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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the Universe an Awful Waste of Space?

You know the Discovery Institute can pretty much take anything and turn it into a binary set, either it supports Intelligent Design (ID) or it doesn't support ID.  Case in point this little missive from one of my favorite ID sources, little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer and the DI site: Evolution 'News' and Views (EnV) 'Objection to Intelligent Design -- Universe Is Too Big, with Too Much "Wasted Space"'.

The DI has taken an old comment of Carl Sagan's and tried to turn it into a strawman critique of ID and then they demolish the strawman and claim another victory for ID.  The original quote: 

"The universe is a pretty big place. If it's just us, seems like an awful waste of space." (Carl Sagan: Contact)

It was from Sagan's book 'Contact' and also used in the movie of the same name. It is an interesting thing to say and something that has provoked a lot of thought.  Now, did Sagan state it as an argument against God?  Not that I recall, but I might have to re-read Contact to make sure.  But in all honesty, whether you want to adhere to the Creationist explanations or the scientific explanations, if we are the only life in the universe, it is pretty wasteful, isn't it?

Of course, waste is an opinion, a point of view, right?  Think about an 8 oz glass with 4 oz of wine.  To some the glass is half-empty, to some others it's half-full.  To an engineer, it's too much glass and to a very good friend of mine, it's not nearly enough wine.  So whether or not you consider the entire Universe wasted space is pretty much an opinion, one that I happen to agree with, but it's still an opinion. 

But before going any deeper, I would like to point something else out, something the DI likes to pretend isn't important.  Yes, my single favorite topic when discussing the DI, their religion.  The original article klingy is referencing included this quote, one he didn't use for some reason:

"It’s a strange question, isn’t it? Chances are it’s never even occurred to you. But I like it anyway, not because it’s an especially profound thing to ask, but because it leads to some really encouraging thoughts about God’s greatness, His power, His glory — which He wants to share with us all, even though He doesn’t have to. God can afford that, too."

In fact, the article mentions God 15 times in a very short article.  The source is a website called 'The Stream', which, if you haven't guessed, is a faith-based news site.  Yes, if the DI, and their pet version of Creationism is not a religious proposition, why is klingy using an article that is very specific about its intent, and it's certainly not science.  So, as usual, klingy, and the DI, use religion and religious sources of information, but any religious connotation is supposed to be ignored?

OK, off my favorite soapbox for now.  You know me, I'll probably mention it again.  What I do find interesting is that klingy seems to go out of his way to avoid using the word 'God'.  Does he think he's fooling anyone?  Seriously?

OK, back to klingy's article, which is nothing new, like this:

"this argument points to the unique fitness of the universe and of our planet for upright bipeds like ourselves. The whole thing appears set up for us, and only for us."

Ah yes, the privileged planet argument, also frequently put forth by the . . . DI.  Yes, this is nothing more than a restatement of a premise they have yet to support with anything . . . anything at all.

What I don't get is how they don't realize how self-limiting this argument is, especially when you consider how little of the Universe we have explored yet.  The instance we do discovery any form of life, especially one very different to us, this whole argument is flushed.  In my opinion this argument is nothing but an expanded God-Of-The-Gaps argument.  Think about it.  What justification do they make with this argument?  That we have yet to discovery life anywhere else, in other words . . . a gap.  But like all gap arguments, as soon as we learn something new about the subject, it's done.  To an ancient Greek, Apollo might have been the answer, but it's done.  To close-minds like kennie ham, Creationism is responsible for everything . . . aside from a cultural/political argument, it's done!  That's what will happen to the whole privileged planet argument.

I'm sure Creationists will survive, they will simply evolve new arguments, after all, isn't Intelligent Design an evolution of the Creation Science argument?  Nothing new, just a change to try and make it sound less religious.  It hasn't worked well, but it is an evolution, much as they probably hate that being pointed out.

Then klingy does something pretty common for the DI and their mouthpieces.  He tries to claim any opposition is using tactics that, in reality, the DI is using.  Look at this:

"ID critics often end up playing the role of naïve theologian: What they "seem to want is a metric with The Human Body as God Would (or Should) Have Made It at one end of the measuring stick."

Yes, some ID critics have looked at the human body and determined that if the human body was designed by a deity, that deity is a lousy designer.  But who is really telling God what he/she did or did not do?

Isn't that what Creationists do every day?  Look at the DI, or any of the Creationists groups.  They repeatedly say "An Intelligent Designer/God Did This!" and offer no actual support, just the usual conjecture and wishful thinking.  At least when ID is criticized, the rationale for the criticism is offered so you can understand it. 

Even back to the original argument, is the Universe mostly wasted space?  I don't know . . . yet.  But one day we will know more and more.  It we are the only life that exists, or that ever or will ever exist, then I will consider it a huge waste of space, regardless of what religious rationalization the DI wants to spin on it.

In short . . . we don't know!

Larry Moran, over on Sandwalk, asked several times for the Discovery Institute to explain Intelligent Design, preferably in such a way that makes any sense.  Rarely do they stir to make much of an effort, however recently Ann Gauger, you know the one with the make-believe lab over at the DI's pet Biologics Institute, made several long drawn-out attempts address Larry's question.

Basically Larry, to me, was asking for any pertinent details on how Intelligent Design happened or how it works.  I think he was after some explanation that would make sense all the recent posts trying to tie the use of intelligence as examples of Intelligent Design.  You know my position on that, in a nutshell the use of human intelligence IS NOT an example of Intelligent Design 'Theory' in action because there is no Intelligent Design Theory.  (Intelligent Design vs intelligent design) I think Larry is trying to get them to lay down something more like a real science theory. Did Ann Gauger succeed?  You tell me.

In the first she tries to make fun of Larry for even asking the question, "From Biochemist Larry Moran, More Gratuitous Misrepresentations".  She even implies that Larry didn't even read the book:

"If he's read the book, he should know by now what intelligent design theorists like Stephen Meyer really think."

I an pretty sure Larry read 'Darwin's Doubt', if he hadn't, it would have been quite hard for him to critique it so devastatingly.  I mean do these posts read like someone who failed to read the book?

• Darwin's Doubt: A Synopsis
• Darwin's Doubt: The Genes Tell the Story?
• The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps Genes
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Evidence Must Be Wrong Because Scientists Disagree About the Exact Dates
• Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Data Must Be Wrong Because Different Genes Evolve at Different Rates
• Stephen Meyer Says That Constant Mutation Rates Are a "Questionable Assumption"
• Stephen Meyer Says that "Homology" Is a Problem in Molecular Evolution

Apparently Ann wasn't happy and had to follow-up with a post in which she tries to . . . well in a nutshell, and I am sure if she read this she would put it down to a mis-characterization, but she pretty well states that not only is there not a 'mechanism', but anyone who looks for one isn't going to find it.  Here is her post: "What's the Mechanism of Intelligent Design?"  And here a quote in which she summarizes things:

"We can't really say how our own minds work to interact with the world, yet we know they do. It is our universal, repeated, personal experience that shows us that our consciousness interacts with our bodies to produce information, but exactly how it works is not known. So why should we expect to know how the agent(s) responsible for the design of life or the universe may have worked? "

I disagree, I think we know a great deal about how our minds work, much more than 150 years ago.  But admitting that would be counter-productive to the marketing done by Ann and her pals.  Since they [the DI] claim we don't know, they can use that claim to justify as to why they cannot determine how a deity's mind works.  Oh, I'm sorry . . . agent . . . not deity :-)   It is true we do not know 100% of how the human mind works, but what Ann seems to be doing is just restated the 'God of the Gaps' argument.

In the third response she quotes Stephen C. Meyer from 'Darwin's Doubt', "More on the "Mechanism" of Intelligent Design"   I find this more ironic than anything else, here is my thinking why:

1. Larry Moran wrote a number of devastating critiques on Darwin's Doubt (as noted above).
2. The DI wrote a follow-up to 'Darwin's Doubt' called 'Debating Darwin's Doubt', which they claimed addressed the criticisms of the original 'book'.
3. "Debating Darwin's Doubt' failed to address the criticisms put forth by Larry.
4. Ann uses a long quote from Darwin's Doubt to address Larry's question.

Don't you find that ironic?  Maybe a bit of a circular argument?  If Ann is going to use Meyer to address Larry's question, wouldn't it be better to first address his critiques?  Well that would make logical sense to me . . . but apparently that's just me.


If Intelligent Design wishes to be taken seriously as science and as a scientific theory it has to offer more than conjecture and wishful thinking.  To date it has failed and Ann's rather verbose responses boil down to 'We Don't Know!'  Even more so, I think she pretty clearly states that the DI is never going to propose anything stronger than what they already have.  Oh I think they will continue to dress it up in different lab coats, but each effort will fail as dramatically as Darwin's Doubt -- or if you wish something more optimistic, I think each effort will be equally as successful as DD.  They have to keep up the effort or they might become as irrelevant a religious marketing group as they are a scientific organization.

Jesus and Mo

An oldy yet a goldy from Jesus and Mo.  If they had gone with the DI, the word 'God' would have a strikethough and instead of offering to pay, they would hit you up for a donation.