Casey Thrice!

I really wasn't planning to post anything else about little casey for a while -- but sometimes he gets really, really stupid. OK, I can overlook that because it's so common, but when he lies . . . well I can't help another post.

So let's set the stage, Casey posted this little POS: "Free to Think: Caroline Crocker's New Book Tells Story of Discrimination Against Intelligent Design". I was planning on just reading the post and heading off to bed. But when he started it with a lie . . . I had to post one more time.

"While Chris Comer's lawsuit made a bogus case for discrimination, there are cases documenting genuine discrimination against scientists who support intelligent design (ID)."

Simple question, was Chris Comer's lawsuit about discrimination? No it was not! In 2008, Comer filed a suit that the policy she was terminated for (requiring Texas Education Agency employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism -- even though evolution is part of the curriculum) was unconstitutional, and that she was fired without due process. Her lawsuit sought a court order overturning the neutrality policy on teaching creationism and declaring that her dismissal was illegal under the Constitution and her reinstatement.

Anyone else see any sign of Comer suing for discrimination? In fact she might have done better for suing for some form of discrimination -- or maybe harassment would be a better term. But the choice was hers and she did not sue for being discriminated against. ( Here are a few references for your pleasure: http://www.texscience.org/reviews/tea-science-director-resigns.htm, http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-tea_03tex.ART.State.Edition1.4de5960.html?npc, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/09/09-50401-CV0.wpd.pdf)

Now I can understand why casey has trouble identifying discrimination. After all his bosses at the Discovery Institute have been whining for a while about people like Richard Sternberg, Guillero Gonzales, Michael Egnor, and Catherine Croker and frequently claiming that they were discriminated against. They are currently holding up David Coppedge as their martyr of the Month -- as discussed in the previous post (Casey Duecy). They are constantly portrayed as martyrs for the ID cause. They were even mis-represented as such in the Stein mockumentary 'Expelled:'. So far no evidence of discrimination has been found for any of them, but it might be a reason why casey, a lawyer himself, has no actual idea of what discrimination means.

So why would little casey lie?

It's easy, he is building a strawman to convince people that his buddy Crocker was discriminated against. Not so! Croker was a part-time biology instructor hired to teach a specific subject in accordance with the established guidelines -- she flunked on a number of issues -- one of which is her violation of school policy by teaching 'problems with evolution' and 'intelligent design'. Personally I would have fired her for those violations. The school simply told her to knock it off and stick with the curriculum. A university spokesman said she was not renewed for reasons unrelated to her views on intelligent design, and that though they wholeheartedly supported academic freedom, "teachers also have a responsibility to stick to subjects they were hired to teach, and intelligent design belonged in a religion class, not biology." You can read more about it here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/03/AR2006020300822_pf.html. Oh and the italics were added by yours truly -- in case you wondered.

Her defense was academic freedom, but as anyone with half-a-brain knows academic freedom does not mean you can introduce unrelated material as if it were part of the curriculum. She was hired to teach biology, not religion . She should have been fired! Catherine Croker was not discriminated against, she was let go at the end of her contract. But in an effort to turn Croker into a more sympathetic figure, casey lied about Christine Comer's case and then lied about the reasons for Croker not being renewed.

Anyone else see why when I read anything from the DI, little casey's stuff in particular, I take it with a large bag of salt? It's not prejudice, it's experience.

Casey Duecy

Casey Luskin can be really confusing to many people, but after all he is a lawyer, so that may be part of the job description. To me he's not very confusing as long as you understand one thing -- if it is positive for ID, he supports it -- if it is anti-ID he does not, regardless of how foolish it makes him look.

I recently discussed casey's issue with double standards (Luskin's Double Standard). Personally I am against double standards, I think if your position is against certain behavior it should be against it no matter which side of the street someone is standing on. For example in a recent discussion someone was very surprised that I wasn't all up in arms about the plans for a mosque near Ground Zero. My point was that the people asking for this have as much right as ANYONE else in this country to ask it! Be it a mosque, a church, or a convenience store, they have the right to ask the question and go through the process as anyone else. To not allow them to ask because of what they are asking is a double standard! It doesn't mean I agree with placing a mosque at Ground Zero, but they have the right to ask for it and should not be harrassed or shouted down in the meetings/hearings.

I disagree with one of Fox News pundits, Bill O'Reilly -- the self-proclaimed "no spin zone". Now aside from my issues with pundits in general, O'Reilly in particular, I disagree with his whining about the behavior of the paparazzi. It's not that I agree with the tactics used by the paparazzi and other forms of ambush journalism -- but Billy himself uses the exact same tactic to ambush politicians. This is a double standard!

Now how does this apply to little casey -- again? It's simple. In a recent post about the Christine Comer case (Federal Appeals Court Rejects Chris Comer’s Lawsuit Alleging Discrimination Against Evolution) casey made the following statement:

"The moral of this story is this: Whether the case ultimately wins or loses in
court, don’t speak out publicly on a case until you know the facts."

In this case the ruling went against Comer and casey had his little pom-poms out. Here is my view of casey and his double standard. Are casey, and his buds over at the DI, going to wait for the facts in the Coppedge case before making public statements? Answer -- it's too late they have already made them and they are continuing to make them!

http://www.discovery.org/a/14471, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/coppedge_meets_kafka034111.html, http://www.discovery.org/a/14501, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/is_prointelligent_design_speec034151.html, http://www.discovery.org/a/14511 are just a few. There are many more by just about everyone over at the DI who can beat their heads on a keyboard.

JPL has yet to say anything publicly, more than likely on the advice of their attorneys. But without an understanding of the facts of the case the DI has flooded the Internet with support for Coppedge! All they have to work with is Coppedge and his lawyers statements. In other words . . . Casey and his buds are guilty of a double standard. Why would that be the case?

Well go back to my original statement. If it's pro-ID casey supports it, it it's anti-ID casey does not -- regardless of how foolish it makes him look. Look at the cases. Comer was fired for forwarding an email about an anti-ID speaker -- supposedly the Texas Education Agency is supposed to remain neutral on the subject of Evolution and ID. Yet Coppedge was demoted for, what he claims, is his public support of ID in his workplace. One is potentially anti-ID, the other obviously pro-ID and it reveals casey's double standard -- it also reveals the hypocritical tactics over at the DI. Does it make him look foolish? Well I think it does, but you can make your own judgement.

I would to thank the Sensuous Curmudgeon for pointing this out in his post "Discovery Institute: Comer, Coppedge, & Casey". I look forward to being able to remind little casey of his double standard. But I will wait before rubbing his nose in it until, as casey himself advises, I know the facts!

In response to a comment

In response to one of my posts,"Intelligent Design, Sh** or get off the Pot!", Rory Roybal said

"Actually, an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life, and this is now an established one way trend. To understand this turn of events, including perspectives of many leading scientists, see Intelligent Design vs. Evolution — The Miracle of Intelligent Design."

In a nutshell, I disagree. But my response got a little long for a comment response so I decided to make it a new post. So according to Rory "an increasingly large percentage of today's scientists believe in an intelligent designer of the universe and life, and this is now an established one way trend." If this statement is true, we should see evidence of that. Now rather than first look at his link, I wanted to look at other sources and see if I can verify this.

My first thought was that the Discovery Institute, the less than honest bastion of ID would be crowing about it. Alas that is not so. Oh they make this claim, but they have not even attempted to substantiate it. In fact I have already pointed out, in the the post Rory responded to, concerning Phillip Skell and Norman Nevin, identified by Meyer they were not previously known as ID advocates, but the reality is they are both long-time advocates. So where else might we find these scientists? Any new additions to the "Dissent" petition?

You might remember that the Discovery Institute has a petition they started in 2001 that currently has over 700 names. Originally they claimed the list held over 700 Doctoral Scientists, but a closer examination shows that not only are they not all have Doctorate degrees, but many are not even scientists -- and while the title of the petition is "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" the primary reason many of the signers signed was due to a religious rather than a scientific objection.

The reason I bring up the list is because it took 8 years to break 700 signers, even ignoring the other issues with the petition (Few Biologists but many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition), it was presented as an amicus curiae brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover court case in October 2005. The the list was used in an attempt to show this upswelling of support for Intelligent Design (Something Rory is claiming). So a check of the petition site (http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/index.php) and I find the site has changed a lot since I was last there. First of all the number of signers is no longer displayed. And to think they were so proud of their 700+ names. Second some names on the list show more than one position. For example:

Charles E. Hunt is both a Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Professor of Design University of California, Davis and also, Visiting Professor of Physics University of Barcelona (Spain).

It makes the list look even longer, but if Rory is correct I would expect to see a bunch of new names, but it doesn't look like they have passed 800. No, I didn't count them all, there are about 40 names per page and 18 pages . . . Rory, you can do the math. Oh and just in case you ask, the site says the list was last updated in January 2010.

Now what about scientists against teaching ID as science? After the Dover Trial and in response to the use the Discovery Institute put their little list -- a grass-roots effort petition supporting the teaching of evolution was started. (A Scientific Support For Darwinism). In four days 7,733 scientists signed up and, unlike the DI's list, over 68% work in biology or a biology related fields.

OK, let's look for other evidence.

In Ohio (2002) a list of 44 peer-reviewed articles, were presented to the State School Board. This list was supposed to show another ground swell of support for Intelligent Design. When the majority of the authors were contacted (26 of the 34 authors) most of them expressed surprise that their work could be construed as support for Intelligent Design and those articles that even mentioned it did so in the negative. (Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading) So has the list of peer-reviewed literature changed since then?

Let's shift over the Pub Med, a repository of scientific papers used by researchers looking for both support and citations for reference material for their own scientific research. How many scientists have published papers in support of Intelligent Design? Do this test for yourself, go to PubMed and search for "Intelligent Design" then look through the abstracts of those papers and see how much support you are finding among actual scientists. While I found 127 references, the majority of them used the terms in a more colloquial sense.

There were a few that did tie into the Intelligent Design, but not in the way Rory's comment made it sound:

• The religious essence of intelligent design. Forrest B. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2009;74:455-62. Epub 2009 Dec 22.
• Introduction: protistan biology, horizontal gene transfer, and common descent uncover faulty logic in intelligent design. Espinosa A. J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2010 Jan 1;57(1):1-2. Epub 2009 Dec 18
• Deconstructing design: a strategy for defending science. Miller KR. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2009;74:463-8. Epub 2009 Sep 4.
• The relationship between evolutionary biology and religion. Reiss MJ. Evolution. 2009 Jul;63(7):1934-41. Epub 2009 Apr 13.
• The evolution of creationists in the United States: where are they now, and where are they going? Padian K. C R Biol. 2009 Feb-Mar;332(2-3):100-9. Epub 2008 Nov 26. Review. Biol Res. 2009;42(2):223-32. Epub 2009 Aug 20.
• Some considerations about the theory of intelligent design. Carreño JE, Hansen F, Irarrázabal M, Philippi R, Correa M, Borja F, Adriasola C, Silva F, Serani A.

There were a few more like these, but these look like a good representation. I would expect to see a great deal of work on intelligent design, but the lack of work tells a different message. Now in contrast there were over 5,000 when I searched for "Natural Selection" and over 269,000 when looking for "evolution".

What about Labs doing ID work? Remember in 2005 the Discovery Institute opened their own Lab, The Biologic Institute. The stated purpose of this 'Lab' was to find the scientific evidence supporting ID as a viable scientific theory. So far the lab has been conspicuously silent on the work supporting it's stated goal. So who else is doing ID work? If any of them are, they are not talking about it!

So Rory, where is this 'one way trend' you mentioned. I have not been able to find any evidence of it. So I went search at a few other places where I would expect to see evidence of this paradigm shift, colleges and Universities that teach Biology.

• Butler University -- Their curriculum in Biology makes no mention of ID, but it does mention . . . dare I say it . . . Evolution. But Butler is not a secular school, how about the largest Baptist University in the US?

• The biology department at Baylor has this posted on their website:

"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously." (http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php?id=27622)

• Lehigh University, the home college of Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Michael Behe and one of the few actual biology-related scientists associated with the DI. Well here is their posted comment:

"The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific." (http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm)

• Let move closer to home, UD, better known as the University of Dayton. For those of you not familiar with UD:

  "The University of Dayton ranks as a top-tier national, doctoral-level university and one of the 10 best Catholic universities in the nation, according to U.S. News & World Report."

  No, no fancy statements like Lehigh and Baylor, but a complete lack of any mention on UD's biology department website of Intelligent Design.

OK, Rory, now I will take a look at your link . . . and I am quite disappointed. I am not trying to be insulting, but you really haven't done much in the way of research, like maybe for a Master's program, have you? Your self-authored paper says 40% of American physicists, biologists and mathematicians believe in God -- so what? Belief in God in no way implies support for ID. Plus it doesn't show any significant change in recent years. In fact if we could go back and have a similar poll done say in 1920, I bet the number would have been considerable higher. But that is my opinion.

Let's see where do you go from there . . ever hear of Quote-Mining? It's a common, but reprehensible, Creationist tactic and that's what your list of quotes looks like. Very un-impressive. You make a lot of self-serving statements, but you provide no actual support for the comment made in my blog. Sorry, Rory -- you need to do better than this. Your paper is a collection of common creationist ideas, but just writing them down again doesn't mean they are true.

Bottom line . . . no support I have been able to find agrees that scientists are changing their mind on Creationism/Intelligent Design. It's not science, it should not be taught as science, and it should not be part of the conversation until proponents engage in more than unsupported wishful thinking and unsupported comments -- like yours.

Matzke v. Luskin -- No contest!

Nick Matzke has a very nice take down of Casey Luskin on Panda's Thumb. Luskin will probably miss the point -- but that is not unexpected. Luskin whiffed when he missed the point of the original article, plus I don't think any criticism will be well received -- but then it never is. Personally I'm not sure Casey writes his own stuff, but then who would let him ghostwrite for them? I mean this is a man who called a bicycle irreducibly complex. (Carl Zimmer:Oh No! I’ve Seen the Impossible! My Eyes!)

Well, as I read it I thought of something else and then his closing really tied into a few other things I have posted. It also occurred to me because I've been re-reading some of the Dover Trial transcripts recently and this point stuck in. Well here is Nick's closing paragraph that kind of jelled the thought for me:

"Everything I’ve said above is made even worse by the fact that the issue at trial was not “is there some marginal chance that ID might have the tiniest smidgen of credibility, if you squint just right, if you ignore everything inconvenient, and if the wind is blowing the right direction and the moon is in the correct phase.” Rather, the issue was “is this ID stuff on the level of what is typically expected to be taught in public school biology classrooms and textbooks?”"

I think Luskin, Meyer, and the others confuse 'possible' with 'probable' and seem to think that getting someone to admit that something is possible is the same thing as accepting it as an explanation, even the best explanation. Is Intelligent Design a possibility? Yes, an emphatic yes! So are ghosts, time-traveling aliens, and skiing through a revolving door. Coming up with some 'perspective' all things are possible! But the ONLY way to increase the probability that they are a viable explanation of something is to offer evidence. That is the step that trips up the most ardent Intelligent Design proponent. I have mentioned before my wife believes in ghosts and while I admit the possibility of the existence of ghosts, I am not hunting up random heat sources to prove the existence of ghosts and I certainly don't jump to ghosts as any explanation of a noise or moving curtain. The possibility is not the same thing as acceptance of an idea as an answer to a question.

I recently re-read a post of Richard Dawkins who was describing his experience viewing the Ben Stein abortion, towards the end of his post he discusses the interview that was 'used' in "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The editing made it look like Dawkins accepts ID as a viable idea/theory. (Is Richard Dawkins a Raelian? and Richard Dawkins Misrepresents position of ID proponents on the identity of the Designer) But when looked at in a more honest perspective, like the question that he was actually asked and how he answered it, you realize that he was laying out an extreme possibility . . . not the acceptance of the idea as a useful or viable explanation. Even listening to that part of the mockumentary, I never thought for a second that Dawkins was explaining a viable concept, just musing possibilities. in my opinion, only someone looking to misrepresent him would take it seriously.

I found a similar theme while looking through the testimony again of the Dover trial, and I agree completely with Nick's point. The testimony of the defense experts was designed [pun intended] to raise the possibility of ID, as if the reasonable doubt that ID was possible made it OK to teach in it science class. But when nothing was presented on the viability of ID as an explanation -- that is where the plaintiffs tore them up!

It was so noted in Judge Jones decision that ID might be correct -- but it is a religious proposition, not a scientific explanation. Or to borrow Nick's words “is this ID stuff on the level of what is typically expected to be taught in public school biology classrooms and textbooks?" 5 years ago I was perfectly willing to answer is "No, not yet!", but after the last 5 years of pronouncements of the demise of evolution, the continued publishing of philosophy dressed up as science, the lack of any actual work to support their ideas, and the tactics of the DI in Texas and other states, I think the 'not yet' can be safely put aside. The answer is a resounding "No!"

Evolution's Imminent Demise?

Over on Topix a thread was started called "The Collapse of Evolution". It got me started thinking just how long has someone, usually a Creationist of one stripe or another, been predicting the imminent demise of the Theory of Evolution. Well I know it was well before I have been involved, which was just a few years ago when Ohio was on the target list of the Discovery Institute. I am not asking how long there have been anti-evolutionists. I assume they have existed since the first peep about the Theory of Evolution. I will lay odds that any idea that didn't recognize the direct involvement of one deity of another has raised the ire of someone. But more specifically how long have various pronouncements about the immediate demise been going on?

I was over on Pharyngula, PZ Myers blog and one of his posts "About that ad predicting the fall of Darwinism in 2013…" had a great link near the end. The link is to Glenn Morton's "The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism". You have to take a look, some of these are hilarious! Not all of these are specifically about Evolution, but the majority certainly are. I love the 1840 "imminent demise of the old earth viewpoint", sure real successful that one.

So I wonder what 2013 will bring? If I were a betting man I would say a new prediction about the demise of evolution! In fact I am a betting man. I bet that in 2013 the nearest we will get to the demise of evolutionary theory will be additional pronouncements added to Glenn Morton's list. Any takers? Terms and odds are up for negotiation, all bets final by the end of 2010!

On a small side note, I have not found one pronouncement of the imminent demise of Creationism. I guess pro-science has a much better understanding of human nature than anti-science have concerning nature, human or otherwise.

Mythicism == Intelligent Design

Over on Dr. James McGrath's blog, "Exploring The Matrix" he brought up an interesting point and related it to both scientific and historical investigations. I liked his point and the way he expressed it:

" . . . that mythicism is very much like intelligent design in at least one
important regard. It wishes to redefine the methods of a scholarly discipline in
order to accomplish an ideological agenda. What criteria should be used in
historical study? What should the standard of evidence be?"

While I fully expect Luskin, or someone else at the Discovery Institute pool of knee-jerk responders, to complain about his characterization of Intelligent Design, but isn't this exactly what we have been seeing? It came out clearly 5 years ago [has it been that long already?] at the Dover Trial when Behe agreed that in order for Intelligent Design to be accepted as science the very definition of science would have to be expanded to include supernatural causation. Is the reason they [ID proponents] have had so much trouble producing evidence simply because the current scientific methodology cannot be applied? It would certainly explain why anything that comes out of them is long on philosophy and short on science.

I think the problem in such a redefinition of science is not that it would make current scientists uncomfortable or threaten their livelihood -- as stated by those same less-than-honest fellows at the DI -- but that it would take a methodology that produces understandable and usable results replaced by one that doesn't seem capable of either. Seriously, after years of trying neither Meyer, Behe, nor Demski has been able to put any of their ideas within any framework in such a way that can withstand the scrutiny of anyone who doesn't already subscribe to their idea. Look at both the praises and criticisms of their work. The praises come from people who already subscribe to their ideological agenda and the criticisms come from everyone else. In my Post "Intelligent Design Sh** of get off the pot" I remember Stephen C. Meyer saying that ID was receiving support from scientists who were not ID advocates. Instead of leaving such a comment unsupported, which is the norm, he named chemist Philip Skell and geneticist Norman Nevin -- yet when we looked a tiny bit closer, which took all of 10 seconds, we discover that both Skell and Nevin are longtime ID advocates. So even when claiming external success the reality is only someone who already supports them does so.

I also liked Dr. McGrath's closing analogy:

"So (to use a sports analogy) mythicists are welcome to propose new rules that
they believe are better. But that will never be accomplished by standing on the
sidelines and criticizing those who play the game by the rules. Couches and
stadiums are full of such fans who know better than the players."

I will re-state what I think the DI, and any ID advocate, should do. They need to get out of the public view and go into the lab and do the legwork and use the methodologies according to current standards. They should open their work for scrutiny and criticism and work on developing repeatable, and usable concepts. If they cannot or even will not then they belong on the same fringes as tarot card readers, phrenologists, mystics and mythics.

His closing line "Few of them could do a better job if given an opportunity to take the field" is telling as well. How biologists are anti-evolution or pro-intelligent design (which are not the same thing no matter what Luskin seems to claim)? Damn few! Yet this is the organization bent on erasing evolution from the face of biological science? Sidelines indeed!

Thanks Dr. McGrath for another very interesting perspective!

Surprise! The definition of ID has 'evolved'

Mark Farmer, over at The Panda's Thumb has a great post "More DI Word Games". Apparently a few months back he was working on something and snagged the definition of Intelligent Design (ID) from the Discovery Institute (DI) website. Now this should not surprise anyone. If you DARE write anything about Intelligent Design the DI, through its toothless attack chihuahuas like luskin and klinghoffer, will immediately whine if they feel you are not representing ID correctly. Well if you aren't an ID supporter, they will whine no matter what you say, but getting the definition usually cuts down the whining a small amount. OK, so far, so good, Mark went and got this from their site:

"Intelligent design is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution."

Now even more recently he went and looked up the definition again and guess what? It had changed to this:

"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

In all honesty, is anyone really surprised at this? The definition of Intelligent Design has changed. Now what I was curious about was had it changed before? So I checked out the Of Pandas and People text, the book that became so central in the Dover PA trial. You know, the trial that declared "The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID [Intelligent Design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (Dover Decision) Well in that text ID was defined as:

"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc." (Since I don't have a copy of this book, I used the Dover Transcripts for this definition).

Those of you familiar with the trial probably realize that this definition was the definition of Special Creation/Creationism prior to the re-editing of the text following the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision that ruled against the mandating the teaching of "Creation Science" alongside Evolution.

During the Dover Trial. Dr. Kenneth Miller, testifying for the plaintiffs, defined Intelligent Design as

"Intelligent design is the proposition that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been evolved and, therefore, must have been produced by an outside creative force acting outside the laws of nature."

Also during the trial Michael Behe, a senior fellow over at the Discovery Institute, called Miller's definition "a mischaracterization", saying that ID is a scientific theory, not a proposition. Of course Behe never did provide a definition of ID -- which I found interesting. Later in the trial I think he had to back off on his calling Miller's definition a mischaracterization because he had to agree that for ID to be considered science, the basic definition of science would have to change to include supernatural causation. I think Miller was dead on with his definition!

Something that I didn't realize when I suffered through the book "Signature in the Cell" by Philosopher and another senior fellow over at the Discovery Institute Stephen C. Meyer. He is using the latest definition, the one that no longer identifies ID as a scientific theory, but identifies is as a research program,. a community of scientists, and a theory (remember there is a difference between a colloquial theory and a scientific theory). I hadn't noticed the change, so I am very glad Mark Farmer pointed it out.

Well as we can see the definition since 1987 and today has certainly evolved. What I want to understand is WHY it has changed. Unlike science, which changes as new knowledge, new ideas are supported, and new work is accomplished, the basic definition of Intelligent Design has changed not due to any known work, but appears to have changed because of the criticisms of both the idea itself and the tactics of it proponents, chiefly the Discovery Institute (DI).

Think about it, one of the frequent criticisms was it being identified as a 'scientific theory' in the first place, without having done the work and rigor required of any scientific theory. So since no one was going to let that one slide, no matter how often the DI claimed it to be true, it was a sticking point -- so they dumped it. ID is no longer a Scientific Theory, but just a theory -- an idea, a concept. I think I can agree with that.

Another complaint was falsification. Remember that falsification is the scientific principle that in order for a hypothesis to become a theory, there has to be some identifiable way to determine that it could be false. Not that is has to be false, but there has to be a way of identifying if it no longer applies. For example a rabbit found in the stomach of a dinosaur would show that evolution no longer applies. Charles Darwin himself said that if any biological organism that could not have possibly formed through incremental changes over time, then his theory may be false. Of course nothing has been found that meets that description, but you can see his point. By changing from a scientific theory to just a theory, you remove the onus on falsification, or at least the requirement for falsification. Of course if they ever wish to become a scientific theory, and they do the work and rigor to support it, then they will have to address falsifiability -- but that seems to have been deferred to the future.

Notice that the phrase 'chance-based process' is also gone from the definition. While this should signify a change in the various evolutionary attacks by people like Meyer and Dembski because their main arguments are frequently against the odds of biological changes happening by chance. But Meyer didn't back off of this whine in his book, I think the removal from the definition to be more flash than substance, but we shall see.

The last noticeable change that instead of trying to attack Darwinian Evolution as a whole, they are just attacking Natural Selection. I think one of the reasons is that every time they try an attack Evolution, especially using the term Darwinian Evolution, they seem to keep forgetting how much evolutionary theory has changed since Darwin's Day. Their attacks on Evolution as a whole have failed. The topic is too well supported within the scientific community and even without. I mean when a Conservative Judge, appointed by a Republican President who publicly announced support for ID can't side with the DI -- they had to change tactics.

That's all this is -- a definitional change -- a change in tactics. The ID movement has certainly proven that it is quite malleable as it suffers defeat after defeat in the courts and in state and local school boards. Remember in Texas half of the 'special committee' to examine the science curriculum was made up of DI fellows and other ID proponents -- and they still failed! Go back further and you can see the entire Creationism movement has been changing after each set-back. Can't mandate Evolution not be taught, ask for equal time for Creationism. Can't teach Creationism in science class because it's not science -- change the name to Creation Science. Can't teach Creation Science -- change the name to Intelligent Design. Can't call Intelligent Design a Scientific Theory -- redefine it. They have to evolve and this definition seems to be the latest evolution -- an evolution of a bad idea, but still evolution.

Klinghoffer . . . again!

David Klinghoffer is one of the nastier pundits for the Discovery Institute. He has a poorly titled opinion piece over at the Huffington Post called "The Dark Side of Darwin." It is yet another attempt to blame Charles Darwin for the Nazi eugenics and more modern day social ills.

As usual David is wrong on so many levels. Shall we count a few ways?

1. The Theory of Evolution has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics! Charles Darwin did not espouse any viewpoint that would associate itself with such an activity. In fact he opposed such activities!
   
2. Eugenics is a term coined by Sir Francis Galton, a year after Darwin died. The negative is that Galton is a half-cousin of Darwin, but that really shouldn't matter. Eugenics is defined by Galton as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.” Please note the phase ‘human control’. The is completely against the ideas of Random Mutation and Natural Selection put forth in Darwin’s Theories.
   
3. Other terms for eugenics include ‘ethnic cleansing’, ‘racial hygiene’, and ‘the elimination of undesirables’. At no point in the Theory of Evolution address the inferiority or superiority of any group within a population. The fitness described in the theory has to do with how well an organism has adapted to its environment, not a morality play on inferiority or superiority. Is a celery stalk superior to a human being? There might be many opinions, but there is NOTHING in evolutionary theory that makes this type of judgment. What makes one human being superior or inferior to another? Opinions will vary even more wildly -- but again this is not something addressed in any scientific theory! Scientific theories are morally . . . ambiguous, for lack of a better term.
   
4. Anyone ever read Mein Kampf? You do realize there Charles Darwin and his theories are not mentioned in there at all. In fact the evolution discussed (the word is used twice) is a political evolution and revolution described by Hitler.
   
5. So what was the motivating factor that helped Adolf murder millions of people he judged to be inferior or undesirable? Guess where he got his motivation? Not Darwin, but God. He claims to have been given a divine inspiration! While many Christians read that and get upset, claiming that Hitler wasn’t a Christian that he just used the Bible as an excuse to justify and rationalize his actions. I agree! But then why does someone like Kilnghoffer insist that Darwin’s work caused the Nazi atrocities? Sounds a little self-serving and more than a little dishonest. Here is a something from Main Kampf just to prove my point:

   " . . . [Jews] very existence is an incarnate denial of the beauty of God's image in His creation." (http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt)
   

6. In all honesty, and that is a word I do not think Klinghoffer has more than a passing relationship with, his whining could be related to something called ‘Social Darwinism’, and while Darwin’s name is invoked in that title, it was a social movement that has nothing to do with Darwin or his work. Darwin was long dead when Social Darwinism became popular. Social Darwinism went out of favor after the atrocities of the Nazi’s were uncovered and people realized that Social Darwinism, taken to such extremes, were not what their goals entailed. Post WW-II Eugenics and Social Darwinism were firmly renounced by most politicians of the day.
   
7. Now where did David get this little ‘idea’. Let me point out that David, and the other people mentioned in the article (David Berlinski, John West, and Richard Weikart) are all fellows at the Discovery Institute. This institute's ultimate goal is to

   "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf).

   So what does that mean? Anything they can say or do to cause people to question the science of Evolution is an acceptable tactic. So if they can successfully associate Charles Darwin with a known evil like Hitler and Nazism, then by associate Evolution must be evil! It’s a marketing scheme and a disreputable tactic by an organization that seems to be defined by its reprehensible tactics.
   

Klinghoffer isn't the first to voice such a gutter-level opinion. A similar attack was tried by Ben Stein in his mockumentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. One of the many responses to that film came from the Anti-Defamation League who said

“The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness. Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.” (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5277_52.htm).

If you are not familiar with the Anti-Defamation League it was founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.

Little kennie ham over at Answers In Genesis, and the purveyor of such pseudo-science silliness known as the Creation 'Museum' is also one of the folks trying to link Charles Darwin and all the evils of the world. In fact he blames the Theory of Evolution for Communism, Fascism, atheism, eugenics, abortion and poor church attendance. However it was only just recently that he claimed to have witnessed racial issues in the 1970’s and blamed Darwin and Evolution for them. However in all of his writings up until just recently, these racial issues were never mentioned. Or I should say that I have not been able to find any reference to this in his writings until his most recent work. Why would that be? Could he really be honest about having witnessed many incidents 30 years ago and just suppressed them until now? Or could it be he is simply jumping on the bandwagon? I believe the latter.

Here is a much more interesting opinion piece, also published by the Huffington Post in response to David’s POS. "Intelligent Design Creationists Abuse Science and Victims of the Holocaust" by Eric Michael Johnson. He has a Bachelors degree in Anthropology and a Masters in Evolutionary Anthropology and blogs over at Science Blogs. His blog is called The Primate Diaries. Here are a few points he made:

• Darwin specifically condemned any policy that would "neglect the weak and helpless".

• Haeckel's foundation for Nazi race biology, is simply wrong. According to University of Chicago historian Robert J. Richards, in a recent anthology:

  "This charge, which attempts to link Haekel's convictions with the Nazi's particular brand of racism, suffers from the inconvenience of having absolutely no foundation."

• In the journal Biological Theory Robert J. Richards has demonstrated that Haeckel was not a proponent of a pre-Nazi racist biology and, even if he had been, the Nazi's rejected his work totally.
• Christine Rosen's book Preaching Eugenics, in which she points out that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries "the Bible became the most popular cultural reference point" for promoting the eugenics movement.
• David Klinghoffer, his fellow creationists, and those who give them a platform should be ashamed of themselves for pushing and allowing a tactic rejected by a US federal court judge as "breathtaking inanity" should be strongly criticized.

I'm not sure I can close with anything stronger than that. So let me just say I agree completely with Eric Michael Johnson! In my opinion it is morally reprehensible that David Klinghoffer, and his other Fellows at the Discovery Institute, will stoop to such tactics to further their political ambitions.

Luskin's Double Standard

Casey Luskin, who in my mind is little more than a mouthpiece for the Discovery Institute, attempted to take to task a pair of critics of his hero William Dembski in this article "Intelligent Design Proponents Toil More than the Critics: A Response to Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit". To set the stage, you might or might not be aware that Demski has published a couple of books. Now typically they were not published in a scientific journal, but the popular press. His first little missive was published by Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc -- social sciences and the humanities imprint, rather than one of their scientific journals. Of course this has been a common critique of the Intelligent Design political and marketing movement since its inception. If they are so scientific, why do they continue to publish through avenues that do not require any rigor in their work.

OK, well enough of that for now and let's get back to Luskin's and his double standard. I would love to discuss how a lawyer like Luskin has the temerity to critique two actual scientists, but I guess he is allowed his opinion, misguided as it may be. His critique claims that both Elsberry (a marine biologist) and Shallit (computer scientist, mathematician, and numbers theorist) apply the concept of Design BEFORE looking for natural explanations and that is why they keep seeing 'false positives'.

Hmmm that does lead to the question, does Dembski? Does Behe? Does Meyer? Does anyone who has written a popular press book on Intelligent Design (ID) look for natural explanations before they imply ID? In a word, no!

Everything I have read on the subject makes the possibility of design the first place these folks head. Once they have established the possibility of design, which usually rests on the requirement to admit that anything is conceivably possible, they start jumping toward intelligent design without looking for a naturalistic explanation.

Look at the examples Behe wrote about in his books. Look at his testimony during the 2005 Dover Trial. Look at the work on his own examples that offer many natural explanations for bacterial flagellum, blood clotting factor, and the immune system -- to name a few. I point out Behe in particular because his work is one of the few that actually names examples. When pressed during the Dover Trial, remember that it was Behe who admitted that no one was doing the work to prove his ideas . . . No One!

Try wading through one of Dembski's books and you will see a shocking lack of detail and a bunch of mathematics that don't appear to work. Don't take my word for it, it's other mathematicians that tear up Dembski's ideas. He creates lines in the sand that don't stand up to a mild breeze let alone a stiff wind. (For one example check out:

• http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/specified.complexity.html)
  
• According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity#cite_note-time.com-5)
• Also from the Wikipedia page is this: " . . . to successfully demonstrate the existence of [Complex Specified information] CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do."

Go back to the beginning of the modern ID movement and read Johnson's stuff and you will find material long on philosophy and light on details. Their whole argument is one of wishful thinking and conjecture and if they would do as Luskin seems to expect others to do, they should explore natural explanations first -- I mean really look at their work and you will see that at best they offer just a cursory glance like Meyer in his "Signature in the Cell". If they stood by the standard Casey is advocating then the whole movement would dry up and go away. But we know that's not going to happen because looking for natural explanations is not their line of work. They are lawyers and philosophers, historians and creationists. What they are not is scientists working on developing the support for their ideas. Just to be clear Michael Behe is a biochemist, but he's the one who said that no one was working on his ideas. The others aren't nearly that straightforward.

Oh and if you want to read the critique by Elsberry and Shallit, you can find it here, "Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's 'Complex Specified Information' " One additional note about Jeffrey Shallit. He was scheduled to be a witness at the Dover Trial, but when Dembski dropped out, Shallit's testimony was not needed. In my opinion that is a shame. Behe at least faced off with Kenneth Miller, I thing Dembski vs Shallit would have been fascinating! Well you can read their critique for yourself, here is the abstract to whet your appetite:

"Intelligent design advocate William Dembski has introduced a measure of information called 'complex specified information', or CSI. He claims that CSI is a reliable marker of design by intelligent agents. He puts forth a 'Law of Conservation of Information- which states that chance and natural laws are incapable of generating CSI. In particular, CSI cannot be generated by evolutionary computation. Dembski asserts that CSI is present in intelligent causes and in the flagellum of Escherichia coli, and concludes that neither have natural explanations. In this paper we examine Dembski's claims, point out significant errors in his reasoning, and conclude that there is no reason to accept his assertions."

Mixed messages from Louisiana

While the ICR might contemplate moving to Louisiana after their reverses in Texas, they might be a bit confused by the messages from within the state.

Now I like Louisiana, called the Sportsman's Paradise when I lived there. Both of my kids were born in Louisiana, just outside Shreveport.I made some great friends there. But in all honesty i was very disappointed in the school system when I lived there and recently was further disappointed when Bobby Jindal signed off on a disastrous piece of legislation, the poorly named Louisiana Science Education Act -- which did nothing more but open the door for non-science to be introduced and made it hard for anyone to complain about it. But what do you expect when your best friends are the Discovery institute and the Louisiana Family Forum! I do see a lawsuit in their future.

Well let move ahead from the 2008 signing of the bill and see what the Louisiana Legislature has been up to. Well since they are facing one of the worst ecological disasters in history and one that will reverberate for years in Louisiana's economy, what does the Legislature do -- they unanimously pass a resolution asking for folks to pray for divine intervention. I am sure the ICR will love to hear that message. Just as I am sure State Sen. Robert Adley will claim a victory for God when BP gets its act together and finally deals with the problem and the massive clean-up.

The message the ICR might not like so much comes in the form of an editorial in the Shreveport Times from a couple of days ago. It is directed at the hypocrisy of Gov. Bobby Jindal and US Senator David Vitter are calling for the best and brightest science and engineering minds to help deal with the oil disaster after spending their entire career pandering to the large anti-science constituencies within the State of Louisiana. Isn't it ironic?

Charles Kincade takes no prisoners with his editorial and ends with this:

"Our dismal education system has and will continue to have obvious effects on our economic viability. But more freighting is the inescapable conclusion that unless the anti-science policies of Jindal, Vitter, et al are corrected, and soon, future generations will be unable to function in the modern world."

I wish I could argue with him, but he is one of the few voices talking sense. Louisiana will become dependent on other states for technology and innovation, especially since they still rank near the bottom of the list of States for education (47th of 50). Their educational woes haven't changed since I lived there and unless the people of Louisiana make a change, it's not likely to get better.