Bait and Switch, Discovery Institute Style

A new post over at the Discovery Institute site is pretty typical of their tactics, what I like to call their 'Tactics of Mistake'.  Here it is: "Helpful Atheist Makes a Case for God".  In it they summarize something PZ Myers said and then do the something typical -- moving the goal posts:

"But we can ask an interesting question . . . How far back can contingency go? . . .
Myers would likely reply that “the primordial universe is the start. The universe is the fundamental existing thing.” That’s the stock atheist answer. But it’s wrong — the universe can’t explain contingency completely. Here’s why."

Look at what they did, they ask a question -- which is fine, but then they form an answer as they claim Myers would answer it.  I don't know how Myers would answer it, but even if he gave the answer they claim, within the context of what Myers said, it would still be a perfectly acceptable answer.  The context wasn't 'essential cause chains', what they did was change the context and then spend the rest of the post explaining why Myers, and Evolution, is wrong.

What's funny is the artificial distinction they use to explain 'accident contingency' and 'essential contingency'.  There is nothing in the definition of an contingency that requires the continued existence of the parent contingency.  Here is how they define it:

"Essential causal chains are causes and effects that depend on the continued existence of the entire causal chain to produce an effect."

Does this make any sense to you?  They are trying to create this new concept called 'essential causal chains' and claiming that everything in the chain must continue to exist or the end result cannot exist.  Then they end with:

"So evolution, as a contingent process in nature that contains some essentially ordered series of causes, requires a First Cause that is outside of nature. Of course, that First Cause is what men have called God.

Really?  Other than twisting around words, what have they provided that supports their contention that Evolution requires a first cause?  And even if one is required, why does it have to be outside of nature?  That's the part of their explanation they never seem to support.  The only reason seems to be that they have to have something outside of nature or they will never accept it.

There is no evidence that however life started, it required a first cause to be outside of nature.  Remember it's not a requirement for the Theory of Evolution to explain exactly how life began, only that once it did, it evolved and been evolving ever since.  Yes, word games can make all this sound important, but the reality, all the DI's efforts to insert God into the equation have amounted to nothing.  Now they go a further step and try an tie in the concept of Atheism:

If P.Z. Myers follows his own argument about contingency a bit further, he would see that atheism is inconsistent with the contingency on which evolution necessarily depends."

Is the Theory of Evolution and Atheist theory?  Seriously, what in science addresses the concept of God?  God has always been within the realm of philosophy and metaphysics -- not science.  So, in fact, all of science can be considered atheistic.  Just like all of mathematics, cooking, finance, language . . . it's a pretty long list of all the things that fails to pay homage to a deity.  But does that make them inherently atheistic?

Of course not, but that doesn't stop folks like the DI from making the claim.  It's their belief set that requires it, and that's why they play these sort of 'bait and switch' games.

First, customers are "baited" by merchants advertising products or services at a low price, but when customers visit the store, they discover that the advertised goods either are not available or are not as good as expected, or the customers are pressured by sales people to consider similar, but higher-priced, items ("switching")." (Wikipedia: Bait and Switch)

The DI baited their argument with PZ Myers words, changed the definition and then went on to make their point about evolution and then somehow turned it into a atheism hit piece.  Creative, maybe, but not very well done at all.  Pronouncements like these require more evidence than 'Because I said so!"

Why The Earth May Not Be Round!

We are not advocating teaching the Earth is Flat, we are advocating to expand science education by teaching the controversy over why the Earth may not be round.  Sound familiar?

The official (cough, cough) policy of the Discovery Institute (DI) of not advocating the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID) is pure BS.  If it were true then they would not be writing lesson plans, politicking politicians and student groups, nor supporting legislation designed to weaken real science education, among other tactics and strategies.  What they claim to be advocating is expanding science education by teaching the controversy over Evolution. They re-iterated this in a recent post addressed to Utah (Dear Utah: Teach About the Scientific Controversy Over Evolution, Not About Intelligent Design)

I have a question, does teaching this 'controversy' really expand science education?  It would be one thing if there really was a scientific controversy over Evolution, but since the only controversy is an artificial one, a culturally-contrived controversy over whether or not religious beliefs should be taught instead of actual science -- is this really an expansion?

What this does is weaken science education, and this was found to be true during the Dover Trial.  Imagine a science teacher who covers the scientific theory of evolution, and then is required to introduce religious arguments against it -- arguments without any factual support or evidence.  What would be the outcome?  The Dover Decision made that pretty clear -- confused students because of a weakened science education.  Teaching religion as if it was science is a bad idea because  . . . well for one reason, it doesn't work.

Buildings are not held up by prayer, cars do not run because of the wishes of a capricious deity, medicines do not work because of wishful thinking.  They work because of the science and applications of that science in architecture,  engineering, and medicine.

I have to argue about one statement they made:

"In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned."

Is Evolution really taught as dogma and not open to any scrutiny?  That's what this statement implies.  So my next question is whether or not it is taught dogmatically.  So what evidence would support that?

• Textbooks covered it as dogma
• No changes to Evolutionary Theory since it's inception
• An increasing number of scientists/science group advocating a non-religious alternative

First up textbooks:
However, I have look at a number of textbooks, including my own, my daughters', and my granddaughter's and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that.  In my last visit to a local college library (Wright State University), I looked up several biology texts and also found it taught as a scientific theory and not dogmatic at all.
-
There is one point that I do keep hearing from creationists or varying stripes as evidence for this dogmatic approach -- evolution being explained as a fact and not a theory, but that is more word play than anything else.  Gravity is a fact -- hold something out at arms length and drop it, it falls -- only please don't do this with an iPhone, they seem to be more disaster prone than others (as my granddaughter can attest).  The fall of an object is a fact, and we call that fact Gravity.  Gravity is also a theory, it is the explanation of why things fall as they do.

Do you see the difference?  We use the same term to describe both the fact and the explanation.  We do the same thing in many areas of science, Light is a fact, the Theory of Light is the explanation.  Germs are a fact, Germ Theory is the explanation.  Evolution is a fact, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation.  Calling Evolution a fact isn't dogmatic, but contextual use of the word.  When you look at the evidence for life changing over time, you see the fact of evolution.  When you see the genetic differences and similarities between organisms, you see the fact of Evolution.  What you want to understand how those facts occurred, you look at Evolutionary Theory.

OK, how about whether or not evolutionary theory is open to scrutiny:

Has the Theory of Evolution changed and is it still changing?  The answer is 'hell yes!'  Since Darwin's day there have been many changes.  There have literally been thousands of scientists questioning all or part of Evolutionary theory on a daily basis and coming up with more and better explanations.  That's how science works.

If scientists thought Evolution was not open to scrutiny, would any of this come to pass?  There would be very few, if any, scientists working on it.  There would be very few changes, again if any.  Major changes would be unheard up.  Things like Punctuated Equilibrium, Genetics, Genetic Drift, and many others wouldn't possibly exist if Evolution was some untouchable sacred cow.

The reason they do exist, and new ideas and theories that will come in the future, is because science treats little as untouchable.  We've learned the lessons of the past that when ideas are considered inviolate, we cannot ignore evidence that appears to violate them.  Ignoring evidence is not how science advances. We learn by asking questions and finding answers, and when those answers don't match current theories, we keep going and figure out why, then adjust the theories with the new knowledge.

The reason I think folks like the DI keep making this 'dogmatic' argument is mainly because their failure to formulate and actual scientific theory that includes their religious beliefs.  Several years ago even the daddy rabbit of ID, Philip Johnson, even admitted it:

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement. Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world." (Berkeley Science Review, Spring 2006, retrieved from Wikiquote)

That's why they make this argument, not because they really think it's being taught dogmatically, but because they have not made any headway in an actual opposing scientific theory.  Without their cries of 'dogmatisim', they would have little else to say.  So the real question is not whether or not Evolution is taught dogmatically, but why haven't you, DI, been able to formulate a scientific theory that can compete with Evolution?  The Dover Decision included this little gem on why they argue the controversy instead of focusing on actual science:

"ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard"

One last thing, are there non-religious alternatives to Evolutionary Theory?
If there are, no one seems to be talking about them, anywhere.  The only alternatives that people hear about are Creationism and it's little brother Intelligent Design.  I know the DI likes to claim ID is not religious, but no one seems to believe them.  Their own actions, strategy documents, even the audience for their marketing materials all prove that ID is nothing more than re-packaged Creationism.  One last quote, and it's from the Dover Decision:

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism."

And that is why Intelligent Design will remain in the same section of the bookstore where religion, physic powers, numerology, and tarot cards are sold.  You can get your 'Flat Earth' conspiracy books there as well.  It should also be the reason why states, including Utah, should pass real science standards which focus on science and not religious beliefs.

Does the Discovery Institute Understand Scientific Methodology At All? Apparently Not!

I've explained this many times, but it bears repeating because the Discovery Institute continues to trot out the same erroneous arguments.  An analogy of a Scientific Theory is that it is like a snapshot in time.  It is the best explanation based on the available evidence we have right now.  In the future, as we learn more, scientific theories change.  While the DI likes to brand this as a weakness, it's actually one of its strengths.  If it were incapable of change, we certainly wouldn't have gone to the Moon, flown a single balloon -- let alone an airplane, nor cured and eliminated many diseases.

In this latest post, new evidence is changing some of the theories around evolution and the DI is complaining.  There complaint goes like this:  Since science is changeable, it means it's wrong, and therefore cannot be counted on.

Here's the post: "With Two New Fossils, Evolutionists Rewrite Narratives to Accommodate Conflicting Evidence".  Without even going into the post, you can see the complaint.  That's why I have to question an organization claiming to be a scientific organization not understanding how science works.  But when you see the DI for what it really is, a religious ministry, it's not so hard to understand.

If you do read the post, it's little new, except for this little gem:

"Dubious procedures like these would be unthinkable in other natural sciences, such as physics."

Yes, Physics and the other hard sciences make no allowances for new discoveries at all.  Scientific theories in Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Astronomy . . . never change when something new is discovered, really?  So Nobel Prizes are awarded for what?  Maintaining the status quo?  I can hear the announcement from Stockholm now "And the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2018 goes to John Smith, for doing nothing at all!" and everyone applauds, except for me -- I mean, I did nothing in Physics at all, so where is my Nobel?

I do find is funny that this post uses Physics as it's example because the DI has frequently poked at Physics, as well as most of the rest of the hard sciences.  Usually they are trying to tear down support for Biology from any of the other sciences, but equally as often they are trying to use new discoveries in those science to disprove biology.  Funny because in this post they claim that the other hard sciences don't change with new discoveries, and yet when new discoveries are made they try and twist it into something against Biology.

Anyone with a functioning brain knows that a scientific theory is not:

"merely a loose collection of narratives that are forged to fit the evidence"

That's what the DI would like people to believe.  Which is why they like using such disreputable tactics as "It's Only a Theory" and calling Evolution 'Darwinism', both designed to make Evolution appear to be less than it is, a Scientific Theory -- which is, just in case you need a refresher:

"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, by using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge." (Wikipedia: Scientific Theory)

Just a wee bit more than a 'loose collection of narratives' . . . which happens to much closer to the definition of something else:

"The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 
Many different authors contributed to the Bible. What is regarded as canonical text differs depending on traditions and groups; a number of Bible canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents.
" (Wikipedia: Bible)

Many different authors, collection, different canons . . . certainly sounds more like a 'loose collection of narratives' than a 'repeatedly tested' and 'withstood rigorous scrutiny', doesn't it?

But the DI would have you believe that scientific theories are nothing more than a bunch of stories with no evidence at all . . . exactly what their pet idea of Intelligent Design has always been.  You think one day they might learn . . . oh wait, but anyone who thinks scientific theories should never be able to be changed isn't demonstrating the capacity for learning, are they?

Scientific Consensus is Not Just a Raised Hand!

In a recent conversation, the subject of scientific consensus was raised and their reaction was fascinating.  They immediately dismissed it as something that does more damage than good.  What it told me is they have absolutely no idea how scientific consensus is achieved and what it takes to change that consensus.

Here's my issue in a nutshell, remember the conversation about the words 'theory' and 'belief'?  In the colloquial sense they mean one thing, but when you look at the scientific sense, they mean something very different.  That's what's going on here.  'Consensus' and 'Scientific Consensus' are incredibly different.

To them, consensus is nothing more than a group agreeing on something, as if a bunch of scientists sat in a room and the majority raised their hand when a topic was announced.    Suppose someone on the radio says something, and a group of people call in and most agree with it.  A good example of Rush Limbaugh's 'Ditto-Heads', which are people who call in but instead of re-hashing and taking up airtime, they just say 'Ditto!' to show their agreement.  You can say that the group that called in has consensus if the majority who called in agree with the statement.

But, does that mean the consensus is right or wrong?  Or even closer to right or closer to wrong if you don't want to address absolutes?  With the idea of the colloquial term 'consensus', there is no way to make a value statement.  The only thing you know is that the call-in group agreed.  That's not a scientific consensus.  Like other words often misused by pseudo-scientists, that's horrible example of a scientific consensus.  The idea of a scientific consensus is something much more, considerably more.

Here's the Wikipedia explanation:

"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review. " (Wikipedia: Scientific Consensus)

A few things to note:

• A community of scientists in a particular field of study -- in other words the only ones who count are the ones who are in a particular field.  These are the people who study a subject and the agreement of people outside the field is simply opinion.
• General agreement  . . . not unanimity -- which, of course means, that the entire group doesn't have to be agreement, but the clear majority of the scientists working in a specific field agree, but not by a vote, through a number of other mechanisms, including:
• Conferences -- We aren't talking about a matter of opinion, scientists present to their peers and if you have ever presented to a group of co-workers, you know this isn't just a 'because I said so' presentation.  They present not just their conclusions, but details about exactly how they came to those conclusions -- and then the fun begins.  Their conclusion are not just examined, but their entire methodology.  Scientists do not go into these conferences voicing a simply opinion.
• Publications -- Similar to conferences, publications are another avenue for communication.  One difference, publications usually go into a great deal more detail than a conference can.  The level of detail has to be enough for other scientists to fully understand and even replicate the work.
• Replication -- Here is an important piece, scientific conclusions that cannot be replicated never reach a level of consensus.  The details from those conferences and publications are replicated, not by the originating scientist, but others in the same field, often competitors.  If it cannot be replicated, it eventually falls to the wayside (ask the Cold Fusion guys).
• Peer review --  Here one of the biggest differences between the colloquial 'consensus' and the scientific consensus.  Before publication, scientific papers are reviewed at the request of the publication editor.  It is sent to the author's competitors, again members of the same field, for review.  Most often this is a blind review, the author doesn't know who is reviewing it, and the reviewers don't know who the author is.  These reviewers don't just give a thumbs-up or down, but document issues they had with the paper.  The editor typically has multiple options, commonly:
• Outright rejection -- which is usually done when the paper doesn't meet publishing standards.  It could be the subject is outside the publications purview or it may have massive technical or procedural errors.
• Editing the paper -- Normally when the reviewers find minor errors that can be fixed without changing the meaning of the paper.  Many scientists aren't professional technical writers, so often there are editorial changes to clean things up, so to speak.
• Return the paper to the author -- which is usually done to give the author the chance to address those concerns and re-submit at a later time.

You see Scientific Consensus is not just a bunch of scientists all nodding their head, but a concerted effort to make sure that there is a general agreement on a specific subject through a number of mechanisms that cause the concept to be evaluated.  Not an absolute agreement, but a general one based on such evaluations.  Scientists are free to disagree with minor or major parts as they see fit, and often that is where future scientific work is directed.  But rarely do scientists go against consensus without some evidence that there is a reason for doing so, evidence is the key.

Opponents like to build a very rosy picture of the scientific community, how they all work together, all for some altruistic goal.  The reality is much different.  There is a surprising amount of conflict, both professional and personal.  In fact many of the most lauded scientific achievements are done by scientists who buck the consensus.  But the key is they buck it with evidence, not wishful thinking.

Is scientific consensus a perfect thing?  No, but can anyone name a better process?  The Discovery Institute has tried a couple.  For example, they keep trying to sell the idea that opinion is just as valuable at scientific consensus.  They also like to publish articles and books without a single critical review from anyone outside their own group of believers.  People like Answers in Genesis keep trying to tell you how wrong science is on certain things without a lick of evidence to support their contention.

But when it comes to explanations that actually match the evidence and are usable and workable, scientific consensus seems to work really well.  If someone has a better idea, let's hear it.  But until there is one, scientific consensus is one of our best methods for understanding the world around us.

Evolution is just a story . . . really?

I think we have a new tactic being tested out by the Discovery Institute (DI).  In this post: "Theory of Evolution? Call It a "Narrative" Instead" by one of the more prolific DI talking heads: little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, he would like you to think of Evolution as being just a 'Narrative'.  Is he kidding? Actually I have trouble distinguishing when klingy is trying to be funny or serious, but that's neither here nor there.  So let's briefly discuss.

What is a Narrative anyway?  Wikipedia defines is as:

"A narrative or story is any report of connected events, real or imaginary, presented in a sequence of written or spoken words, and/or still or moving images."

From this point of view, I guess you can call Evolution a 'Narrative' because it certainly does tell a story of connected events.  Evolution tells the story of life on this planet, not the initial spark of how life formed, but once life existed how it changed and the many forces driving those changes until we reach the present day and we see the incredible variety of life we have today.

So how do I feel about calling Evolution a narrative?  I'm not that bothered by it that much because by the definition, you can call it that.  Just like by definition you can call a diamond 'a rock' and The Biltmore  'a house'.  But by doing so in any way do them justice?  What you cannot do is to call a diamond just a rock, or the Biltmore just a house, can you?

So what is the Discovery Institute (DI) up to?  What we have is nothing more than another word game, something the DI does instead of actual science.  By calling Evolution 'a narrative', they are trying to make it less than it really is, trying to box it into something they can throw away.  Since they have made very little headway getting people to question evolution, they keep trying to re-define it.  Not too long ago their tactic was 'it's only a theory.', today is 'it's only a story.'  In between their original attacks they tried to pass off Evolution as a philosophy called 'Darwinism', a religion, an antiquated concept, and even a violation of physics.  They keep trying to re-define it, but none of it seems to stick.  They keep failing because Evolution tells a compelling story, one loaded with evidence, predictive power, and because it works.  They consistently keep trying to denigrate evolution using such word games because when it comes to the science, they have been failing miserably.   

Just for fun, let's contrast something for a minute.  Creationism, and it's little brother Intelligent Design, also tell a story, doesn't it.  The source document is the Christian Bible . . . and if you disagree let me, let me also remind you that the DI and it's pet concept of Intelligent Design (ID) are religious propositions, not matter how often they claim otherwise.  It was determined in court and also in their own documents.  We've dealt with that issue many times, so let us simply call it what it is, a religious concept.  Since it's underpinnings are based on a specific religion and that religion also has a series of interconnected stories, you can call ID a narrative as well.

Of course, you can look back at the definition of 'narrative' and please note the two words I placed in in italics, real or imaginary.  Therein lies the difference between Evolution as a narrative and ID as a narrative.  As we have already said, Evolution cannot be called only a narrative due to an incredible amount of supporting evidence, decades of scientific study and confirmation.  Yes, it's a narrative, but it is also a real story and it's considerably more than just being a story.  It best fits all the current scientific evidence, so that makes if a pretty damn good story.

Intelligent Design can also be called a narrative, but without supporting evidence, that's about all you can call it.  No one has done any scientific work that lets you call it much else.  It's not a scientific theory, it's not a valid explanation of how life changed on this planet over millions of years, it's not even a good bedtime story because one you hit 'god-did-it', the story is over.  So while you can call Creationism/ID a narrative, you really can't call it much more than that.

Of course klingy doesn't say that. He just tries to reduce down evolution to the status of just being a story. He also does it by trying to mischaracterize evolution as only being:

"evolution by natural selection operating on random mutations"

However, in typical DI fashion, klingy forgets to mention the other multitude of evolutionary forces at work, ones that expand greatly the explanatory power of evolution.  No one in the scientific community would characterize evolution as solely being natural selection operating on random mutations.  That sort of straw-man is most often used by Creationists, including Intelligent Design proponents.  Which certainly clearly characterized klingy.

So, yes Evolution is a story!  It's also a Scientific Theory, or rather an overarching scientific theory made up of hundreds of other scientific theories, each of those theories tell a story that makes up part of the evolutionary whole.  Intelligent Design is truly just a story and one that says surprisingly little.

Abiogenesis and Evolution

A poster over on Topix has gotten his head stuck on Abiogenesis and keeps using it to try and bash Science in general, and Evolution in particular.  Funny how the same arguments keep coming around, it's just new people making them as the old posters fade away.  Or maybe it's the same posters simply using different handles.  Makes little difference, their arguments do show a lack of originality.  The most amusing thing to me is how Creationists keep making the same arguments and then coming into places like Topix pretending that it's something new.  You have no idea how often I have heard the breaking news of Darwin recanting on his deathbed, how Pasteur's Biogenesis makes evolution impossible, or that thermodynamics disproves Evolution.  Fun, but pretty foolish!  Fifth-grade science pretty well settled those arguments for me, and that was with a priest and a lay-person as science teachers!

This particular Topix poster called himself 'Blitzkrieg' and usually refers to Abiogenesis as 'Mud to Man', which as anyone who understands what Abiogenesis is knows how foolish a comment that is to make.  He further brags about his misunderstanding by comparing Abiogenesis to other scientific theories, which again anyone familiar with the subjects knows that Abiogenesis is not a scientific theory, but an area of study containing a number of hypotheses.

Like most creationists, he fails to understand what that means.  He refuses to allow anyone to have a dissenting opinion from his own and he constantly refuses to be educated, even to the smallest degree, on the subject.  I will endeavor to express most of his misunderstandings here.

First of all, some terms.  I've written about them before (Arguments XIX -- Hypothesis, Theory, and Law and Words have meanings):

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

At its heart Abiogenesis is an idea, a concept, and a process.  What it is not is a scientific theory or even a hypothesis.  Look at the terms, do any of them fit?  No, and at this point in time, they shouldn't.  We can't use any of those labels at this point in time.  One day we might have a Theory of Abiogenesis, in other words a well-established explanation of how life began.  We aren't even close yet.  But to offer religious explanations is ridiculous because religion is not science.  It can't be tested, measured, falsified, or predicted.  Religion is a belief without evidence while science is all about the evidence.

Evidence starts with something we observe.  It doesn't have to be absolute, but a known, repeatable observation.  For example gravity started with the observation that things fall down.  Nice piece of evidence.  The questions start with 'Why do things fall down?'  The study of gravity has have a number of hypotheses over time and we formed a theory, complete with some laws (how gravity behaviors under very specific criteria).  

What do we really know that would contribute toward Abiogenesis?  We know that life exists. There's a fact, one even Blitzkrieg cannot dispute.  We can make an assumption that at some point in the past life had a start.  Is it an assumption, certainly.  But since everything else that has occurred had a start, it's a pretty good assumption.  I'm sure Blitzkrieg will disagree, but even he cannot name something that did not have a beginning!  He might offer opinion, but the only things he can name are things that we don't know how it started.  There is nothing to say we won't know how it started someday.  Go back a few decades, centuries, or millenia and you will be able to name many things that the beginning wasn't known at that time . . . but we know much more today -- and not a single one them didn't have a natural process.  What we want to do is figure out how it started.  That's the term 'Abiogenesis' means, that area of study within Science.  Here's the definition from Wikipedia: 

"Abiogenesis or biopoiesis or OoL (Origins of Life), is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds. It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1 billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system."(Wikipedia: Abiogenesis)

What Abiogenesis does have is a number of potential explanations.  Yes, the matter is certainly not settled, but there are a number of possible answers, here are a few:

• Chemical Origins
• Clay Hypothesis
• Deep-hot biosphere
• Panspermia
• Extraterrestrial organic molecules
• PAH world hypothesis

Unlike Blitzkrieg, you can do your own homework and check them out for yourself. But the bottom line comes down to as of yet, we do not know how life started on Earth. It is within the realm of possibility we may never know to 100% certainty. But if the history of science has taught us anything it's that tomorrow we will know more than we do today. In one year, in 10 years, even in 100 years we will know considerably more than we do today.

Now what Blitz is doing is trying to use his strawman of 'mud to man' as a way to bash evolutionary theory.  He doesn't do a good job of it.  For one reason his mud-to-man is a strawman and not particularly applicable.  The other reason is while there is a relationship between Evolution and Abiogenesis, the theories are not dependent on each other.  For example I listed 6 potential Abiogenesis explanations above, none of them would have much impact on evolutionary theory.  For when it comes to evolution, it really wouldn't matter which one of them -- or a completely different explanation -- turned out to be true.  So basically Blitz is firing blanks.

In closing, please remember that Science closes no doors, not even the religious ones.  But we also don't spend much in the way of resources addressing religious ideas.  History has once again shown us that they tend not to pan out.  Just ask any honest intelligent design 'theorist'.  What scientific advances have been made using Intelligent Design 'Theory' . . . the silence will say more than I ever could.  I've asked the question before and while there were a lot of words said in their responses, they named absolutely nothing!  Oh they love to cite examples of humans using intelligence to design things -- but that's not what Intelligent Design 'Theory' is all about.

I also asked a number of Creationists what scientific advances have been made using Creationism and their responses like to list scientists in history who also believed in God, but at no time have they ever specified what scientific theories, or what parts of scientific theories, show an application of 'Creationism'. Funny, isn't it?  Well to me, anyway.

Why would the Discovery Institute call it 'Censorship'

A few hours ago I posted "Is anyone actually censoring the Discovery Institute?", a post about how no one is actually censoring the Discovery Institute (DI), just presenting an opposing view.  One of my acquaintances read it and dropped me a line that asked "If they aren't being censored, why do they call it censorship?"  Rather than answer it in an email, I am going to address it in a post.  I do highly encourage people to leave comments instead of emails.  That way we can have an exchange in the open.  But that being said, why in the world would an organization like the Discovery Institute call opposition censorship?

Simple answer, it's all about perception.  You see if the DI complained about someone, pretty much anyone, airing an opposition viewpoint, people who call their complaining -- whining.  I mean how can you argue about an opposing view with any teeth in it and not come off as nothing but a whiner?  But . . . if you can build a perception that the person, or group, expressing an opposing view is doing something else, then you have a chance of gaining some level of public support.  So by categorizing people like Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson as censors, they are trying to create an automatic negative perception.  After all everyone knows censorship is usually considered a bad thing, right?

Actually this is a pretty common tactic.  I mean what negative activity of the last century and a half has the DI been trying to associate with Darwin and the Theory of Evolution?  How about all of them!  The obvious one is the association their pet pseudo-historians are always trying to sell is blaming the Nazi's, Word War II, and the Holocaust on Darwin and the Theory of Evolution.  After all, everyone knows the Nazis were bad, so if anyone buys into their bogus connection, it casts Darwin in a negative light.  Of course, it's all marketing.

But it's not just big things, last year in the post that awarded Tyson their 'Censor of the Year' award, they actually tried to blame a shooting in NC on the fact the shooter was an apparent atheist, actually calling him a militant atheist and reminded that he

" . . . is accused of murdering three Muslim students. Since the triple slaying is potentially explosive in an international context, social and other media are abuzz with analysis of the man's views on religion."

So therefore Atheism = violence, so being a theist is a good thing, right?   But . . . if you read the article giving that dubious honor to Tyson, why would an atheist who committed murder be a candidate for censor of the year?  They bring it up, but never support their supposed thinking.  What it looked like they were trying to do is make a connection between Tyson and his less-than-flattering comments during Cosmos about religion and violence done by an apparent atheist.  Did they address Tyson's comments about some of the negative impact religion and religious organizations have had on science?  No, it's easier to make a connection between Tyson and a murderer, you get more mileage out of that.  Even if they deny that was their intention, writing the post the way they did makes the connection for some people.

The DI are masters at Public Relations and Marketing.  Anyone who says something negative about the DI or Intelligent Design is automatically a target.  Do you remember little gem from 2006: "Canadian Quilters Attack Intelligent Design" from Evolution 'News' and Views and "“ID is a Myth” Quilt Wins National Contest" from Uncommon Descent.  Yes, a quilter . . . a single quilter did a quilt that made fun of Intelligent Design . . . and she is suddenly part of a cabal of Canadian Quilters who are attacking ID.  See my point?  They can't even allow someone to make a little fun of their pet version of Creationism without trying to gain some PR mileage out of it.  A humorous quilt is suddenly an attack!

That's why the DI calls Jerry Coyne and Neil deGrasse Tyson their 'censors of the year'.  It's because it offers them a PR opportunity.  Jerry and Neil did nothing that can be remotely called censorship . . . . unless you change the definition of censorship to the airing of an opposing view.  That's also why they complain about the lack of adoption of ID as an opposing view to evolution as a matter of free speech and academic freedom.  It has nothing to do with the lack of science supporting ID, no that wouldn't be something they can whine about.  But if they accuse people of denying free speech and schools going against academic freedom, they can market more and more.  The minor detail that no one is abrogating their right to free speech and that pseudo-science isn't covered under academic freedom having absolutely nothing to do with it makes no difference to them, it's all marketing.  There are plenty of examples:

• They want ID to be treated as a theory, so instead of doing any actual science, they simply market it as fait accompli and dare anyone to claim it's not a theory.  Of course they forget to use the definition of a scientific theory, but why let details get in the way of their 'reality'.  
• Guillermo Gonzalez doesn't get tenure at ISU and it must be because of his support for ID, not because he failed in his duties, again why bother with facts!  
• Nathaniel Abraham gets fired from his job as an evolutionary biologist can't possibly be because of his refusal to do his job, it must be because he supports Creationism/ID.  
• David Coppedge get fired as part of a downsizing and it must be because he supports ID.  His appeal and lawsuit denied because of him trying to use his workplace to force his religious beliefs on his co-workers and there were numerous complaints.  Again, facts . . . the DI doesn't need them!
• Can't get your pseudo-science published in real scientific journals, so just open your own journal and redefine peer-review to mean 'having a group of people who already agree with your religious ideas say nice things'.  The minor detail that real peer-review and your pseudo-peer-review have nothing in common matters not at all.
• Look at the recent debacle they are crying about, the United Methodist Church denying them a table at the UMC's General Conference, something well within their rights to do, especially given their support for actual science.  It's called a 'banning' in a multitude of posts on any site where the DI has influence.

Hopefully now you understand why the DI would call opposing views as censors.  A couple of last thoughts.  Since the DI hasn't been able, or apparently willing, to substantiate ID with anything resembling science, they have nothing other than marketing.  Which could also explain why they have so few scientists working there.  It's mostly lawyers and philosophers.

It also explains why when I read anything coming from a DI-related source, like Evolution 'News' and Views, I try and investigate the real source of the issues.  The DI has proven over and over again that they have no credibility when presenting anything that it will even resemble objectivity.  I mean Canadian Quilters on the attack?  Seriously!

Science Teachers Under Fire for Saying Creationists Are “Trying to Mislead” Students

A blog I had read a few times had an interesting post.  It's from the Friendly Atheist:  "Science Teachers Under Fire for Saying Creationists Are “Trying to Mislead” Students".  A middle school in Florida sent home a reading assignment that included this paragraph:

"Next time someone tries to tell you that evolution is just a theory, as a way of dismissing it, as if it’s just something someone guessed at, remember that they’re using the non-scientific meaning of the word.  If that person is a teacher, or minister, or some other figure of authority, they should know better.  In fact, they probably do, and are trying to mislead you."

Apparently some folks got uptight about the last line, angry at the implication that ministers and parents were purposely deceiving kids:

When parents such as Jennifer Flinchum first read those lines, “the hair on the back of my neck stood up,” she said.
“It’s not so much the evolution aspect of it, it’s just the way they phrased those few sentences how they were kind of taking the rights away from the parents,” said parent, Lisa McNeil.

 Three thingsome to my mind:

• Isn't that exactly what they are doing?  Deceiving children!  While some may be doing it out of ignorance, the reality is they are in fact deceiving children. 
• Do parents and ministers have the right to deceive children? I don't think so!  I guess pointing that out isn't very politically correct, regardless of how accurate it is.
• So instead of putting it in a reading assignment, parents will be up in arms when a student asks the teacher about it in class and the teacher gets to inform the child that parents and ministers who say 'evolution is only a theory' are lying.  No, the teacher won't use those words, but that is the lesson kids will pick up.  Can't you see it?  "Teacher says this, Mom says this, Teacher says that's not factual.  Mom isn't telling me the truth!"  Oh yea, that won't get anyone uptight, now would it?

The principal did send home a letter of apology and I guess they plan on re-wording the statement.  I would be curious to see the newly worded reading assignment.

Denyse O'Leary is certainly not allergic to Strawmen

Denyse O'Leary, the recently prolific mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, tries her hand at 'explaining' a few things, but she certainly does Charles Darwin a disservice.  What she does is build several straw-men, proceeds to demolish them and then pats herself on the back with a conclusion based on her demolition.  Funny how it works.  Make an unrealistic claim, destroy it, the declare victory.  You know, how did she make it through school anyway?  Oh wait, she's some sort of journalist.  OK, that makes more sense.  Someone at the DI tells her to write up something, and I guess she gets creative writing credit from the powers-that-be.  Her post is "Natural Selection: Could It Be the Single Greatest Idea Ever Invented?" is an example, although she needs to work on her creative writing skills.  I was always taught that even creative writing requires a modicum of credibility to be successful.

Here is her opening paragraph:

"Information, according to Darwin's idea (natural selection), can exist without intelligence. Nature produces intelligent designs, just because some life forms survive and others don't. That's it. That's all it takes. How odd that no one noticed."

First of all, Darwin did not mention information, certainly not how she puts it.  The whole 'information argument' is nothing more than one of the many smokescreens put out by Intelligent Design proponents.  Check out the Talk Origins site for more on this particular inanity.  As for the rest of this, Nature does not 'produce' designs, and claiming that they are 'intelligent designs' is pretty foolish.  By using the word 'design', it assumes something not in evidence.  At best the phrase should be 'nature produces the appearance of design', but that would require a level of honesty also not in evidence.

Now, the second sentence shows mainly that little Denyse doesn't really understand evolution very well.  To paraphrase for brevity:  'some life forms survive and others do not'.  If she understood the actual theory she would know that survival is a result, but not of evolution -- the Theory of Evolution (TOE) doesn't determine survival, it discusses and explains populations and alleles within a population.  Some of those alleles aid in survival and reproductive opportunity, others do not, and still other are benign on the subject.  Survival isn't determined by the TOE and painting it as such gives Denyse a target to shoot at, no matter how unrealistic it might be.

And as for no one noticing, if she was talking about 'Natural Selection', someone apparently did.  His name was Charles Darwin.  If she was commenting that no one noticed 'intelligent designs', it's hard to notice what only exists in the wishful thinking of certain stripes of theists, like Denyse.  Throughout history the appearance of design was noticed, and noticed well before Darwin ever walked the Earth.

Next straw-man:

"That distinction can prove relevant if one thinks civil liberties matter. Many of us live in countries where the invocation of a supreme being is a basis for civil liberties (though those liberties may not extend to mosquitoes)."

Civil liberties are based in law, not the invocation of one deity or another.  Now I know various theists like to think their particular religion is the basis for so many things, but most legal systems draw from many sources.  If a Christian wants to point to the 10 Commandments, they really should look more at the historical source for those, as opposed to the stories.  But then, most theists rarely like the look past the stories, I think they are too afraid they might learn something.  So claiming that civil liberties are based on invocations of one deity of another is just another straw-man.

Here's my personal favorite:

"Darwin's theory of evolution (natural selection acting on random mutations) is a cultural icon, like the Big Bang, or e=mc². One needn't know anything specific about any of these ideas. Indeed, media professionals can be passionately devoted to Darwinism without knowing anything about it at all.
That makes sense. Professed loyalty to Darwin is an admission to good parties. And Darwinism's relationship to modern warfare and eugenics is drowned out by cultural support."

Did little Denyse forget that it is not Darwin's Theory of Evolution (TOE).  I know, I know, I have mentioned it before, but vilifying a man is so much easier than refuting a scientific theory, especially when you and your group never seems to produce anything scientific.  Vilifying a man makes it  so much more personal.  If Denyse was serious about damaging the TOE, she might do the science that could over . . . Oh wait, we are talking about the DI here, what was I saying, plus Denyse is a journalist.

Now, Since when is any scientific theory a cultural icon?  Darwin might be considered one, but the scientific Theory of Evolution is not.  Oh, we all know how much the DI wishes it was so.  Cultural icons come and go, but scientific theories are not so easily dismissed.  As for 'professing' such helps get you invited to good parties, how foolishly dismissive can Denyse get?  Really?  Good parties?  Is that the best she has?  So now we know the real reason the folks at the Discovery Institute refuse to accept the Theory of Evolution.  It's not their religious beliefs as we all thought and even as they explained in their own documentation.  They are blaming not 'believing' in Darwin is the reason they never got to go to the 'good' parties.  Denyse, and the rest of your ID'iots, might look for other reasons you never got invited . . . but then self-examination is harder than rationalization, isn't it.

Little Denyse also needs a history lesson.  Only the DI, and other Creationist groups, are claiming Evolution's relationship to modern warfare and eugenics.  People who actually study this stuff, unlike the DI, know better.  I think she's been reading Michael Flannery (DI fellow who purports to be a historian).  Apparently Flannery is a good a historian as Denyse is a journalist.

Here is her definition of the TOE:

"Here it is: Information can be created without intelligence. That is, natural selection acting on random mutation explains the order of life we see all around us. What can't survive won't, and that explains how very complex life forms and structures -- including the human mind -- get built up.
True: Things that can't survive don't. But why would that fact alone drive nature to produce anything as simple as a kitten, let alone a math genius?"

Once again, with feeling, the TOE does not address 'information' and claiming that it can be defined as 'Information being created without intelligence' is mostly a whole lot of drivel.  Part of evolutionary theory, I will emphasis 'part', is Natural Selection.  Another part is Random Mutation, but little journalist-wanna-be Denyse is leaving out one hell of a lot of what the theory actually says.  But then how can she whine about it, if she actually understood it, she couldn't keep her job at the DI.

As for her play for cuteness, using a picture of a cute and cuddly kitten.  Kittens are not simple.  Have you seen the genome for a cat?  Obviously Denyse hasn't, 20,285 genes, and we humans share something like 90% of them, oh, and Denyse, that includes math geniuses.

Little Denyse does say one sentence that I have to agree with:

"Ideas have consequences."

Yes, ideas have consequences.  Darwin's ideas, and those who have expanded on his ideas, have opened up the biological world in a way that has led to places undreamed of in Darwin's day.  Evolution impacts us all, in food production, medicine, ecology and the environment, just to name a few.  Pretty impressive set of results/consequences!  The Discovery Institute's ideas have consequences as well . . . and their results are listed where exactly?

Discovery Institute upset that Darwin didn't have a Crystal Ball

I came across this phrase on a recent pot at the Discovery Institute's Evolution News and View "Life Continues to Ignore What Evolution Experts Say" and it made me do a little thinking.  I have previously said that the DI seems to live in a time bubble ("Sorry Darwin, it isn't your Evolution anymore? Are you kidding?") and have tried to narrow any arguments about evolution to about 1861 when Darwin originally published.  This article is a prime example.  Look at the author's continual use of the phrases 'Darwinian' and 'Non-Darwinian'.  Since she is speaking of parts of Evolution that also weren't covered by Stephen Jay Gould, why isn't she calling is 'Non-Gouldian Biology'? 

Since 1861 there have been many changes to the Theory of Evolution (TOE).  Often I've tried to remind people that the TOE isn't a single theory, but a large collection of theories, including (but not limited to) Natural Selection, Mutation, Gene Drift, Punctuated Equilibrium . . ..  Each theory brings clarity to the whole.  Biology includes the TOE, of which part is Natural Selection.

At no time do real scientists equate all of biology to just what Darwin contributed, not even any 'lay hearers' (see the quote below) who stayed awake in Jr High Biology class.  So Denyse builds a straw-man about contemporary biological knowledge and then seeks to demolish it.  In no way does that diminishes Darwin's contributions, but it shows that DI arguments always seemed to be aimed at Darwin, regardless of whether or not the critique is applicable.  Here is an example:

"One motif recurs: Darwinian evolution -- which most lay hearers assume to be "evolution" period -- assumes that evolution is vertical: Organisms take their form from genes inherited with slight modifications from their ancestors through their parents. And these slight changes add up gradually over time to immense and profound changes.
Non-Darwinian biology studies mechanisms for evolution that don't really work that way, including horizontal gene transfer and epigenetic change."

So, Denyse is complaining that in 1861 Darwin didn't foresee horizontal gene transfer or epigenetic change.  Does Denyse, in her apparently finite wisdom, remark that genetics started small with a paper that came out 4 years after Darwin published?  Did she completely ignore that the work of Gregor Mendel had been set aside and not re-discovered until the early 20th century?  I'm a little surprised that she isn't also complaining that Darwin didn't know the structure of DNA (1953).  Instead she picks on gene transfer (1968) and epigenetics (1942).  (Note: both gene transfer and epigenetics are older than that, but those years relate to the work Denyse is talking about and the impact on modern biology) See what I mean?  Biology has changed greatly in the last century and a half, but the DI is still whining about Darwin, what Darwin did, and especially what Darwin didn't know.  I guess she expects Darwin to have had a crystal ball?  She, and her bosses, can't seem to join the rest of us in the 21st century without finding some way to take a dig at Darwin.  Childish, isn't it?

In the real world, no one studies 'Darwinian' Biology, or 'Darwinian' Evolution, it's Biology and Evolution.  They keep making this artificial distinction just so they can take cheap shots.  Darwin's work is a part of the whole, an important part to be sure, not one that should be trivialized like this.  What I find funny is that who is doing all this work on gene transfer and epigenetics?  Those fellows at the DI?  No, it's real scientists doing actual science, not armchair Creationists who keep trying to market that they aren't Creationists!  All the DI can do is try and put an anti-science spin on everything they touch.

Evolution as Fact

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) recently had a couple of posts (part 1 and part 2) on this subject, so I decided to repeat myself and add a few things on the subject of Evolution as Fact, Evolution as Theory and Evolution as Path.

Previously, and often, I have discussed Evolution as Fact and Evolution as Theory.  The Path element is something I hadn't really considered.  One of my issues when it comes to Creationists is they tend to treat them either as one in the same, or they tend to slip from one to the other without warning so the listener/reader doesn't understand the context of a comment.  It's like trying to hit a moving target.  While early on I thought they did they accidentally, but soon realized it was a tactic specifically designed to confuse people.

How often has someone said "How can evolution be a fact when it's just a theory?"  Sometimes it's coming from a Creationists, but also it comes from people who simply do not understand the difference and are honestly questioning it.  Frequently the comments comes from political figures who have some philosophical axe to grind.  In any event, it's important to understand the differences.

So let's start.  Is Evolution a Fact?  Yes!  But before trying to convince you, let me reiterate an old example.  Is Gravity a fact?  Yes!  To test it, drop something -- preferably nothing of value.  What happened?  It fell down, toward the mass of the Earth.  Without getting into the why it fell down, can we all acknowledge that it fell down?  There is your fact.  Facts are generally evidence of something happening, an occurrence, a happening.  The pencil you dropped fell down.  It's hard to argue fact.

So from the point of view of Evolution, is it a fact?  Looking at the evidence of life on this planet and the incredible changes it has undergone over long periods of time, yes Evolution is a fact. The evidence of biology, paleontology, biodiversity, comparative anatomy, to name a few, are factual pieces of evidence.  It is so factual that many creationists don't even bother to argue against the evidence -- which is why they try and confuse people by claiming fact and theory are somehow the opposite of each other or they create an imaginary line between what they call micro and macro evolution.

One thing I will say is that the Fact of Evolution cannot be tested quite as easily as dropping a pencil.  But that doesn't mean it cannot be tested.  Have a DNA test of yourself and a relative and you can see examples of evolution.  Look at the preponderance of evidence that's been collected for centuries.  Why is there no evidence of human beings before about 250,000 years ago?  Why do we see such geographical biodiversity?  Why do we have evidence of nearly every lineage of plants and animals changing over time?  Evolution is a fact and the facts of evolution deserve to be taught in science class.

Now, how about a Theory, is Evolution a Theory?  Yes again.  And using the same term to describe both a Fact and a Theory can be confusing, we do stuff like that all the time.  A recent Jeopardy question asked about a three-letter verb that applied to sports, the theater, and politics.  The answer was 'run', and the meaning of each usage was considerable different.  Seriously many of the words we use have multiple definitions depending on the context, so why is it so hard to grasp that with Evolution?  In reality it's not, unless you don't want to recognize it.

Like Gravity (fact), there is a scientific Theory of Gravity that explains why and how the fact occurred.  That's all a scientific theory is an explanation, but not just any explanation.  It's one that explains the available facts in the most accurate way possible.  Theories are not carved in stone, but fluid.  As we learn more, theories change and adjust based on our knowledge.  There are countless examples from Gravity from Newton to Einstein, just as there are countless examples within Evolutionary Theory, like from Darwin to Gould.  The explanation of the fact of Evolution is generally referred to as the Theory of Evolution.  Charles Darwin would probably not recognize much of the current theory, but he would recognize many of the underpinnings.  Fact and Theory, same term, but very different meanings.  The Scientific Theory of Evolution IS the best current explanation of the Fact of Evolution that we have.  It isn't an absolutely perfect and complete explanation, because there are things we do not know yet and the work continues.  But what we do know, what we can support with actual evidence, and the explanations we know of all fit within the current Theory.

As with Gravity, theories do change, but that is the strength of a scientific theory.  Various creationists try and paint that as a weakness.  But seriously, how many of you would like to get treated in accordance to the Miasma Theory as it existed in about 1850?   Yet when it comes to Evolution, so many people want to demolish 150+ years of science.  The problem is they do not want to destroy it because it's wrong, it's because they believe that it threatens their precious religious beliefs.  And one of the tactics they use is to confuse Fact, Theory, and Path!

Speaking of Path, the third way of looking at things is sorta new to me.  I hadn't given it much thought, but recent comments by folks like the Discovery Institute made this make perfect sense.  Aside from the Fact of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution, there is the detailed specific instance of how one structure over time because very different.  In other words what was the pathway that whales took from the sea to the land and back to the sea?  What was the path that took a injector to an outboard motor?  What was the path from our ape-like ancestor to human beings?  Here is where a lot of the modern work on evolution is occurring.  We might never know the exact path, but every day we are learning more and getting more evidence.    We speculate on potential paths and other scientists measure up how our probable path matches the available evidence.  Pieces and parts of ancient organisms are racked and stacked in order and as we learn more, re-racked and re-stacked, like archeopteryx for example.  Of course we will never please many people, especially those with a philosophical grudge, but the more complaining they do, the closer I feel we are getting to actual answers.

Often folks attacks the Path and use it to try and attack the overall Theory and the Fact of Evolution.  The Discovery Institute is frequently guilty of this, it's one of the tactics they use to make people mistrust science.  The problem is even if a biologist doesn't have to precise path from dinosaurs to modern birds, the relationship is well supported and also supports the theory and fact of evolution.  Work will continue, which is something the DI can't seem to say about their religious ideas, can they?  Have they managed to produce anything that takes their idea beyond pseudo scientific wishful thinking?  Not yet!  Claiming to be science doesn't make your ideas automatically scientific!  If that were the case then we would also be teaching Astrology alongside Astronomy and Numerology with Mathematics.  What a frightening thought!

The Path, the Fact, and the Theory are three different contexts in which we use the term 'evolution'.  They are related, but not interchangeable.  The Theory, even changes to the Theory, doesn't change the Fact.  The fact [pun intended] that we don't know a specific Path of a change, doesn't mean Theory should be discarded, or make the Fact irrelevant.  Be clear in your context and it certainly makes things a whole lot clearer as you think about and discuss Evolution.

That's deception, not concern

I have a Google News alert for stuff coming out of the Discovery Institute.  They have quite a bit of stuff coming out, but most of it is geared strictly for the drinkers of their particular Kool-aid and if I wrote something up for each of them, blogging would be a full time job and not a particularly well-paying one at that.  However sometime that news feed drops something worth thinking about.

However, before you get your hopes up, it is not an article by the Discovery Institute, but one about them.  In particular "Controlling Language Controls the Euthanasia Debate" caught my eye.  It's not a usual topic for this blog, but I wanted to highlight the tactic of 'Controlling Language'.  The author of the article goes into the DI's Wesley J. Smith complaining about using the 'v-word'.  The word is vegetative, as in a vegetative state, a medical term describing someone with few cognitive abilities usually due to accident or illness. Apparently they don't like the term ostensibly because of negative connotations about the word 'vegetable'.  They even go as far as associating it with the 'n-word' and all the negatives there.  Does that sound familiar, associating something you don't like with something no one likes and you gain support with little effort.  I know vegetative does have negative connotations, but then don't many medical terms have them?  Telling someone they have a 'dysfunction' makes people feel OK, doesn't it?  How about 'Walleyed'?  I have to ask, is 'Yellow Fever' the next target on the political politeness express?

The real question raised is more along the lines of is the DI the least bit interested in political correctness?  The author of the article doesn't think so. For some reason he thinks that they have a religious agenda when dealing with the concept of ending a life.  Are you kidding me, the Discovery Institute having a religious agenda and trying to use words to change the playing field!  How can he possibly think that?  My guess would be he's had experience with the DI before.

I think you know where I am going with this and how this ties into their position and tactics on science education.  I would like to remind you about a few words:  theory, belief, controversy, Darwinism, Materialism, weaknesses, academic freedom . . . We've talked about many of them before.  The tactic is common from the DI.  They frequently change how words are used in order to control the debate.  My favorite example, of course, is the word Theory.  Science uses the word with one definition that is very different from the colloquial definition.  The phrase 'Evolution is only a Theory!' is designed to try and cast doubt and make people think that as a theory, it's only an idea, a concept and one not with much actual support.  Of course, in science, the word 'theory' is about the highest pinnacle anything can achieve.  It has tremendous levels of support and applicability that a run-of-the-mill 'idea' cannot compete with.  If an idea cannot compete with a theory, then you either have to raise the idea up, or tear the theory down.  How much work has the DI done raising their idea of Intelligent Design up as compared to how much effort they have put into trying to tear evolution down?  Pretty lopsided if you ask me.  In fact how much actual work have thy put into Intelligent Design?  Haven't seen much, have we?

The word 'Darwinism' is another example.  The suffix 'ism' is a derived word used in philosophy, politics, religion or other areas pertaining to an ideology of some sort (definition from from Wikipedia).  The definition goes on to say that it is frequently used derogatorily.  Now, a long time use of 'ism' is 'Creationism'.  It certainly applies as a philosophy and religious concept.  It is also frequently used in a derogatory way because of the connotation of ignoring science, denying evidence, and attempting to push a strictly religious agenda into any aspect of education.

So, when you are fighting an uphill battle with the negative connotations of 'Creationism' why not take a two-fold approach.  First distance yourself from Creationism and constantly deny any connection.  Sound familiar?  It took a Federal Court (Kitzmiller v. Dover) to remind everyone that Intelligent Design is Creationism in the same way 'Creation Science' was nothing more than Creationism dressed up a little bit. 

The other plank in this platform is trying to make the scientific theory of Evolution nothing more than another 'ism'.  I guess 'Evolutionism' would have been to weird to say, so why not attack Charles Darwin and the scientific theory at the same time?  Let's see, how many things have they blamed Charles Darwin for?  Pretty much everything bad in the 19th and 20th century.  Now in reality, what is Darwinism?  It has nothing to do with Evolution because the current state of evolutionary theory would be barely recognizable to Darwin, but facts like that have no room in the DI's version of reality.  Doubt about Darwin could very well cause some to doubt the theory.  Never lose sight that the DI's target audience are not scientists, it's politicians, school board members and the general public who vote for them and who contribute to causes they support.

Without going through every term, briefly consider how they try and equate belief in God with belief in a scientific theory, how they denigrate the naturalistic philosophy of science and try and include the supernatural, and how they treat science's ability to adjust as we learn new things as a weakness in science.  The list is pretty much endless.

I hope you would think about the DI's use of words and realize that while they are prolific when it comes to marketing and send out lots of articles, books, and frequently comment on any subject near and dear to their hearts, their use of terminology is very deliberate and designed [pun intended] to aid in their objectives.  They aren't concerned with political correctness, they are only interested in their own righteousness and any tactic, even trying to redefine the words involved, is fine with them if they think it changes the playing field in their favor. 

Words have meanings

I read a post over on the NCSE's blog, that is the National Center for Science Education.  Normally I really enjoy reading their blog and frequently refer to their site to keep abreast of science education in this country.  Often I learn a few new things as well.  However, this particular entry, Misconception Monday: Hypotheses, Theories, and Laws, Oh My!, left me rather perplexed.  In a nutshell the author, Stephanie Keep, defined Hypothesis, Theory and Law.  I was looking forward to it, especially since I've posted on this topic before (Arguments XIX -- Hypothesis, Theory, and Law), but the article rather blurred the lines between them to the point they were barely recognizable, well at least to me.  Now granted my science education from HS and college was a while ago, but what I learned put a much sharper demarcation between them than was described here.

I understand there is no absolute universal definition of the terms, the generally accepted differences were not simply one of scope, but of applicability.  A hypothesis is an idea, a testable idea about some given phenomena.  It can be very narrow or fairly broad.  Hypotheses are tested and from there they can be rejected, confirmed, or even modified.  Over time, as the modifications grow less and less encompassing, the hypothesis becomes stronger and more well supported.  Hypotheses can get rolled up into a Scientific theory.  Now there rarely is a one for one relationship here, but the Theory is much more encompassing than a hypothesis and has undergone considerable testing and constant confirmation.  In fact pretty much all the evidence supports a hypothesis, or hypotheses, before they can be considered a theory, or part of a theory.  It's a process that's been defined time and time again.

Sure, the reality is less than absolute.  New hypotheses can come out of existing theories, theories can be made up of multiple theories and hypotheses.  But as an explanation or terminology, I think the complicated reality only confuses the issue.  Before you can appreciate the complex reality, you have to understand the basics of the terminology.

Now a law is a manifestation of a theory/hypothesis.  It's much more narrow than either a hypothesis or a theory.  It's an application under a very specific set of parameters.  It's often expressed mathematically, but that's not always true.

What is true is that while hypotheses can become theories, they never 'grow-up' to be laws.  That's a common Creationist myth about science.  I actually have heard people say things like 'If Evolution is so strong, why isn't it a law!"  There I agree with Stephanie!  What bothers me the most about how blurry she defined the terms, it opens the door for this exact sort of behavior.  If we cannot firmly define our terminology, we tend to be fighting an uphill battle when other people misuse the terminology.

Out of curiosity, I searched the NCSE website for 'theory' and found this:

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true”. Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.
  

I think Stephanie should have consulting the NCSE site before being to vague.

Intelligent Design - Ohio -- Just for Laughs

Someone sent me a URL for the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio and for a second I was worried that it was rearing it's ugly head once again. Then I took a perusal and realized that the last entry was the middle of last year so I figured it wasn't anything new. I was right. Take a look for yourself. Nothing but warmed-over pseudo-science and the normal whines and misrepresentations. For example 'Truth' and 'Objectivity' are spelled correctly, but the person who maintains the site has no clue about the meaning of the words.

Let's dive back to some stuff i posted a couple of years ago, when i was focused on the definitions of words like 'Theory', 'Belief', 'Hypothesis' . . . and a few others. So let's look at the words being misrepresented on this ID site.

Here is the definition of 'Objectivity' -- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectivity). So whoever posted on this idiotic site thinks that opening up science to religion is objective? Really, Sherlock? Did you miss the part of the definition of 'personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations?' Obviously. If you want to be objective, then try and study ANY scientific subject without the use of your religion colored glasses. If religion is so objective, why are there WARS over them? Why are there hundreds, if not thousands, of religions? Why do the majority of Christians have no issue with the Theory of Evolution? Do questions like this occur to the ID'iots running this site? Of course not, that would be an attempt at objectivity, and they prove they do not understand the word.

And now before defining the other word they don't have a clue about, here is something from their site that just cracked me up:

Have you noticed there is no observable, experimental, falsifiable evidence for:
life from non-life
speciation
Darwin's "tree of life"
descent with modification?
(If not, look it up for yourself; there is none!)

BTW, this if from the link about 'Truth'! Simply stated this is a LIE. Plain talk -- there is evidence, there are many experiments, and mountains of evidence! True, we do not know every detail, but we know an incredible amount. So the purveyors of this stupid site attempt some supposed level of truth start out with a lie to support themselves. I think that's enough for now. If you need the definition of Truth, check out http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth. I know the ID site's authors won't. I mean what in the world interest do they have with anything that deals in facts and reality when they can convince themselves that a Lie is the Truth. Pretty pathetic sales job there, no wonder you rarely post anything.

Arguments XIX -- Hypothesis, Theory, and Law

[This one is out of order. I wrote it and accidentally saved rather than published it. So it's been sitting there like it was a post, but never put on the blog.]

Here is another common argument is a clear misunderstanding of the terms hypothesis, theory, and law, in a scientific context. I know, I've addressed the word Theory before, back in my post "Arguments I -- Theory". But the theme keeps re-occurring. Too many people have a poor understanding of these ideas, so I guess it's up to us to help educate.

So let's start from m the beginning. Someone sees something, a happening, an occurrence, and forms an idea about how or why it occurred. The famous apple dropping down on Newton's head is an illustration of this. As the person thinks about the idea, they formulate explanations. These are called Hypotheses. I've also seen them called "Working Hypotheses", but in any event that is the concept here. While they are not unformed ideas, they do not yet have any support or evidence.

Now while this may sound like an easy step, the promotion . . . for lack of a better word . . . of a hypothesis to a theory is not a foregone conclusion. Please note that when we use the term 'promotion', we are not talking about marketing, but support. Much time, work and energy go into discovery of support. Many hypotheses are discarded, changed, added to, and subtracted from, until you reach a point where it not only matches the evidence, but it proves its self to be predictive as well. The results are consistent, the explanation is stable, and while you may not have worked out every last detail, you have an explanation that meets what you current know about a particular occurrence. At that point it becomes a Theory.

Do you see what I am saying? Things do not become a scientific theory because someone claims it is a scientific theory. Evolution took decades, as did plate tectonics and thermodynamics. In some cases centuries passed before a hypothesis becomes a theory! You cannot even estimate how long, or how much work it will be to prove some hypotheses. For example Plate Tectonics was hypothesized in 1913. It wasn't until satellite mapping proved the continents were still moving away from each other before it became a theory, over 60 years had passed!

Now the part some folks have trouble with, a Theory is as high as you go in science. Theories DO NOT graduate into laws. We don't one day have a theory of evolution and the next have a law of evolution. Since nothing in science is ever really proven to 100% absolute, once something is a theory is remains so, unless disproven. And while the underlying details may get more and ore support, it still never gets 'promoted' above a Theory.

So what exactly is a law and how does it fit in. A scientific law is an application of a theory under very specific constraints, frequently expressed mathematically. For example the frequently misnamed "Law of Gravity" is actually known as "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation" explains that the degree of attraction between two bodies with mass is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. It is part of the Theory of Gravity, not the other way around. The Four laws of Thermodynamics are part of Physics Theory. The relationship is pretty well established. Laws are not theories, but specific, repeatable, and consistent examples of theories under very precise conditions. The Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment are both part of Genetics.

Scientific theories are not just random ideas. They are well supported explanations of a given phenomena. They start out as hypotheses and, as long as they become well supported can become a theory. Laws are not the ultimate expression of a Theory, but the application of a theory under specific conditions. Theories do not 'graduate' to laws. Such a statement reveals ignorance of the process.

Another way to look at the process is an IDEA can become a HYPOTHESIS, which can become a THEORY, which can contains zero or more LAWS. As you can see there is a continuum here, just not the one some people expect. Evolution is at the Theory stage, as high as you can go in science. Many parts of Evolution, like Genetics, contain laws even though there are no 'Laws of Evolution' right now. Creationism/Intelligent Design are at the Idea stage -- as long as you disregard the marketing hype. If you want to be generous you might want to put them at the Hypothesis stage, but that would imply someone is actually investigating the science behind it and I have seen no evidence of that, lots more marketing, but no evidence.

Misguided request to merge Science and Metaphysics

A Cincinnati Enquirer article calling for a theory that includes both Evolution and Creationism is heartfelt, but misguided. The merging of science and metaphysics cannot result in any form of scientific theory. They are and will remain isolated from one another for sound reasons. The only way for science to advance is for science to explore and discover natural reasons for the phenomena in the world. Attributing any action to the world of metaphysics would invalidate science! The realm of the metaphysical is not within science's purview, nor should it. It remains within the realm of philosophers and theologians to put in the 'Why' behind the 'How' of science. Science doesn't attempt to discover why we are here, only how we came to be here.

The recognition of "design" is a metaphysical manifestation, not a scientific one. There has been no science proving the existence of design, only recognition of the similarities between biological and biochemical mechanisms and those we know to be designed by man. While there are claims of advances in this area, there hasn't been any science to prove the connection between appearance of design and actual design.

Many scientist will agree their explorations into the enormous complexity of life has strengthened their personal beliefs, but Mr. Dressman's attempt to imply that the complexity is an automatic recognition of design is not appropriate. The author is falling into a trap where he confuses the appearance with the actuality. Science can appreciate the appearance, but cannot and has not proved the actuality of design.

The closing "Bringing metaphysics and science together in the process of developing chance-free theory in the classroom is not only appropriate, it is the only legitimate basis for biological studies." The implication that the only way to proceed is to merge both scientific theory and metaphysical explanations is false and wishful thinking on his part. Scinece has made many advances without having to resort to metaphysical claims.

The main thrust of Mr. Dressman's argument argument is the inability to accept "chance" in his view of biology. In logic this is referred to as an error based on personal bias. Just because the author has trouble accepting the role chance has played in evolution doesn't mean chance had no role! While he overemphasizes the role of chance, it is not the only mechanism at work. There are many other mechanisms that do not rely on chance. Evolutionary mutation may occur by chance, but it is by many other mechanisms that propagate a mutation into the rest of the genetic pool. Individuals mutate, but populations evolve -- and the mechanisms are becoming more understood today than they were just 50 years ago, all without including metaphysics. When I want to know how I came to be, I consult the scientist. When I want to know why I came to be I consult my parish priest. The answers are complimentary and not at all conflicting, unless I choose to be conflicted and refuse to accept either, or both, answers.