When One Idea Doesn't Work, Change the Name and Do It Again

Ever bother to read the label on your shampoo bottle?  If it's like mine it's pretty simple:

• Lather
• Rinse
• Repeat

It seems the Discovery Institute is trying something similar, only in their case it more:

• Fail
• Change the Name
• Repeat

A few examples:

• First off, I can't blame this on just the DI, but look at Intelligent Design.  It was originally known as Creationism.  When efforts to keep it in the science classroom failed, Creationists changed the name to "Creation Science" and kept on pushing.  When that one failed, they changed the name to "Intelligent Design".  So far that one isn't making much headway either, so expect a name change in the near future.
• How about Intelligent Design Journals?  
• The first was the  Origins & Design (ISSN 0748- 9919), produced by the Access Research Network which ceased publishing in 1999.  
• The next was from a DI homeboy, WIld Bill Dembski (who is no longer one of their members).  He founded the  International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design which published Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (ISSN 1555-5089) which hasn't been heard form since 2005.
• The on-line Journal of Evolutionary Informatics (no ISSN) was sponsored by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, a project of Dembski and Robert Marks, which became defunct before managing to publish a single issue.  
• The current one is called Bio-Complexity (ISSN 2151- 7444), and it's put out by the DI's pet lab 'The Biologics Institute', a lab that is funded by and has a public contact point at the DI itself.
• So my latest example: Clubs
• Do you remember the Discovery Institute's IDEA clubs?  This was the brainchild of the former DI publicist little casey luskin and a few others dating back to 1999.  You might remember casey as the guy with both a law degree and a biology degree who was relegated to handing out pamphlets during the Dover trail.  Well, casey was heading up this idea [pun intended] for building student-based clubs as high schools and colleges all over the country.  Here is the link from the DI's site, and here's a screenshot in case they finally notice it's still up and decide to take it down:

Even though the pages are still up, it's been pretty dead since 2008.  In fact:

In December 2008, biologist Allen MacNeill stated, on the basis of analysis of the webpages of the national organization and local chapters, that it appeared that the organization is moribund.(The "Intelligent Design" Movement on College and University Campuses is Dead)

So, another dead idea.  So in true DI tradition, let's change the name and try again.  This time they are called: "Science and Culture Network (SCN)".  Currently they have two chapters Houston and Colorado:

They not only share the moniker of 'SCN' but they also have something else in common.  I circled it in red, it reads: 

"This program has no upcoming events"

SO they have opened two chapters of this new club, but nothing is going on.  It does make you wonder.  I mean court cases caused the name change, failure to produce science killed the journals, and nothing happening might have been the reason the IDEA clubs died off. Are they repeating themselves again?

I do have to point out one more 'little' thing.  While they also hold meetings, look at where Houston holds their's: 

"We meet monthly in various churches across the greater Houston area on a rotating basis. "

Yes, we meet monthly in various churches . . . and yet what is the mantra of the DI?  How they are a scientific organization and not a religious one?  Is there anyone who actually believes that who isn't on the DI payroll or a member of one of their 'chapters'? Colorado doesn't have anything more specific other than they plan to hold meetings, but no location.

But do you see the tactics, or in the case 'strategy' might be a better word.  When one method fails, change the name and try to same routine over again.  As they say "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet", only in these cases 'sweet' might not be the smell these things give off.  Think about it, if Intelligent Design was such a worthwhile endeavor, then aren't there be IDEA clubs all over the place?  Wouldn't there be multiple ID journals instead of one after another going defunct?  I mean how many scientific journals are there?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  And Creationists certainly wouldn't have had to keep changing the name if there was any actual merit to their claims, would they?  And by 'merit' I am talking scientific merit -- you know things supported by actual evidence.

You guys and gals might try real science instead of pseudo-science next time.  If that fails you might really give that some thought, instead of simply repackaging it and having a go again.  What's that definition of insanity?  Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  You really should think about that while you are at it.

Dogs and Wolves are Similar and Different . . . So?

Enough picking on little kennie ham and his less-than-stellar ark park (for now).  What has the Discovery Institute (DI) been up to lately.  The DI claims Dogs are not an example of evolution at all . . . but de-evolution, or as they put it:

"the “evolution” of dogs from wolves “represents no increase in [biological] information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels” "

This is briefly described in "No, Your Dog Is Not a Barking Exemplar of Macroevolution".  Well, aside from the obvious information argument, which they have failed to support with anything resembling evidence -- and the whole nonsense about 'macro-evolution', we've also addressed this foolish idea of decreasing or losing genetic or anatomical levels.

Here is what they are up to . . . if they can convince you that this unexplained concept of 'information' increases or decreases has any validity, then you are more likely to buy into their arguments about evolution.  But wouldn't it be prudent of them to define this concept of 'information', and frame it on how they apply it?  But they never do.  So let's briefly look at what they have said here.  In my opinion it's making an apple to orangutan comparison and trying to sell it to you.

When comparing wolves and dogs, the DI used two arguments, one they are claiming there is no increase in biological information.  The second they are claiming a decrease, or loss, of function on a genetic and anatomical level.  Here's the kicker, are they really making a point?  Let's look at this . . . are wolves and dogs different?  Yes!  I think we can all agree with that.  Now . . . if they are different, doesn't that mean there are differences in biological 'information'?  I'm not talking increases or decreases, just differences.  Next step, by what standard to we classify increases or decreases in biological 'information'?

Ah, there's the rub.  There is no 'level' of biological information.  There is no way to measure such a change without some sort of scale, and science hasn't developed one . . . the DI sure as hell hasn't either.  This idea of increases and decreases in biological 'information' is an imaginary one folks like the DI use to sound all scientific, but first they have to support it, which they never do.

As for the 'idea' that dogs have lost anything, have they?  Dogs are different from wolves, that's the best they seem to have.  They are raised in a different environment and we have been selecting certain traits for centuries.  Is it a loss or just a change?  The DI is always trying to quantify things are positive or negative, but that's nothing but unsupported opinion.

If you read the post, you know one of their 'key' pieces of evidence was this:

"One problem with this, among others, is that the virtue we value most in our dogs – the ability to form relationships with humans – appears to be no product of their evolution. At least it did not evolve from scratch. Dogs have it, but so, in their way, do wolves."

OK, DI, two things, you say 'in their way' -- which tells me while dogs and wolves share a similar ability, it is not identical.  Not identical means it's changed . . . how did this change occur?  Could it be from the selective breeding humans have been doing for generations?  Since the characteristics are not identical, there is a difference that is expressed functional and also genetically.  Again, the opinion of it being a gain or a loss is subjective to your point of view.  The evolutionary key is the change.

Second question for the DI, is didn't you simply just sidestep the real question.  After all -- where did wolves get their ability to form bonds?  You know, that ability that has been changed in modern dogs through selective breeding, or as Darwin called it 'Artificial Selection'?  So claiming there isn't any 'information' increase or decrease is immaterial because not only hasn't the DI explained their concept of 'information' and they have yet to apply it except in the most sweeping of generalizations.

So DI, there is the challenge, explain information and how you categorized the information content of wolves and applied it to dogs.  Measure it, I dare you!  Then let real scientists see not only your conclusions, but your methodology.  Yea, I know, you have never had anything that could be objectively referred to as a methodology, but if you want to be taken for anything but a religious ministry, you might get one.

You are going to have to do better than this vague 'information' argument and get down to some specifics.  What information, how was it quantified, by what process, under what conditions . . . there's a long list.  You might look up 'scientific methodology' and start studying up.

Trying to grasp 'Information'

The most recent argument against evolution involves 'information', but they [ID proponents] never seem to explain it in a way that makes any sense.  So I have been searching for an analogy that works, but I keep coming up blank.  Not sure if I am going to reach a conclusion, but a couple of things did strike me.  Let's start with Denyse O'Leary's recent definition of Evolution:

"The mere process of eliminating unfit examples of a type in a given environment builds up information over time, resulting in huge new layers of complexity."

So, according to Denyse - Evolution is a build up of complexity.  That really doesn't ring true for me.  I don't see anything that mandates increases in complexity.  What can be, and has been documented, is that as species evolve, genetic information (genome) changes.  Whether those changes increase, decrease, or don't change the amount of genetic information seems more a matter of measurement than a matter of importance.  There is my first problem, by what standard are they measuring changes in genetic information?  I can't seem to find anything specific on such a measurement.

They offer opinion, calling 'information' complex, but what does that really mean?  Just like 'information, how do you measure complexity?  That's my second problem.  Complexity, recently sort of defined by Wild Bill Dembski, and repeated ad nauseum by little casey luskin, is this:

"something is complex if it is unlikely to occur by chance" (Wikipedia: Specified Complexity)

Now when I went looking for a definition of 'Complexity', I couldn't find a real definition, all I really found was that complexity is a characterization and often an opinion.  For example something might be complex to me may not be complex for someone else.  The most common dictionary definition is:

"the quality or state of not being simple, the quality or state of being complex, a part of something that is complicated or hard to understand" (Merriam-Webster: Complexity)

Of course you can't stop there, you then have to define 'complex':

"a whole made up of complicated or interrelated parts" (Merriam-Webster: Complex)

The problem with 'characteristic' definitions like this is they tend to run you in circles, Complexity leads you to Complex which leads you to Complicated.  Complicated is defined in a way that leads back to Complexity:

"hard to understand, explain, or deal with : having many parts or steps" (Merriam-Webster: Complicated)

I am sure something that doesn't surprise anyone, is that Complexity is defined by the rest of the world considerably different than Dembski's definition.  Just because something is complex, as in a whole made up of interrelated parts and maybe hard to understand, does not mean it is unlikely to occur through a natural process!  The formation of an object that may be defined as complex is not determined by its eventual level of complexity.  That's the opinion part of a characteristic definition.  Dembski, luskin, and the rest of the DI claim that complexity is a measure of unlikelihood, but by what measure?  Is a mountain complex?  Maybe it is or maybe it isn't.  To someone looking at one at a distance and the answer might be 'no', but ask a mountain climber or a geologist and you will get a very different answer.  Even Biblical Literalists like kennie ham agree the Grand Canyon formed by a natural process, he just thinks it happened due to an imaginary flood very quickly rather than millions of years of much smaller changes.  See what I mean by a characterization and opinion?

You might have noticed that I am not using Dembski's term 'Chance'.  I don't like that term mainly because it bring to mind something much more random.  Evolution isn't random, it's more unpredictable, which is not the same thing as being random.  But I've posted about that many times.  Although Darwin used the term 'Random Mutation', when you look at mutations within the context of evolution, any randomness is a very small piece.  Mutations themselves aren't particularly random, often they can be traced back to the genes that changed and resulted in the mutation and unless those genes were present, that specific mutation would not have occurred.  If random mutation was completely random, then anything could happen, regardless of the involved genes.  That isn't the case, unpredictable more than random.

I understand why Dembski uses 'chance', because he wants people to think Evolution is completely random and based on the luck of the draw, so to speak.  It's how he sells his argument of the impossibility of evolution. 

But, back to the discussion at hand, the reality is there is nothing anyone has published says complexities in nature cannot occur through a natural process.  They [ID proponents] feel that complexity is unlikely to occur, but that's an unsupported opinion, not based on facts.  Yes, they can call up examples of complex things that occur rarely, but by the same token there are a great many things considered complex that happen often through natural means.  What I think happened here is Dembski made up his own definition of 'complexity' and then started using it as if the world would automatically buy into it.  Is a tree complex?  And yet they grow everywhere and plant evolution is well supported.

While I was in the middle of my mental meanderings, little casey luskin, you know the 'lawyer' tasked with handing out press releases during the Dover Trial.  Well it seems he took a stab at the information argument and he really just muddied up the waters more than provided any clarification.  Here is a link to his post: "A Taxonomy of Information".  The main reason I read it is he started something potentially intriguing . . . and to be honest I usually don't make it past a few lines of most of casey's posts.  I've commented on him many times, but much less often than he posts himself.  But this time he said:

"What are some common definitions of information, and which definition is most useful for making the design inference?"

As you can imagine, I was hoping that the DI would actually pin down the definition of information that might bring some sense to their whole information argument. But, they didn't.  All little casey really did was pile on a bunch of nonsense and then use such nonsense in an effort to justify their shared religious belief.  They jump from a poor series of 'information' explanations right into their favorite topic 'Complex Specified Information' without making any connection.  From there little case' repeats stuff from Dembski on 'complexity' and he's off and running down a winding path that doesn't lead to anything resembling a conclusion.  At one point he says:

"It's important to understand that the idea of complex and specified information is NOT an invention of ID proponents."

Which isn't totally true.  Yes, the term did not originate with the DI, but Dembski's use of the term is certainly did!  To quote Wikipedia again:

" . . .whereas Orgel used the term [specified complexity] for biological features which are considered in science to have arisen through a process of evolution, Dembski says that it describes features which cannot form through "undirected" evolution—and concludes that it allows one to infer intelligent design. While Orgel employed the concept in a qualitative way, Dembski's use is intended to be quantitative." (Wikipedia: Specified Complexity)

OK, you can read Casey's little diatribe on your own time.  I think I've given him more than enough attention here.  Let's go back to the 'information' argument and try and sum up where my thinking has been going.  First let's add in the basic definition of Intelligent Design:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

The phrase that sticks with me is "best explained".  What they seem to be saying is their explanation is best because the genome is complex and complexity can only come from intelligence and not natural processes.  The only point of agreement is that the genome is complex, that is it has a great many pieces and parts.  But the fact of complexity in no way requires an intelligence.  Inventing things like specified complexity to 'explain' things fails if they cannot back it up with reality instead of wishful thinking.  The whole 'information argument' is rapidly turning into a re-statement of the old 'odds argument'.

You might remember the odds argument.  It was personified when Fred Hoyle made an analogy comparing Evolution to a tornado through a junk yard building a 747.  It was further compounded with some folks claiming to have calculated the odds of the human genome being in existence.  Yet the odds argument doesn't work.  It's like the lottery.  Before you buy a ticket, you can calculate the odds of winning because you know the parameters you are operating within.  Do we know the parameters for the formation of life?  No, and any claims to the contrary are selling one version of snake oil or another.

Let me repeat my favorite analogy about the odds argument.  Take a plain deck of playing cards and shuffle them up.  Deal them out face-up so you can see them all.  Do you see the order they are in?  What are the odds of them being in that order? 52! (52 factorial).  Pretty damn astronomical.  Now the question is did you beat the odds?  Be honest!

The answer, of course, is no.  Unless you predicted that exact order before you started dealing them out, you haven't beaten the odds at all.  Now, what are the odds of those cards being in some order?  Right, 100%.  Without the prediction, the odds are meaningless. 

Let's try one more analogy, start with the number 1 and add 1, you get 2, then add another 1, and you get 3 . . . adding one to a number is a very simple process.  Is there a limit?  Of course not.  We have frequently stated that numbers simply keep going, toward a fairly esoteric idea called 'infinity'.  But that number will pretty quickly reach a level where it is literally incomprehensible to us human beings.  Oh, in the abstract, we can deal with such large numbers by changing the way we express them in various ways to bring them down to a comprehensible level, but something like 1.0 x 10¹⁰⁰ is given the name 'googol', another impossibly large number, a googolplex is equivalent to 1.0 x 10^googol.  The estimate of counting up to a googol would take an estimated 5 x 10⁹⁰ centuries (at 2 numbers per second).  Can you even imagine how long it would take to count up to a googolplex? Based on that, wouldn't such a number be 'hard to understand'?  So it meets one of the common definitions for 'complex'. 

So here we have something created through a simple process that eventually reaches a point where it is barely comprehensible without some esoteric methods of reference, like scientific notation or categorizing with a cute name. I know this isn't a complete analogy, but then what analogy completely represents anything anyway?  But look at how a simple process can eventually add up to levels of complexity that require us to take significant steps to be able to comprehend.  Even then, do most folks really understand numbers that large?

To use this analogy on Intelligent Design, it seems that we start with 1, and add 1, then add another 1 . . . and we reach a point of comprehensibility where we cannot add another number.  To make the jump to a larger number some external factor (intelligence . . . or to be honest, a Deity) must be added because of our inability to comprehend such complex things.  And yet for this to be true, there has to be some barrier that cannot be breached.  Have ID proponents offered up anything resembling a barrier?  Not yet and not for a lack of trying. 

Life evolved and continues to evolve without any evidence of the actions of a capricious deity.  The information argument doesn't really seem to mean much of anything.

Can we simply agree to disagree?

Short answer, No!  But you know me, I can't leave things with just a short answer.

Recently the DI posted on Facebook about their new film:

I responded to the post on Facebook:

"Let's see . . .One of Intelligent Design's proponents Michael Behe stated that no one was doing the work to support ID as an actual scientific theory. One of the founders of the modern Intelligent Design Movement, Phillip E. Johnson was disappointed that their scientists haven't been able to formulate a actual theory of Intelligent Design. One of the frequent claims is that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with religion, yet the only people who seem to support it support it for philosophical (religious) reasons. A twenty-minute video isn't going to fix that. If it is really science then do what the Chairman of the RELIGIOUS STUDIES at SMU said http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com/.../so-there-is..."

A few folks responded including one that said this:

"Just say you have a strong ideological objection to ID and be done."

He said a bit more, generally re-hashing the continual whine about imagined conspiracies of silence, but this was the part I wanted to discuss here.  Is addressing it in such a simple way reasonable?  I don't think so.  Here is the part of my response that addressed this:

"The reason I don't simply say that I have issues with ID and leave it at that is because it creates a false dichotomy. Agreeing to simply disagree gives the impression that ID is somehow equal to real science and that any disagreement is based on philosophical grounds. The difference is that after 150+ years of evolutionary study and the mountains of evidential support for evolution, Evolution is science. ID boils down to nothing but wishful thinking. The two are not equal sides of an argument."

Hopefully you see my point.  Simply agreeing to disagree implies that the two sides of the argument are equal and when they are not, it comes across as a victory for the weaker argument to at least be considered equal.  To me it falls into the same area as scientists who refuse to debate Intelligent Design proponents.  Even though ID proponents arguments get crushed by their own lack of evidence, the fact the debate happened is crowed about claiming some equality between their arguments and real science.  You can see the headlines "We are Valid because Real Scientists talk to us!", which certainly misrepresents the two arguments.

I've made the argument for a while that journalism constantly makes that same mistake, providing equal time to opposing arguments in an effort to appear unbiased.  But when the arguments are clearly not equal, granting equal time is a mistake and inflates the weaker argument.  When comparing Evolution with ID, Evolution is science and has evidential support and ID is pseudo-science and is a philosophical marketing scheme that benefit from people trying to appear fair by granting it equal standing.

So There is Nothing Religious about Intelligent Design (Part VIII)

Back a few years ago the Discovery Institute (DI) had one of their revival meetings.  It was sponsored and organized by PULSE and Victory Campus Ministries and held at Southern Methodist University.  The reason I bring this up is partially a reminder and also because it does relate.  At the end of that meeting Stephen C. Meyer thanks for SMU Administration for hosting it, which was a lie!  The location was SMU, the host was this PULSE and Victory Campus Ministries.  I blogged about it in "4 nails in the coffin containing the remains of the Discovery Institute credibility."  My point, other than pointing out the basic dishonesty of the Discovery Institute was to also remind you that there is a difference between being the location for an event and hosting it.  The University, like many organizations allow the use of their facilities for a multitude of purposes.

Today caught a post on the DI's Evolution News and Views site, "Register for Christian Scientific Society Conference, Hosted at Discovery Institute".  Not only are they hosting it, but they are advertising it.  So, Intelligent Design has NOTHING to do with religion, yet the Christian Scientific Society is having a conference and the DI is doing more than just being the location.  Hasn't the lie about not having anything to do with religion finally faded?

I do love this:

"The theme of the meeting will be "What is Information?"

Wouldn't it help if the folks at the DI actually knew something about the topic first?  Seriously, to the DI the whole idea of information has been twisted around to the point they pretty much use it as a knee-jerk comment about just about anything, it's gotten so messed up even little kennie ham's folks use it.  I think those self-described Christian Scientists could learn more from "Information Theory and Creationism" than anything they might hear at the DI.  But then since they are already "an ID-friendly organization", they probably won't listen.