrong. I am more leaning away from the misguided because of her vigorous defense of her position that ID is science. I still disagree, but she seems to belief what she is writing, more's the pity.

In her reply to LGF, "The secular inquisition", Ms. Phillips now seems to be a weak version of little Bennie Stein, claiming some sort of persecution of ID proponents. While hue and cries of conspiracy theories sell papers, they don't seem to hold up to any sort of examination. I don't see Melanie defending the science behind Astrology? Why not, it has THE SAME scientific validity as Intelligent Design, just ask Michael Behe.

1. She still argues that Intelligent Design is not the same thing as Creationism. I disagree. Oh she makes her case that it's not a form of Young-Earth-Creationism, but it is still a form of Creationism because it holds that a supernatural, or metaphysical Intelligence is required for life to be it as it is today. Just because Intelligent Design doesn't call the 'Designer' God doesn't mean they are not a form of Creationism. She defines Creationism as the whole 6-day Genesis thing. She reminds me of Francis Beckwith, the "I'm not a Creationist" Creationist.

2. Then she says "an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents". This is where she flirts with the whole conspiracy theorist concept. However once again she is wrong. All ID proponents have to do is get off their butt and do the scientific leg work required to support their assertion, and there are two of them . . . first the actual presence of Design, and that it would have only occurred through the actions of an Intelligent Designer. But no, even after opening up their own laboratory for the express purpose of doing this work, they are still at the marketing stages and whining about the big bullies of science.

Gee someone postulates an idea and it is met with resistance. Melanie, you do realize that probably describes every scientific theory in existence. The difference is that the REAL scientists didn't sit around and whine about the bullies who were picking on them. They are the ones who pressed ahead regardless of the resistance and eventually succeeded. The problem here is no one seems interested in actually doing the work, they just want to claim success without it. Melanie, you are supporting these efforts and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you think ID is science, then you should be telling them to get off the marketing hype and do the leg work! But no, you are joining in the 'big bullies won't let me play' line.

3. Next she parrots, without using the words, the while micro-macro tactic when she says. "But ID proponents say over and over again they are not Creationists and accept many aspects of evolution, in particular that organisms develop and change over time." When I learned Biology Micro-Evolution meant experimenting and studying evolution on micro-organisms. In fact in a 2007 interview Dr. Stephen Kay said "Yes, I think that micro and macro evolution is used as a dodge. Evolutionary biologists use micro evolution - the study for example of how microbes can change in successive generations, to learn about detailed specific mechanisms that may contribute to the larger picture of how organisms evolve under natural conditions." Dr. Kay is the dean of UCSD's Division of Biological Sciences.

Today it has taken on a new definition, and one I completely disagree with. The term 'micro-evolution' now is being used by folks like Melanie, for those parts of evolutionary theory that Creationists and ID proponents cannot deny. They reserve 'macro-evolution' for those parts they still think they can get away with and deny. In other words, micro, or within a species, is OK, but macro, from one species to another is not. However to real biologists there is no difference. Creationists and ID proponents offer no alternative process as to why evolution cannot evolve into other species -- some of the more rabid anti-evolutionists postulate some secret dividing line that prevents it -- by magic I guess. They simply make the claim and fail to support it. In the mean time they raise a smokescreen about supporting 'parts' of evolution. They deny the existence of transitional fossil forms, they deny the implications of experiments like Richard Lenski's, and they deny the evidence of the Italian Wall Lizards, to name a few. Sorry Melanie denial of evidence is not the hallmark of a real scientist. Science has not had anything to deny in the way of evidence for ID, no one has presented any -- something Behe also admitted.

4. Then she starts getting into the areas where I used to think she is sadly mis-informed, or now I am starting to suspect a more deliberate mis-information campaign. She characterizes Evolution as "random, blind-chance" process. How about a resounding "No!" There are parts of evolutionary theory that involve randomness, like Random Mutation, but there is nothing of blind chance involved, not when you have a process called Natural Selection. But characterizing it this way, a common Creationist/ID proponent ploy, makes it easy to deny. You won't find a biologist referring to evolution in such a way.

5. She also claims, another common Creationist canard, that science thinks that it "can account for everything". She's close, but she claims that it "flies in the face of reason and evidence". OK now she really needs to explain how a philosophy, Materialism, which is only concerned with things that can be proven and supported by evidence flies in the face of reason and evidence. I don't get it. Call is Materialism, Physicalism, Naturalism, or whatever, science is only concerned with natural explanations and does not address the supernatural.

OK, so while I disagree with what she has said so far, I really did enjoy the next part of her article:

LGF asked "Where are the peer reviewed studies? Where are the experimental proofs that can be duplicated by other scientists? Answer: nonexistent. "

Melanie replied "Well of course they are non-existent -- because ID is not in itself a scientific discovery. It is rather an inference from scientific discoveries. . . .It is an idea, a conclusion to a chain of observation and thought . . .ID is thus a paradox. The whole point is that it states that the ‘intelligent designer’ it posits as the only logical inference from scientifically verifiable complexity cannot be known through scientific means. . . .ID idea is that there is a limit to science beyond which it cannot go . . .That is where science stops and faith begins.

Now I did string together a few of her comments, you can read the article yourself and see if I missed the idea. But it seems to me she is making the argument that while ID might claim to have been born of science, a claim I still disagree with, it in itself is not scientific but based on faith.

6. Next Melanie uses a defense mechanism called Projection. She claims that pro-science is claiming that the whole ID movement is a conspiracy:

"Like all conspiracy theories, this one is characterised by irrationality, distortion and hysteria. Assuming that there was indeed dirty work at the Creationist crossroads over Of Pandas and People – so what? One sneaky attempt to get round the constitutional bar on teaching religion in public schools doesn’t prove that the whole ID movement was a Giant Creationist Conspiracy."

Melanie, here is where you need to do your homework. Rather than denigrate the Wedge Document, look at ALL the things Phil Johnson's organization, the Discovery Institute is doing and you will find it hard not to accept the whole ID movement is a concerted effort to bring Religion into the secular classroom. It's not one text book, but how about the support the Discovery Institute gave to the misguided school board in Dover PA? How about the lies and misrepresentations the Discovery Institute told the Ohio State School Board? How about the "Teach the Controversy", "Academic Freedom" and "Strengths and Weaknesses" tactics used by the Discovery Institute? How about Tejon California, Guillermo Gonzales, Richard Sternberg, and the 700 mis-represented signatures on the Discovery Institute's "Dissent from Darwin" document? (look here, here and here)

You know when you look at all the activities the Discovery institute has been up to, it's hard not to use the term conspiracy. So how about we give them the benefit of the doubt and just call it an organized and deliberate effort to undermine the scientific teaching in our public schools and replace it with a Christian/Theistic viewpoint. Gee, so we won't use the word Conspiracy, does that make you feel batter Melanie?

7. However, I still say you need to do your homework better:

"To be sure, he and others at the Discovery Institute (which says it promotes religious pluralism rather than Creationism, and which refused to get involved in the Kitzmiller fight . . .)."

So advising the Dover School Board wasn't being involved? Michael Behe, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute testifying, wasn't involvement? Providing the 'Of Pandas and People' text wasn't involvement? Providing amicus curiae briefs for the defendants wasn't involvement? So exactly how do you characterize the Discovery Institute as not being involved? Oh, I get it, the point in which they realized they were going to get their butts kicked in court and ran away? When they started whispering that maybe the court case was a bad idea and put the onus on the defendants? How about when the defendants expectation of support from the DI never materialized? Sorry, Melanie, they were involved up to their less-than-stalwart little necks. Read Lauri Lebo's book "Devil in Dover" for some idea of their involvement. Like I said, research before making statements like that or did you do an Ann Coulter and only ask the DI if they were 'involved'? Poor journalism there!

Judge Jones was absolutely right in his judgment:

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

Fine Melanie, if you want to believe ID is not Creationism, go ahead, delude yourself. But you eventually reach a reasonable point. ID is not scientific, ID is not testable, ID requires and makes room for faith. The only conclusion I can draw is that you are not be a supporter of ID in the science classroom either. That being said, why don't you go back to punditing about immigration, just do your homework better the next time.

Two Drivers of the Evolution Debate

Here is an article of a talk given by Ken Miller, "Brown University professor breaks down evolution debate". If you aren't familiar with Dr. Miller, I would be surprised. Not only has he been publishing books, maintains a very interesting website (Ken Miller's Evolution Page), and testified at the Dover trial, but he's been taking on ID proponents for years. One of the things Dr. Miller is known for is that he is a Christian and accepts a more theistic answer to the whole 'why we are here' question. He does not attribute specific actions to a deity when it comes to biology, but seems to have no trouble with God in the mix, so to speak.

Two particular statements in this talk stood out to me, one I know I have spoken about here in my blog on numerous occasions, the other I'm not sure how well I've talked on it. Dr. Miller describes two things that are used to drive people away from science and evolution. The first is the one I have talked on ad infinitum, "intentional distortion of the facts".

How many times have folks pointed out to others that they are mischaracterizing evolutionary theory. That the things they are saying simply aren't true. Everything from mis-stating the second law of thermodynamics, quoting out of context about a supposed dearth of transitional fossils, and over-emphasizing the role of randomness in Random Mutation. These things either show a lack of education on the part of the person who uttered them, or a deliberate distortion of the truth. When it comes from folks like William Dembski, Michael Behe, Casey Luskin, and others form the Discovery institute, I have to put it in the 'deliberate' column. These are not uneducated people, yet they say things specifically designed to distort other's understanding of evolution. When they come from people like Ann Coulter and Ken Ham, I do put it down as a very poor education and understanding of evolutionary theory -- although I think there is a lot of deliberate misleading there as well.

The second driver of this debate is one used over and over again by the Discovery Institute and others, simply put 'fear'.

"The "fear of evolution itself," or the argument that evolution takes away all significance for humans because they become just a product of chance, is the second weapon, he [Ken Miller] said."

This is an emotional argument that causes some religious people to campaign against evolution, and science, not because they think it is in error, but they think that supporting such an idea is against their religious beliefs. This is an incredible manipulation of people! Creating and maintaining this artificial dichotomy, taking advantage of someone religious beliefs in such a way should be criminal!

Looking at both of these two drivers, a deliberate campaign of mis-information and using the fear of something demonstrates to me that anyone listening to these arguments needs to get the facts! Don't be mislead and don't fear something you don't truly understand. If you want to disagree with Evolution, first learn what evolution is really about. It will also go a long way in combating any fear over science and how it impacts your belief. If people did this, i think we would see a drop in the number of so-called academic freedom legislation, a significant drop in donations to the Discovery Institute, and a nice drop in attendance at Ken Ham's Folly (The Creation Museum of Kentucky). I can't see anything wrong with any of that!

The article had one other quote from Dr. Miller, some very good words:

"A material science devoted to the study of nature need not be hostile to religious faith, nor must such faith be hostile to science,"

Roger Ebert on Bill O'Reilly

Bill O'Reilly is not one of my favorite people. I know, he's not losing any sleep over it, but then neither am I. His position on Intelligent Design shows that he either is not well educated, seriously un-intelligent, or pandering for a specific audience. In my opinion he's usually pandering!

Back a couple of years ago he did a talking points that equated 'not teaching intelligent design' equated to 'fascism'. (God Vs. Science). He is equating a scientific theory as being a form of belief and that other 'beliefs' have just as much a right to be taught. He did say something he apparently doesn't believe:

"Public schools have an obligation to present all subjects in perspective"

because if he did believe this to be true he would realize that Intelligent Design is perfectly within perspective, that perspective being 'not in science class'. If he is serious about not teaching intelligent design as being equal to fascism, then why isn't he out campaigning for Astrology or Numerology? That's why I think Bill is doing nothing but pandering to an audience and he will say anything he thinks his audience wants to hear -- regardless of facts. You can watch him sucking up to Ben Stein in this YouTube clip.

One of his latest targets is the Chicago Sun-Times. Apparently the S-T had the audacity to drop his column, a move that met with . . . well apparently not much noise.

Roger Ebert is one of my favorite people. Not because I agree with his review of many movies, in fact Roger, '12 Monkeys", did you and I see the same movie? Aside from that Roger did review the Ben Stein mockumentary and his review is incredible! I mentioned it "The final word on Expelled: The Mockumentary".

I guess Roger has posted a little column addressed to Bill that you should read. It's hilarious, especially the ending. It hasn't changed my opinion of Bill, I have frequently thought of Bill as nothing more than a Ann Coulter for people who don't read. But the mental image of him as Squeaky the Chicago Mouse is perfection! Read it for yourself over at "Thoughts on Bill O'Reilly and Squeaky the Chicago Mouse".

10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution

Terrific article in the New York Times, I know not one of my usual sources, but I really liked this article. Take a read 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution

It takes an article by one of the Discovery Institute's favorite mouthpieces, Jonathan Wells, and his 10 questions he says highlights the weaknesses in Evolution and teams them up with how those questions are actually addressed in evolutionary biology. The answers are written by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Yes! This is an example of responsible journalism! Rather than offer Wells a chance to air his views completely one-sided, the NY Times gave space to the NCSE to address them and put them all together in one article. I would suggest this technique to Ann Coulter, but we all know she's not a journalist and therefor doesn't have to comply with minor details like ethical behavior. -- Yes, off topic, but please remember that her book "Godless . . ." spent a lot of time on Intelligent Design and she apparently only spoke with ID proponents (From her book "I couldn't have written about evolution without the generous tutoring of Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and William Dembski") She certainly wouldn't think of talking to someone of an opposing view.

OK, back to the subject of this post: Read the article for yourself and you will see the Discovery Institute's usual pattern of misdirection and ambiguity in trying to weaken something they haven't been able to touch in any other ways. I hope Biology teachers across the country read this and take note so if a student raises these issues they can address them appropriately.

Now the fun part was waiting for something that I knew was coming . . . the reaction of the DI, in typical knee-jerk style! It took three whole days and they didn't disappoint!

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/new_york_times_rehashes_darwin.html

You gotta read this. They claim the NCSE was lying when they said "hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel’s drawings, as claimed".

Next go to http://www.discovery.org/a/3935 and read their actual whining. They claim that the drawings in the textbooks are derived from Haeckel’s earliest embryo stages. Please notice the word 'derived'! They also use the phrase "patterned after Haeckel". In fact nearly any drawing of early embryo's will show similarities to Haeckel's work. The DI is so reaching! I was pretty surprised they limited themselves to just one of the 10 questions, but I bet in the coming days they will jerk their knees of some more.

They do claim the drawings are not as detailed as the DI thinks they should be. Gee, they are DRAWINGS! They are used to illustrate the point made by . . . guess who . . . the NCSE . . . when they said "Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology — “evo-devo” — is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields."

So there we have it, the DI doing what the DI does best -- obfuscation, misdirection, and whining!

If you want to know a little more about Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the DI, a Moonie, and an Aids denier in addition to his being an anti-evolutionist. You can read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Wells_%28intelligent_design_advocate%29

What is Intelligent Design?

I am probably not the right person to ask this question, but since it was put to me, I'll lay out my thinking about Intelligent Design. I will not ask the obvious experts, the Discovery Institute, because their point of view isn't mine. If you want to hear their point of view read Ann Coulter's book "Godless". She asked the question of the Discovery Institute and three of its 'fellows' filled her mind with all their arguments and she spat them back out like a good little unthinking convert. She didn't ask anyone else about it, nor did she attempt to learn anything about Evolution or science. She just used her bombastic style to regurgitate whatever pap the Discovery Institute told her. I refuse to make that mistake.

My description of Intelligent Design is simple: "It is an attempt to explain the unexplained by invoking the inexplicable. " You can quote me on that one! Now let me explain my viewpoint. By the way where I got inspiration for this line was an old joke defining Physics as "explaining the unexplainable by observing the unobservable."

"Explain the unexplained" -- So far almost all I have been able to actually learn about Intelligent Design are attacks on evolution. Some of it are valid points about evolution that science hasn't fully explained to date. Much of it are outdated arguments that science has explained, but they just don't like the explanations. So the only parts of Intelligent Design that makes any sense are their identifying already known gaps in scientific knowledge. Now this does little to advance the cause because any weakness in evolution they point to is already a known weakness and scientists are working to fill in those gaps (just ask Michael Behe how well his examples stood up). Any information supporting Intelligent Design seems to have been developed by William Dembski and Michael Behe. but their efforts are mostly marketing to sell the idea of Intelligent Design rather than any details of how it was accomplished.

"Invoke the inexplicable" -- Here is the real fun part of Intelligent Design and the reason they will never successfully divorce themselves from Creationism. Rather than offer any real explanations of how things happened, they state that an Intelligent Designer did it! What chafes my shorts is that is where their explanations stop. "What Intelligent Designer did it? Who is the designer? Are their more than one?" are questions religiously (pun intended) avoided by Intelligent Design proponents. They refuse to formally name "God", and the Christian God at that, because they think they will get more acceptance by not naming who they believe the designer is. I love the fact in voice they name the designer, but in print they never do! But they also refuse to address other questions, like "How did the Intelligent Designer do it?" They have offered no explanations on how the designer did anything, what they like to do is co-opt evolutionary explanations. Do you realize they accept the fact that evolution happened, but when pressed for details they hold up their designer and stop answering questions. They have no clue the "How" and have offer nothing in the way of answers. They love to point to the Cambrian explosion as a sticking point for evolution, but isn't it also a sticking point for Intelligent Design? Did "the designer" just decide to erase the canvas and kill off all the earlier life and start with new models? Doesn't sound terrible omnipotent to me.

So trying to explain the unexplainable by invoking the inexplicable is the primary reason Intelligent Design does not belong in a science class! It cannot be taught except through faith, it cannot be tested, except through faith, and it cannot be taken seriously, except by faith. I have nothing against faith, I think it is a needed part of what makes us human, but it isn't something that belongs in a science class.

Just for fun let's take a brief comparison with what is Evolution? By definition evolution is "change over time", something I think we can agree has happened, even the Discovery Institute agrees it happened. When I usually use the word 'evolution' I am really talking about Biological Evolution which is best defined as "Descent with modification". The Modern Synthesis Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how descent with modification happened in the past, happens in the present, and will happen in the future. The theory offers many detailed explanations supported by large volumes of evidence, experimentation, and proof. Like any scientific theory it will never reach the absolute certainty of a religious faith, but then science doesn't work that way and never will.

So one is an idea that leaves it all in the hands of an intelligent agent and offers no explanations of what and how it happened. The other is a scientific theory that offers a great deal of detail all backed up by proof, is testable, and can be witnessed today. I know which belongs in science class to me!

Arguments VI -- Gaps in the fossil record

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dembski wrotes yet another book (yawn!)

For the record I haven't read it yet. I will, as soon as one of my local libraries gets a copy. I refuse to add any of my own money to support his efforts. I will read it and report here. One of the librarians at my nearest library has read most of the Intelligent Design popular press books and has wondered why they are in non-fiction. I just smile when she says that.

What I wanted to address was an interview he gave about his new book. He makes several indefensible points in answer to a simple question. The question was "Does your research conclude that God is the Intelligent Designer?" He starts his answer with "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

OK that question at least lets God into the mix, but one of the annoying things is how the Intelligent Design proponents keep using "Designer" in print, but they are willing to associate "God" when speaking. Disingenuous at best. He goes on to say "The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program."

My question back to him is if he really wanted to develop Intelligent Design as a science program he wouldn't be writing these books. He would be working hard to prove it and be able to publish in the scientific press, not just the popular press. The level of proof required in scientific journals is obviously well beyond what he is capable of. He does seem to agree with Michael Behe on the relative youth of the whole Intelligent Design movement when he says "We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented . . ." This has become one of the pet excuses as to why there is no science in Intelligent Design. But he continues his statement and blames evolution: "I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up." Oh I love this, why don't you have any science in Intelligent Design, its because how easily we brilliant pseudo-scientists were misled.

I think the blame is much closer to home, I think the reason there is no science is because only just recently Intelligent Design was formed to try and put a religion-neutral face on Creationism and there is no science to find. But that's just my thinking. If he said it, it would cut into book sales.

He does make bold statements about how his research will affect the world of science. Please remember that so far his work hasn't been much impact. I do object to the characterization that anything in this book smacks of research! If he really did research that could prove any of his point he wouldn't be writing in the popular press! My favorite line is "I don’t see how you can read this book, if you’ve not been indoctrinated with Darwin’s theory, and go back to the evolutionary fold. " He's pre-built himself an excuse for when people who read his book dump all over it, like his other books. He also states "The case against this materialistic, undirected evolution is overwhelming." But doesn't make a case and has never made a case. In fact NO ONE has made such a case. Oh they have opinions and they yell a lot. Or they are like Ann Coulter who uses her bombastic style to repeat word for word what Philip E. Johnson, William Dembski, and Michael Behe all told her to say.

He ends the interview by claiming that his book will address the whole debate [Intelligent Design and Evolution] effectively. That is a another unsubstantiated bold claim. I am looking forward to reading it if for no other reason to give me more ammo for my blog.

Mr. Dembski is one of those educators that characterizes a flaw in the educational system. He is a philosopher, historian, and mathematician. But when he speaks of Intelligent Design he uses his academic credentials to give credence to his views. That in my mind should be a crime. Michael Behe does is as well. To me those advanced degrees tell me you have no idea how science works or why it works. Remember he is the one claiming the theory of evolution mislead us, but he isn't a biologist!