Can Intelligent Design be Presented as Fait Accompli? I Think Not!

Just yesterday NASA released the news that they have discovered seven exo-planets around a small red dwarf star, several of these planets are in what is often referred to as the 'habitable zone', the distance from the sun where water can exist is a liquid state.  The news is exciting, so exciting that little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer just had to weigh in.  Many of the news articles about the discovery mention the possibility of life having evolved there.  All of the ones I read speak in terms of possibilities, not probabilities, there is a difference.

It is exciting to think of the possibility of life having evolved on another planet, well it's exciting for most of us.  For the Discovery Institute, not so much.  Little davey says something I just have to take issue with in this post: 'Speculative Evolution Story of the Day: Seven Planets Found Where "Life May Have Evolved" ',  He said:

"So we "simply do not know" whether any of these planets could or does host an alien biology. Life could have, may have, evolved. But there's always time to do so in the future, or anyway "arguably" so, "700 times longer than the Universe has existed so far." Could be. Might be. However, everything else we do know indicates that life can't and won't originate and evolve without intelligent design."

I have to agree with his first line, we simply do not know if life has evolved on any of those planets.  It's the last line where klingy stretches reality.  Let me repeat it with a small underline:

"However, everything else we do know indicates that life can't and won't originate and evolve without intelligent design."

So, real scientists examining new exo-planets raise the possibility of life having evolved there is something we don't know, but klingy is claiming that we do know that for life to exist, there must be intelligent design?  Do we actually know this?

No, We do not!  No one knows this!  No one has made the case for Intelligent Design (ID), no one has produced any evidence supporting the idea, let alone defined an actual scientific theory explaining it.  So declaring it as something 'we do know' is basically the same thing as repeating something over and over again until people think it's true.  Well, it's not true!

Yes, I made it as a declarative statement, so let me explain.  Judge Jones left open the possibility that ID is true, but also said that no one has done any work to support it, so therefore ID was found to be not science, but religion and therefore cannot be taught in public school science class as science (Dover Trial Decision).  Nothing has changed in the past 11 years.  The DI has been marketing -- not performing science to support their ideas.  They publish in their own publishing house or religious imprints of other houses, they publish their own journals and try and pass them off as peer-reviewed, they present to religious organizations over and over again, and they keep whining because they haven't been able to produce anything valid.  Where is the science, where is the explanatory power of ID, where are the scientific advances made based on ID . . . they do not exist!  That's what I mean when I say it's not true.  Oh, someday it might be supported with actual facts, but for right now saying it as if it is fait accompli is garbage.

Passing off ID as a conclusion rather than a conjecture is a common tactic of theirs.  Just today another DI talking head, Paul Nelson (infamous for the Paul Nelson Day), has a post complaining about the way some Young Earth Creationists portrayed his ideas in a new film.  His post ("New Film Is Genesis History? Presents a False Dichotomy: I Dissent from My Role in It") contains the line:

"Biology required intelligent design, whatever the time scale of events in Earth or cosmic history happened to be."

See, by what standard does Biology require ID?  See what I mean?  They are pretending their conjecture is an actual conclusion.  No one, not Paul Nelson nor klingy, has made such a case.  The inconvenient fact, for them anyway, is there is no science supporting it.  But Paul presents it as if everyone should accept it just like klingy did..

One day we may very well discover life on another planet.  It may or may not be intelligent, it might only be single cell organisms, or something more complex.  In any event, folks like the DI will whine and cry about it up until the point where their whining and crying is recognized as whining and crying by their own proponents.  At that point they will shift gears and claim their 'designer' had to have done it because, according to the DI after all, "we do know indicates that life can't and won't originate and evolve without intelligent design".  Of course no one outside the DI and small cadre of ID proponents, nearly all Evangelical Christians, agree with that statement.

Think they won't change gears?  Well look at the whole 'micro vs macro' argument.  Creationists of all stripes, and I most certainly see the DI as just another bunch of Creationists, argued against evolution for decades.  As the evidence mounted to the point where they started looking pretty stupid to their own constituents, they changed their argument and created the whole 'micro-evolution' is OK, but 'macro-evolution'  is impossible.  Of course to biologists, there is no difference between the two, it's all just evolution.

In another example just how 'Creationism' morphed into 'Creation Science' and then tossed on an ill-fitting lab coat and miraculously (sarcasm included) became 'Intelligent Design'.  Talk about shifting gears, and yet they all seem to be heading in reverse, aren't they?

So there you have it.  NASA says something and immediately the DI tries to put an ID spin on it.  I'm sure other Creationists will try something similar.  The bottom line here is whether or not we discover life on another planet, Creationists and ID proponents still haven't established a case for ID other than wishful thinking and conjecture.  Before they can present it as a conclusion, they have a great deal of actual scientific work in front of them.  My issue is they can't seem to look in that direction, they prefer to keep looking backwards, back to the state of biology back in 1859 or so.

As a side note, we are rapidly approaching the 13th anniversary of Paul Nelson Day.  We have been waiting since April 7, 2004 for an explanation he promised for the very next day.  I would say 'tick - tock', but we are well past a clock.  I think the most appropriate sound effect is the tearing of a calendar sheet. 

Is it Permissible to Question Science?

With the departure of little casey luskin, the job of 'Chief Poster of Serious Inanities' seems to be falling to davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  He has a pretty idiotic little post over on the misnamed "Evolution 'News' and Views' site called "The Myth of the Objective Scientist".  The majority of the article is typically misguided, it's the 'conclusion' that he takes it from misguided to foolish.

OK, if you don't want to read his post, I suggest you read the article klingy references first, "The left’s own war on science".  I really suggest you read this before you read klingy's spin.  More importantly, I suggest you read the whole article, something I have a feeling klingy never bothered to do.

Here is my summary of the situation.  Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon did some long term scientific work.  Along the way he MAY have done some things that were less than kosher in the eyes of other anthropologists.  I word it that way mainly because I am not equipped to pass judgement on his work.  I am getting my information from other sources.

A journalist, Patrick Tierney, wrote a book that made serious accusations against Chagnon and his collaborator James Neel.  The charges were so serious that the American Anthropological Association, which set up an task force to investigate.  The down side here is that the nasty stuff got publicized well before any investigation, so Chagnon lost in the Court of Public Opinion.

Here is my problem, did klingy mention the results of the investigation?  No!  The fact the investigation occurred was enough for klingy to come to his spin-based conclusions.  Before getting into that, the results were exoneration for Chagnon and Neel on the serious charges supposedly uncovered by Tierney.  The ethical debate over anthologists' behavior when conducting studies is ongoing, as it should.  When questions arise, they should be dealt with, possibly changing the rules about anthropological studies.  But this exoneration was ignored by klingy.

So what did klingy get from all this.  He makes one point, scientists are people.  Gee, I don't know about you, but I sorta had that one in my head already.  No one ever said scientists were some inhuman automaton that can achieve some unheard of level of objectivity.  What has been said, and proven over and over again, is that Science can be an objective process.

Yes, I said 'can be'.  By itself, it isn't objective, but the process lends itself to a level of objectivity.  Look at what happens when a scientist screws up.  Pons and Fleischmann's Cold Fusion Experiment is a good example.  Rather than take their results at face value, other scientists attempted to replicate their work and when no one could, their results were relegated to a footnote in history rather than a startling breakthrough. Hwang Woo-suk's cloning experiment is another.  Scientist messes up, and it is uncovered and dismissed.  That's part of the process!  It leads to much more objectivity than many processes in other fields!  No one claims scientists are perfect, but the process -- the use of actual scientific methodology -- tends to reach much more objective conclusions.

Those are just two examples, but when you look at the hundreds and thousands of scientific discoveries that do pass through the many gauntlets of scientific methodology, including examples of scientists going against current orthodoxy, you cannot argue with the success of science.  Look at the example of Chagnon.  After all his work, there were complaints, much motivated by political reasons.  Were mistakes made?  Maybe, but the serious charges were false and the integrity of the overall work restored.

But, of course, klingy doesn't go the extra mile and actually investigate.  He read part of one article and takes it as confirmation of his own biases.  Here is his closing:

"Misled by the myth of objectivity, many in the media and in education are themselves blinded. And so you have a dynamic that goes beyond a vague confirmation bias to an absolute insistence that when it comes to certainties like Darwinian evolution, no challenge is permitted and anyone willing to consider counterevidence is demonized as a "creationist."

So according to kling, challenges to evolution are not allowed.  Hmm, how many times has someone over the last 150 years questioned parts of the Theory of Evolution?  I couldn't possibly count them.  But they do tend to fall into two broad categories, scientific challenges and philosophical challenges.

We have scientists who raise objections, do the scientific work and that work improves the overarching theory.  People like Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould are perfect examples.  There is a long list of scientists who have added to the body of science, including evolution, and they do so by re-examining the current state of knowledge.  Something klingy seems to think cannot be challenged.  If science is so set-in-stone, then how are any advances made at anytime?  They are made by doing to actual work!  Not marketing, not whining, not lying . . . but actually doing science!

The other category of objection are people, like klingy and his buds at the Discovery Institute, who object for philosophical reasons.  The majority of those are actual, honest-to-god (pun intended) Creationists of one stripe or another.  Many simply object, quoting various religious tracts, and refusing the accept the scientific validity of evolution as a whole.  These folks come in a variety of types:  Old Earth Creationists, Young Earth Creationists, Evangelicals, Hamians (little kennie ham's followers), to name a few.  The honest ones self-identify as Creationists.  Other Creationists are much more stealthy, maybe 'closeted' is a better term.  They hide their religious motivations, dress up their ideas in scientific-sounding language, and market them all the while trying to segregate themselves from their religious beliefs . . . at least officially.  Sound familiar?  These folks are not Creationists because they object to Evolution, they are Creationists because they hold a religious belief that the Universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation.

Do you see how foolish his conclusion is?  Over the years there have hundreds, even thousands of examples of actual scientific objections to Evolution.  Some of them gathered and garnered the evidence to support their objections, thereby improving the validity of the theory.  Many of their ideas don't work out, but at least they made the effort!  That's the part klingy seems to forget.  If your objections are actually based on science, do the work to either support your ideas, or abandon them as unsupported.

If your objections are based on your religious philosophy, at least be honest about it.  But no, look at what he says: that support for evolution is only some form of confirmation bias because any sort of objectivity of a scientist apparently impossible.  And if you dare to object, you get labeled as a creationist.  What a load of nonsense. 

So the answer to the question I started in the title, Is it permissible to question science?  The answer is that it is not only permitted, but encouraged.  The requirement is you question with science and you be willing to do the work to either support your ideas or see them eventually dismissed.  If your objection is based on philosophy, then you should really look at your belief set.  If you believe some actions by a capricious deity, you probably are a creationist.

To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy,

"If you demand your religious beliefs should be taught in science class as if they are science, youuuuuuu might be a Creationist!"  

And, for the record, klingy, I believe you are one!  I think it's time to come out of the closet.

But then Klinghoffer isn't the only one.

So let's see, Klinghoffer busted in a lie of omission, so as I am trying to catch up on things I read a little post by Casey Luskin who makes a sort-of interesting claim. A Pro-Intelligent Design Peer-Reviewed publication by someone named Andy McIntosh in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics from WIT Press. Now, of course, I trust nothing that comes out of any of those less-than-honest-fellows over at the Discovery Institute, especially mouthpiece lawyer Luskin. So in my opinion this leads to some questions.

First Question is -- is the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics from WIT Press actually a peer-reviewed scientific journal? To check I went to Pub Med. I figure WIT Press and the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics should appear referenced there and other scientists should be referencing them in their own work.

Why am I not surprised the number was '0'. Yup, in the hundreds of thousands of research documents, decades of work, and thousands of scientists, no one references a publication or a press that little casey calls peer-reviewed. WIT Press does market itself as being referenced by 'CrossRef', ProQuest' and other information sources. Yes, these services can connect you with information -- but that doesn't make them a valid reference for the scientific validity of your work. They are information brokers, that's all. So far casey is meeting my expectations.

So second question, Andy McIntosh? A quick Google and Wikipedia says that he is a professor of thermodynamics and combustion theory at the University of Leeds. It also says that

"He is a scientist who disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus on biological evolution."

Oh gee, should this be a surprise to anyone? He does have one book referenced: "Genesis for Today: Showing the Relevance of the Creation/Evolution Debate to Today's Society (foreword by Ken Ham)" With a forward by Ken Ham? McIntosh is also published in 'Evangelicals Now'.

Things aren't looking good for casey, as usual. Oh wow, just spotting something else. Guess who is on the editorial Board for WIT Press Journals? Check out their webpage and look down the list, there is an 'A. McIntosh, University of Leeds, UK'.

There's more. Do you remember 'Truth in Science'? I mentioned it in another post "Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!" Stephen C. Meyer, another disagreeable DI fellow, identified a Norman Nevin as one of the scientists who is not a known ID advocate who enthusiastically endoresed his long argument from ignorance "Signature in the Cell". This is just another lie because Nevin is a member of Truth in Science, a group affiliated with the Discovery Institute and a pro-ID group in Great Britain. Guess who else is a member? You got it -- one each Professor Andrew McIntosh! He's even more than just a member, he's on the Board of Directors. Why wouldn't casey mention any of this?

So what do we have so far, we have a paper written by a Young-Earth Creationist, published by an apparently non-scientific press of which he is on the editorial board. Toss in his already existing anti-evolution bias and his only book publication and my conclusions are significantly different than luskin's. I certainly don't think this measures up in any way to a valid peer-reviewed scientific paper. Do you?

Wild Bill and his sidekick Glenn Beck-erhead

PZ Myers on Pharyngula, Lauri Lebo on Religion Dispatches, and Jack Krebs on Panda's Thumb are among the posts reporting something that should surprise very few. William Dembski is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). Gee! Who'd have thunk it!

It is funny that the man who several times has predicted the demise of Evolution within 10 years has undergone his own transformation within that same time limit. Yes, in 2000 he wrote an essay saying he was NOT, emphatically not, a YEC because the evidence of an old Earth was so strong, and now, just 10 years later, he announces that. . . as Jeff Foxworthy would put it "He are one!" My question is how is this going to help his credibility the next time he announces the decennial demise of Evolutionary Theory? (Head Smack!) Of course, since he has absolutely no credibility there is no impact.

I guess a second question is how will this sit with his Discovery Institute's lords and masters? I mean they tend to bend over backwards to appease the members of their 'big tent' approach and avoid internal conflicts until they can rid the world of evolution. Billy switching camps might create some internal conflict -- we can always hope. Will Billy's next fluff piece still support Michael Behe who, as far as I know, is not only not a YEC but a supporter of Common Descent? This might be fun.

On a side note, PZ's link also has connection to a Glenn Beck-erhead radio interview where he, once again, reveals to the world his colossal ignorance of anything scientific. There's another surprise. That Glenn is also a died-in-the-blood Creationist, as if his earlier rants weren't already pretty indicative. What does surprise me is how he expressed it. The script might as well have been written by kennie ham. Becker-head says that he's never seen a half-monkey/half-man and asks why haven't other species evolved into humans, and several other inanities that do nothing but show how little he knows.

Now I know all Glenn is doing is pandering to his core audience -- who will continue to make him wealthy by buying his junk and attending his shows. But even he has to realize just how stupid it makes him look. With any luck he might lose a few supporters and then he and Wild Bill can commiserate over a beer.

Thanks to Jack, Lauri, and PZ for highlighting all the fun and games. Now to get some popcorn and watch for fallout. Who will be first? Will Dembski try and weasel his way out of it? Will a mouthpiece for the DI tell us how Dembski's change is no big deal? Will kennie ham ever come out of the closet? Will Glenn Beck-erhead continue to spout about nothing at all? Stay tuned!

The Discovery Institute's Continued Persecution of Darwin

Once again Darwin is being blamed for things he had nothing to do with. And typically the culprit is the Discovery Institute, this time John West. FamilyNet will be airing a documentary featuring West waxing less than Poetic called "What Hath Darwin Wrought?" It also stars a couple of other Discovery Institute shills.

First things first, FamilyNet? Of course we continually hear about how the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design have nothing to do with religion. So of course their documentary is featured on a broadcast television network owned by ComStar Media Fund. It was founded in 1979 as the National Christian Network, and took the name FamilyNet in 1988 under the ownership of Jerry Falwell. The channel was acquired by InTouch Ministries in October 2007 from the Southern Baptist Convention. In December of 2009, FamilyNet was acquired by Robert A. Schuller's ComStar Media Fund.

So let's get this straight:

• National Christian Network
• Jerry Falwell
• Southern Baptist Convention
• InTouch Ministries
• Robert A. Schuller (Televangelist, in case you didn't know)

So the Discovery Institute is still playing to crowds of people already primed to accept their ideas and they still insist that they have nothing to do with religion or a religious perspective.

So "What has Darwin Wrought?" Well according to West

"If you're concerned about the devaluation of life -- for example, if you're concerned about the new atheists who claim that science somehow proves that God doesn't exist -- you need to be concerned about Darwin because a lot of those ideas came from him," West contends. "Darwin was a nice man personally, but his ideas were not so nice -- and they're not accurate, in fact. But they have tremendous repercussions for each and every one of us today."

So is West ever right? Nothing he has produced has shown me he knows anything about the subject he spouts off about. And this article calls him a scholar! In my opinion he does not deserve to be considered a scholar.

• So What about Darwin's work devalued life? Nothing!
• What does Darwin have to do with "New Atheists"? Nothing!
• What has been proven inaccurate about Darwin's work? Nothing! Oh yes there were things he didn't know and some details he didn't get complete, but his core ideas have been well supported and continue to be well supported by the evidence even today!

In other words this is nothing but a typical marketing film. marketed to religious folks, by folks who are trying to demonize Darwin in an effort to discredit the science of evolution. Of course since the Discovery Institute hasn't been able to discredit the science itself, they attack one man who has done little but explain the world around us.

Yes, that is ALL Darwin did. The questions he offered answers to had been asked for decades, even centuries. His observations, and those of the many who came after him, have done nothing but explain natural events that happen on a daily basis. The problem is West and his cronies don't like the explanation. They prefer one that puts God ahead of anything else (Stated pretty clearly in the Wedge Document). And they spend marketing money to attack a man who is safely dead!

Wells, who claims his prayers as a member of the Unification Church lead him to spend his life destroying Darwinism. We have yet another connection to religion. And we have also another unsupported attack on a man who did nothing wrong. A man who offered an explanation of what is actually going on. And it's being offered by a man who has a huge chip on his shoulder, who belongs to an organization who cannot attack the evidence or the science so they market and sell -- primarily to religious audiences. Pretty ridiculous, if you ask me. Anyone who buys into this is already primed against science anyway. Bet the reception by anyone outside of the targeted FamilyNet audience gives it the same credence as 2008's "Expelled:" mockumentary?

Someone else with a working brain visited the Creation 'Museum'

The write up is hilarious! "Kentucky Fried Creation"is a masterpiece. I especially loved one of his summary lines

"the only difference between a 21 million dollar Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY and people who consult astrologers is budget"

Pseudo-science is pseudo-science regarldess of what other labels you want to put on it.

Fun stuff suggested by the NCSE

Note from the NCSE: "Fascinating, funny, and frightening--Daily Show writer Daniel Radosh delightfully dissects creationism. Download the chapter from his book, "Rapture Ready!"

http://ncse.com/files/pub/evolution/Excerpt--formatted--footnotes--FB.pdf

Without a doubt, great read! Complete with interviews with little kennie ham. This guy is really scary. I love the first part when he says he's not bashing evolution . . . then does . . . then claims it's not bashing. You know if kennie ham loses Pascal's Wager, he's in for a hot time!

Noah's Ark

Most of us are familiar with the tale of Noah's Ark and how one small family built a ship longer than a football field capable of carrying two of every life form while the rest of the world was covered in water and all other life eradicated. It's a common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) myth and like most of their beliefs there is not one shred of evidence.

YEC'ers are also one of the more vocal evangelical groups opposing things like evolution for religious reasons. One of the more lunatic YEC'ers is a favorite target of opportunity named little kennie ham who rips folks off every day by feeding their beliefs.

Well little kennie is probably jumping for joy because Noah's Ark has been found . . . again. Another evangelical group, called by some strange coincidence the Noah's Ark Ministries International, claims to have found it in some mountains in Turkey. Now normally I wouldn't pay much attention to such announcements but something really funny caught my eye. How do they 'know' it's Noah's Ark? Well they do claim not to be 100% certain, only 99.9%. So why are they so sure? Carbon dating!

Does this strike your funny bone the way it struck mine? OK, just in case I am just being my usual weird self let me explain. What is one of the most common methods for dating fossils and other geological evidence that goes completely against YEC'ers main contention that the Earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old? Yup, Radiological dating. They love to complain that it's inaccurate, misleading, and impossible to use reliably.

Now do you get it? One of the methods used most often by science to disprove their ideas is OK to use as long as it supports their preconceived notions. Gotta love double-standards.