DI's knee-jerk anti-ID whine

One of the more common posts over on the Discovery Institute 'website' are those whining about other people not 'explaining' Intelligent Design correctly. It happened yet again with "Correcting Kirk Fithzhugh's Misunderstandings About Intelligent Design".

Why is it that when anyone writes something critical of intelligent design they are pretty much guaranteed to received such a whine. What's interesting is that rarely does the DI responder address the issues raised by the writer, but spend an inordinate amount of time whining about their definition. Now if casey was fair, he would have stopped this particular line:

"It's important to note that Dr. Fitzhugh should have every right hold, publish, and discuss his views that dissent from ID in the public square and within the scientific community."

In all honesty, if he really is free to do this, casey should just slink away. But of course that never happens. The DI has to respond, because they really have nothing else. So here is my point. For years now actual scientists have been asking for the DI to . . . well let me quote Dr. Chancey, Chair of the Religious Studies Department at SMU again:

"They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day."

If the Discovery Institute would only support their ideas with actual work, this whole definitional issue would disappear. But no! Since ID proponents keep moving the goal posts, and since they also have both their official definitions -- and personal definitions (as evidenced when Behe identified the designer, unofficially -- and he is not the only one to do so) it is no wonder that people rarely agree with the definition of the moment as published by the DI-mouthpiece-on-call who respond to the many articles critical of ID.

What is casey's specific whine, he is still playing the 'official' line that ID doesn't address the supernatural. Since when? Certainly not when Behe had to expand the definition of science to include supernatural causation in order to include ID. Not when Johnson wrote the Wedge strategy document. Not during presentations where multiple ID proponents identified the Christian God as the intelligent designer. So little casey's whine is just that, an incessant noise conveying no actual information.

Now the rest of his little post, where his quotes one of his personal heros, Steven C. Meyer. Well early in his post he asks a question

"Would they [criticisms of ID] cut against his own Darwinian viewpoint, if they were applied fairly?"

But then he doesn't bother to assess current science, scientific methodology, not even scientific philosophy. So once again he starts a point that should summarize one of his issues with what was said critiquing ID, and then he heads off in a completely different direction and nit-picks one other comment on the testability of ID. Fine, if that's what he wants to play, let's look at the other part of his whine.

"His criterion for testability is that "When causal conditions of type x occur, effects of type y will occur." ID easily meets this standard. When intelligent agents act, high levels of CSI are generated. "

Does it really? Has the existence of intelligent agents been supported by any evidence? Has CSI (Complex and Specified Information) been supported by any evidence? The answer to both questions is a resounding 'No they have not'. So let me get this straight, casey claims that ID meets the testability criterion by invoking a non-existent agent who uses a 'level' of a non-existent concept. Gee, what could possibly be wrong with that?

Well casey finishes this particular bit of nastiness with a change to a different tactic, co-opting evidence.

"Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):

(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (i.e., complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called "junk DNA" will turn out to perform valuable functions."

OK, (1) without his little parenthetical addition is something discovered and well explained with evolutionary theory. Of course he had to add the '(i.e., complex and specified information)' as if this is a actual scientific concept rather than ID proponent wishful thinking.

(2) is a lie. Forms have appeared in the fossil record and most were preceded by similar precursors. In fact as we discover more fossils, many of those that didn't appear to have a precursor do now. This is just a typical 'God-of-the-gaps' argument that doesn't stand the test of time well. I know someone reading this will think about the 'Cambrian Explosion', however while a 'explosion' that lasted 50-70 million years might not be extremely explosive, many of the forms that the DI likes to claim 'appeared' have clear precursors from the Ediacaran Period.

(3) More already understood part of evolutionary theory.

(4) Scientists rarely called parts of a genome to which we didn't have an identified purpose 'junk', as in useless or unused. Scientists have been adding functionality to many parts of various genomes not previously identified. Tell me one example of an ID 'scientist' actually filling one of these perceived gaps? I don't know of one and I don't plan on holding my breath.

See what I mean, casey is trying to co-opt known science for supporting ID -- and yet offers nothing in addition. How do any of these hypothetical predictions actually support ID? What in the world makes him think that just because he thinks they will be successful predictions, they would in fact support ID?

casey also tried to change tactics as well. Remember He accused Kirk Fithzhugh of setting a standard that could not be applied to evolutionary theory -- and yet tried to grab existing evidence for evolution and claiming they would also support ID -- without explaining how or why they would do so. More fertilizer from casey and his buds. Color me unimpressed!

Knee Jerk II - More on DI reaction to NAS book

The Discovery Institute is blanketing the news with their press release "The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism" They [The DI] have published a new pamphlet about the subject. OK, you know when someone lies to you, as the DI is known to do, how many people are willing to listen to them a second time? Do they get more truthful with time? Not to my knowledge. Let's see how they do, shall we?

They are off to their usual start, only this time they do agree with part of how the NAS defined irreducible complexity:

"The NAS accurately defines irreducible complexity — “If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly”—but then promotes a false test of irreducible complexity, wrongly claiming that if one part of the flagellum can perform some other function, then irreducible complexity is refuted."

But they are in denial over the evidence. Do they offer more than than just their own explanation? No, but they are perfectly happy to demand a full and complete accounting from Science. They want the complete evolutionary path, but are unwilling to describe the complete path on how the 'designer' did it. " . . .some sub-components of the flagellum can perform other functions is not sufficient to demonstrate a Darwinian explanation for the origin of the flagellum . . ." I like their new pet phrase "indirect Darwinian evolution" I wonder how many times that will come up in new press releases. OK, so far one denial over evidence and one demanding for a 100% answer. Yup, typical DI word play. They consider the challenge to irreducible complexity unresolved because science hasn't explained the entire path. What a double standard! So just what entire path has Intelligent Design laid out? "The Designer Did It!" Now we all clap our hands and sing "Kumbaya!"

I have news for them, This is a perfect use of falsifiability in science. If one little tiny piece of a mechanism that is supposedly irreducibly complex -- by their own definition --can exist and serve another purpose then the mechanism in question is not and cannot meet the definition of being irreducibly complex. Of course the DI doesn't go into what would make irreducible complex organism falsifiable, they just ask for complete and 100% perfect answers. By the way, the person offering the critique is William Dembski, whose own supposed mathematical support for Intelligent Design rests squarely on irreducible complexity, so we know why he's bleating like a sheep.

Let's move on.

Keeping with the irreducible complex stuff for a moment, you have to appreciate this line "Contrary to the NAS’s assertions, Behe never argued that irreducible complexity mandates that sub-parts can have no function outside of the final system." Here we have co-opting at the highest level and building new arguments for the future. Now when anyone points to a reason why a mechanism isn't irreducibly complex, the DI will just say they never said a mechanism had other uses. However, let me remind you that Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" makes no mention of other uses, but implies that something used in an irreducibly complex mechanism can only have the one use. Sure, he doesn't say it, but that's the implication of his idea. Just look at his examples! So we have one example of denial, one of example of demanding a 100% answer, and now one of co-opting. They sure are consistent, aren't they.

Next item: Splitting hairs, they are so good at this sometimes you don't even realize they are doing it. Check it out:

"None of this compares to the NAS’s most egregious error regarding the flagellum: the NAS states that “there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria.” While technically this statement may be true if one looks at the fine-grain of the amino-acid sequence of every single protein among flagellum-bearing bacteria, there most certainly are highly conserved flagellar parts and there is an identifiable core set of structures to the flagellar machine. In this regard, the NAS’s statement is extremely misleading and inaccurate."

This does remind me of one of their own critiques of evolution, they are saying the NAS is being too fine-grained in their explanation. Now where does that get us. I guess it means that the designer didn't use the exact same mechanism for the multitudes of bacterial flagellum. Hmmm, but in their critique of the PBS Nova show "Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" The DI said "PBS ignores the possibility that such recurring fundamental genetic programs across species could also be explained as the result of common design, i.e. the re-usage of genetic programs that fulfill the functional requirements of animal development. Indeed, common design may be the best explanation for the many instances where these master genes control the growth of analogous body parts in widely diverse organisms where it is even not thought that the common ancestor even had the body part in question." So when they claim that commonality exists because of common design, that's OK. But if anyone looks deeper and realizes what we are looking at is common function, not common mechanisms, they are splitting hairs.

In another part of their critique of the show, they say "PBS asserts that “shared amino acids” in genes common to many types of organisms indicate that all life shares a common ancestor. Intelligent design is not necessarily incompatible with common ancestry, but it must be noted that intelligent agents commonly re-use parts that work in different designs. Thus, similarities in such genetic sequences may also be generated as a result of functional requirements and common design rather than by common descent." See how neatly they try and co-opt the genetic answer for one of their own. Of course they have to say this because Michael Behe, the daddy of Irreducible Complexity accepts common ancestry, so I guess their best bet is to steal it. But once again do you see the theme? I see the appearance of design, so that must mean there is design. Bacterial flagellum is an example of design, see they are all functionally similar and the designer just re-used pieces and parts. Oh you mean they really aren't all identical and there are differences, well those differences aren't important, you are just being hyper critical!

Here is my favorite part:

“In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role [in] the origin of the system. . . . Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation . . . given what we know about the powers of intelligence as opposed to strictly natural or material causes.”

and this one

"The flagellum is a self-assembling, irreducibly complex microscopic rotary engine that contains parts known from human technology—such as a rotor, a stator, a propeller, a u-joint, and an engine—yet it functions at a level of efficiency that dwarfs any motor produced by humans. In any other context we would immediately recognize such an information-rich, integrated system as the product of intelligence. The NAS can only dismiss the scientific case for the design of the flagellum by distorting the facts about the structure."

Yes, this is not only an argument from ignorance, but an argumentum ad hominem, that is an argument by attacking evolution rather than supporting their own position. It's also an argumentum verbosium, in other words if you keep saying the same thing over and over again you will convince some people.

This is clearly an argument by assumption, I assume it to be true, therefore it is true. They, the DI, want to see evidence of the designer that they will put forth any argument, they will mislead, misdirect, and out and out lie to maintain their point of view. Think of another logical argument, the argument from personal incredulity, "I cannot believe something so it must not be true". Well the Discovery Institute plays on that with a "I believe something so it must be the truth!" I have no problem with them wanting to believe it, but in their role as professional creationists, they insist of forcing their way into the science classroom -- and that I object too!

Judgement Rebuttals Slides 10 and 11

I know, I left off without finishing my rebuttals of the fun slides the Discovery Institute has been putting out. This one, slide 10, was tons of fun as usual. They even use a picture from the movie Planet of the Apes to add to the fun. I wonder if that picture is copyrighted? Oh well not my concern!

As for this whole argument, I see it as the Discovery Institute unwittingly showing anyone who reads this as how science works. You see something and develop a theory based on current knowledge. As you learn more, you modify the theory. As you still learn more, you further modify the theory. Years ago, when the study of DNA was in its infancy, the close correlation of human to chimpanzee DNA was discussed. As more work was done the precise level of differences between us and chimps has been further refined. And just because the two numbers aren't identical, they want to throw the baby out with the bathwater! As different methods are used, the exact accounting of the differences between human and chimp may change even more. My question is 'So what?' Rather than focus on the differences, focus on the similarities! My God (used deliberately) how can anyone deny the similarities that exist even without looking at the genetic level, just examine the physiology and the parallels are amazing! Biology predicts the similarities long before DNA added to our knowledge of the relationship. Science predicts and new knowledge confirmed it! What has Intelligent Design predicted lately, or even ever?

My wife reminded me about Continental drift. She saw something that struck her as funny and she came and told me. It was during a program on the formation of the Earth. School children saw that the continents could fit together like a giant jigsaw puzzle, but science never took it seriously. She's right, science didn't take it seriously, but some scientists kept after it. It took decades from when the idea was first published before it became an accepted scientific theory. Now it has widespread acceptance and large piles of evidence to prove at one time the continents were connected, the theory refers to it as Pangaea. That's how science works!

This is another example of the Discovery Institute co-opting science and claiming it as their own. Look at this quote form the slide: "Intelligent design is certainly compatible with human/ape common ancestry, but the truth is that the percent difference says nothing about whether humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The percent genetic similarity between humans and apes does not demonstrate Darwinian evolution, unless one excludes the possibility of intelligent design. Just as intelligent agents ‘re-use’ functional components that work over and over in different systems (e.g., wheels for cars and wheels for airplanes), genetic similarities between humans and chimps could also be explained as the result of the re-usage of common genetic programs due to functional requirements of the hominid body plan."

I love this"unless one excludes the possibility of intelligent design", which of course science does, it does exclude it because it brings nothing scientific to the table. But they are willing to grant human/ape ancestry? So they are saying it's true only if it's their idea? They again bring in this unsupported idea of Intelligent Agent. I guess this is the new critique when someone says they are trying to put God in a box by treating the Bible as a biology text, they can say it wasn't God, just God's agent.

I was always taught the best lies contain a germ of truthfulness. How is this any different? There is too much evidence to demolish evolution, so they take the truthfulness proved though evolutionary thought and tack-on their own spin. Gotta love a flexible, or dare I saw it, an evolutionary approach!

Slide 11 is mostly quote mining at its best. You take a quote and place it out of context. Then you further mislead with the old Gaps argument and what do you have? Well you have another example of Marketing ala Discovery Institute. Are there gaps in the fossil record, yes and they were predicted by science. Do we have an absolute 100% perfect picture of human evolution? No, we may never have evidence of every step in the chain. But of course the Discovery Institute calls that weaknesses. I call them what they are -- areas that need further study.

Let me remind you of another set of Discovery Institute gaps, read the original "Darwin's Black Box" book by Michael Behe, a DI Senior Fellow. He listed specific examples of his 'idea' of irreducible complexity. They included bacterial flagellum, human immunity system, and blood clotting, among a few others. In each one he wrote about how these systems couldn't possibly be explained thought evolutionary means. Fast forward almost 10 years and read Michael Behe's testimony during the Dover trial. Examples of papers proving how these specific examples of his could have formed through evolutionary means and he dismissed them as being insufficient -- insufficient even though he claimed not to have read them! Not only marketing, but denial and refusal to recognize published scientific evidence.

That's one of the problems with using gaps to support your own ideas. Once someone fills in the gap, you have to find new support. Keep lofting up them softballs!

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!

Coexistence IV - Religion

I just saw an interesting program about Religion and Washington DC. It was hosted by Newt Gingrich, and normally that would make me change the channel but the subject matter was interesting, in particular to many of my own posts here in this blog.

I have said that I think the ACLU and groups who are trying to remove every aspect of religion from public life are making a mistake, but I never expounded on that, so I guess I should here and now. First of all I want to reiterate my primary objection to Intelligent Design, since that is and has been the focus of this blog for the past 43 posts. I have a number of objections, but my primary one is simply that Intelligent Design is not science and as such does not deserve to be taught in a class where the subject is science.

This would do two immediate things, in my mind. First it would take valuable class time away from subjects that are science. I think with the limited amount of time a teacher has with their students, something I deal with every semester, it should be spent on the subject of the class. Second I think it would offer a level of scientific validate for subjects that have not earned it. I would be making many of the same arguments if a school board planned to introduce Astrology to an Astronomy class.

I am also concerned about long term impacts to our students and scientific investigation in the future. How can we seriously expand the edges of medicine, astronomy, or any science when the basics of the scientific method can not be taught. How seriously would students take the scientific method if we short cut it in biology class? What type of doctors will we turn out. "Yes, Mr. Smith, I understand you have a pain there, but God did it and it would be unethical of me to interfere." How soon would that type of 'explanations' move beyond science to other classes? Engineering, chemistry, even social studies and mathematics! I believe it is wrong, no matter what the source of Intelligent Design!

Now as for it's source I will admit to being anti-Intelligent Design because of how the Discovery Institute treats it. Do they believe I am an idiot! The Dover Trial and Professor Barbara Forrest showed its relationship to Creationism. I hate being lied to, and the Discovery Institute is doing just that. The former members of the Dover School Board lied about their motivations. A School Gym teacher in Tejon California lied when trying to pass off a class on Intelligent Design as a Philosophy class. The Texas School Board, the South Carolina School Board, and even the Ohio and Kansas School Board members who subscribe to the tactics and strategies of deceit in order to push their religious agenda. This offends me on a personal, professional, and theological level and I refuse to be silent about it.

I do believe groups like the ACLU have gone overboard in removing religion from the public eye, but I do not agree that Intelligent Design in the classroom is one of those times. The religious underpinnings of Intelligent Design are obvious and using the current law to prevent it from entering into the science classroom and exposing the lies and deceit being used as tactics is fine with me. If Intelligent Design was science I would support it wholeheartedly, I would even be more generous in my comments if they [proponents] were honest in their religious roots and refused to stoop to gutter tactics. But since neither of those seem to be on the horizon, I am pretty comfortable in my position.

Judgement Rebuttals Continued (Slides 8 abnd 9)

OK, time for some more humor. Slide 8, sexual selection. Aside from once again misrepresenting sexual selection, I'm not sure the purpose of this slide. Maybe they are trying to narrow evolution to one mechanism because they have too much trouble addressing multiple mechanisms? I really don't know what their motive is here. But let's look at it.

Sexual selection is the theory that some characteristics give certain members of a population an advantage over others. I have little trouble understanding this on a real and personal level, but enough about my limited high school social life. The Discovery Institute stated ". . . sexual selection has been invoked to account for the evolutionary origin of humanity's most cherished abilities, including art, literature, music, mathematics, religious belief, and even scientific genius. Once you define something as 'beautiful' or 'attractive,' the magic wand of sexual selection can produce virtually anything an evolutionary biologist wants." Well I don't know about a magic wand, but anyone should be able to see how many activities can tie into sexual selection. Let's keep it simple and ask the question -- Why do Rock Stars date Supermodels? Because they Can! They have access and opportunity that their success gets them. Do we need to keep rubbing this lesson in the faces of those of use who aren't rock stars?

So why do they whine on about sexual selection is the fact there are two sexes at all. They don't believe evolution can account for the development of two sexes. What kills me is the source for this quote:

"The very existence of sexual reproduction presents a problem for Darwin�s theory. The easiest way for an organism to reproduce is simply to divide asexually� to make a copy of itself. Bacteria are very successful at this. An organism that reproduces sexually, however, must divert precious energy into making sperm or egg cells; in the process, gene combinations that were quite useful beforehand are sometimes destroyed through 'recombination.' Then the organism must find a member of the opposite sex and mate with it successfully. From an evolutionary perspective, sex incurs considerable costs that must be offset by advantages to the organism."

They forget to mention the source fully. Oh they call it "the critical response to the PBS Evolution series, Getting the Facts Straight" but guess who published that response? You guessed it, the Discovery Institute Press. They buried the link in the small print, I am surprised it was even there. Sounds like a very familiar tactic, "We say it can't happen and for proof we say it can't happen." Anyone else see a tautology here?

As for their arguments, they may have trouble seeing how and why two sexes evolved doesn't seem to cause scientists to lose sleep. Because many of them have put forth theories as to how and why it happened. Explanations include: Sex creates genetic variation among siblings, Sex helps the spread of advantageous traits, and Sex helps the removal of deleterious genes. Science is working on the details and once again the Discovery Institute just ignores all that information.

Slide 9 starts on shaky ground. In the first paragraph they discuss common genes among organisms they make the following statement: " . . . but it must be noted that intelligent agents commonly re-use parts that work in different designs." OK, where and when was this proven? They make the statement and assume it's true. The passing of genes is proven by science, so called macro-evolution is also a proven extension of evolution, the idea of common ancestry is a logical extension of that. What proof is there of the existence of intelligent agents, let alone their ability to re-use genes? None! So this makes the rest of their discussion a confirmation of the theory of common ancestry rather than an indictment as they attempted.