Lassen County science educators should not miss PBS's NOVA special tonight, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, which documents (as a recent review in Nature put it) the "feebleness of the intelligent design case" during the Dover trial. The Nature review further suggests,
Judgment Day gracefully avoids ridiculing intelligent design for the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist fig-leaf that it is, by simply showing how the protagonists shot themselves in the foot.
I only now got around to reading the review, however, that last statement was particularly telling in light of the current misinformation floating around at the pro-ID website Evolution News and Views. A recent post by Robert Crowther suggests that the PBS special is engaged in some myth-making, but as usual, when EN&V says the sun is shining, you had better glance out the window (you'll usually discover it is actually night). In reference to Crowther's Myth #2, citing Scott Minnich as having conducted tests to show the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, I went to the original transcripts of Minnich's testimony and cross examination at the Dover trial via the Talkorigins.org Dover files. Needless to say, Crowther's cocky assertions about the nature of Minnich's research demonstrating intelligent design were shredded at the Dover trial when Minnich was forced to admit that no actual tests of irreducible complexity had ever been conducted by either himself or Behe. Neither is there any actual mythology behind the other supposed "myths" that EN&V accuses PBS of fronting. It's all just good old fashioned data gathering and presentation - something the ID crowd can't seem to accomplish. Crowther, in good advertising fashion, is repeating old arguments from ID advocates that have been shown to be the smoke and mirrors they are in the hopes of getting the public to be suspicious of the PBS special tonight.
Hopefully, Lassen County educators will ignore the pro-ID advertising at the EN&V and watch the PBS special. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this issue in the area after the first of the year. In February, the pro-ID movie Expelled will hit theatres, including no doubt, our own here in Susanville. I am sure the Lassen County Times will weigh in on this issue then as well.
Never fear...Northstate Science will be prepared....
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Intelligent Design. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Bad Analogies At Evolution News and Views
How many times will Evolution News and Views writers re-cycle a poor analogy before everyone realizes they are not actually making the point they think they’re making? Michael Egnor again incorrectly uses archaeological science as an analogue with intelligent design. He just doesn’t get it.
Archaeology is not, as Egnor mischaracterizes, a science about determining design:
All of us discern design as a matter of daily life. It’s an essential expertise. For scientists — all scientists — it’s a particular expertise. For some scientists — forensic scientists, cryptographers, archaeologists — discernment of design is their science.
What Egnor and other ID advocates fail to recognize is that archaeology does not assume design. This is a difficult concept to explain. In my archaeology class I show the students an “arrowhead” (better described as projectile points – most “arrowheads” are actually atlatl points – the bow and arrow was a relatively late development). Most students will recognize a projectile point as such, as would most ID advocates, and most will clearly infer a human designer. But then I ask, “How do you know that’s a projectile point?” In other words, how do we know what we know? Most students will say that they have seen similar items, read about such things in books or articles, or even tried to make one themselves. As we walk through this exercise, students begin to realize that their assumption of human design is correct, but what on the surface seems obvious is in fact built on a large body of previous knowledge. When I point out that artifacts of such “obvious design” today were once thought to be the products of thunder and lightning and not the result human manufacture, they are somewhat surprised. The knowledge of an “arrowhead” as the result of an intelligent design is dependent upon a history of research in archaeology, geology, ethnography and several other disciplines. It is also based on research specifically directed at the nature of the designer, and only secondarily the design itself (this is another area glossed over by ID advocates using archaeology as an analogy to intelligent design). It took a long time (and a significant amount of written argument) before such design could be attributed to human intelligence.
Egnor and others perceive design without comprehending the research behind that assumption. They suggest an analogous design in nature without offering the same kind of solid research in support. Perhaps another analogy may work better than Egnor's:
In the 1970s Erik van Daniken proposed that much of the monumental architecture we see in archaeological sites around the world (Giza, Titicaca, Palenque, etc.) could not have been constructed by indigenous groups in the area but must have resulted from extraterrestrial knowledge. Such buildings and monuments were so intricate and complex that some thought they could not possibly be constructed by humans but must have been engineered by visitors from other planets possessing far greater technological abilities. In other words, van Daniken argued that a significant portion of the world’s archaeology was the result of design by a higher intelligence. He was arguing, on the basis of his perception of complexity, that current proposed sources of such engineered feats were insufficient to account for that complexity and required intervention by beings with superior capabilities. His ideas were popular among the general public, which largely lacked the understanding of archaeological history, method and theory necessary to see through the faulty logic. Archaeologists of course immediately dismissed van Daniken’s ideas. And they did so with good reason. Archaeologists were familiar with a century’s worth of data from a wide variety of disciplines (not just archaeology, but geology, paleontology, zoology, chemistry, physics, ethnography, ecology, botany, geomorphology, and others) that in total provided significant confirmation that yes, indeed, it was really earthly humans who were responsible for such feats of complexity and there was no reason (and more importantly, no data) to invoke extraterrestrials. Van Daniken, like Egnor and the ID advocates, needed an “intelligent design” because he could not personally perceive that such relatively simple processes would produce such complexity. His “data” were limited to simple analogies with isolated cases and exclamations of incredulity, not basic research showing that extraterrestrials were a better explanation for what was seen on the ground. The current intelligent design movement is highly analogous to van Daniken’s proposals for an extraterrestrial “intelligent design” (I am sure he probably even complained that those “Darwinian archaeologists” were picking on him!).
Archaeological principles, like those in evolutionary biology, are backed by volumes of data from diverse disciplines. They are not analogous to intelligent design, unless taken out of context. Intelligent design has much more in common with Chariots of the Gods? than it does with Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin.
Archaeology is not, as Egnor mischaracterizes, a science about determining design:
All of us discern design as a matter of daily life. It’s an essential expertise. For scientists — all scientists — it’s a particular expertise. For some scientists — forensic scientists, cryptographers, archaeologists — discernment of design is their science.
What Egnor and other ID advocates fail to recognize is that archaeology does not assume design. This is a difficult concept to explain. In my archaeology class I show the students an “arrowhead” (better described as projectile points – most “arrowheads” are actually atlatl points – the bow and arrow was a relatively late development). Most students will recognize a projectile point as such, as would most ID advocates, and most will clearly infer a human designer. But then I ask, “How do you know that’s a projectile point?” In other words, how do we know what we know? Most students will say that they have seen similar items, read about such things in books or articles, or even tried to make one themselves. As we walk through this exercise, students begin to realize that their assumption of human design is correct, but what on the surface seems obvious is in fact built on a large body of previous knowledge. When I point out that artifacts of such “obvious design” today were once thought to be the products of thunder and lightning and not the result human manufacture, they are somewhat surprised. The knowledge of an “arrowhead” as the result of an intelligent design is dependent upon a history of research in archaeology, geology, ethnography and several other disciplines. It is also based on research specifically directed at the nature of the designer, and only secondarily the design itself (this is another area glossed over by ID advocates using archaeology as an analogy to intelligent design). It took a long time (and a significant amount of written argument) before such design could be attributed to human intelligence.
Egnor and others perceive design without comprehending the research behind that assumption. They suggest an analogous design in nature without offering the same kind of solid research in support. Perhaps another analogy may work better than Egnor's:
In the 1970s Erik van Daniken proposed that much of the monumental architecture we see in archaeological sites around the world (Giza, Titicaca, Palenque, etc.) could not have been constructed by indigenous groups in the area but must have resulted from extraterrestrial knowledge. Such buildings and monuments were so intricate and complex that some thought they could not possibly be constructed by humans but must have been engineered by visitors from other planets possessing far greater technological abilities. In other words, van Daniken argued that a significant portion of the world’s archaeology was the result of design by a higher intelligence. He was arguing, on the basis of his perception of complexity, that current proposed sources of such engineered feats were insufficient to account for that complexity and required intervention by beings with superior capabilities. His ideas were popular among the general public, which largely lacked the understanding of archaeological history, method and theory necessary to see through the faulty logic. Archaeologists of course immediately dismissed van Daniken’s ideas. And they did so with good reason. Archaeologists were familiar with a century’s worth of data from a wide variety of disciplines (not just archaeology, but geology, paleontology, zoology, chemistry, physics, ethnography, ecology, botany, geomorphology, and others) that in total provided significant confirmation that yes, indeed, it was really earthly humans who were responsible for such feats of complexity and there was no reason (and more importantly, no data) to invoke extraterrestrials. Van Daniken, like Egnor and the ID advocates, needed an “intelligent design” because he could not personally perceive that such relatively simple processes would produce such complexity. His “data” were limited to simple analogies with isolated cases and exclamations of incredulity, not basic research showing that extraterrestrials were a better explanation for what was seen on the ground. The current intelligent design movement is highly analogous to van Daniken’s proposals for an extraterrestrial “intelligent design” (I am sure he probably even complained that those “Darwinian archaeologists” were picking on him!).
Archaeological principles, like those in evolutionary biology, are backed by volumes of data from diverse disciplines. They are not analogous to intelligent design, unless taken out of context. Intelligent design has much more in common with Chariots of the Gods? than it does with Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Is The Designer Pro Life?
So, according to intelligent design activist and Catholic Michael Behe in his new book, The Edge of Evolution, malaria was intelligently designed. So, Catholics in the audience, pay attention and understand the following (and I quote from PZ's post):
Got that? Plasmodium falciparum was explicitly and intentionally constructed to infect, make ill, torment, and kill human beings. He goes farther than most YECs—the parasite was not simply a product of corruption at the Fall, it had to be carefully modified, built, and released to carry out its designed job of causing suffering.
But Behe's Designer (and let's not pull any punches here, you all know exactly who Behe is talking about: the Christian God of the Bible) apparently was not satisfied in specifically designing a parasite responsible for the agonizing death of millions. No, He felt further moved to provide Plasmodium with an added feature: the ability to trigger leukemia in children:
Now, Arnaud Chene and colleagues have identified CIDRla as the first microbial protein able to spur a latently EBV-infected cell into active production. Their results suggest that P. falciparum-derived proteins can lead to a direct reactivation of EBV during acute malaria infection, increasing the risk of Burkitt lymphoma development for children living in malaria-endemic areas.
So, how does this fit in with God and the Catholic Church being "pro-life"?
Conservative Catholics and other Christian denominations apparently are so hungry to destroy Darwin that they appear to be more theologically comfortable with a God who specifically designs organisms to kill children, than with the idea that humans arose through non-directed processual mechanisms. Isn't this what they call a Faustian bargain?
Got that? Plasmodium falciparum was explicitly and intentionally constructed to infect, make ill, torment, and kill human beings. He goes farther than most YECs—the parasite was not simply a product of corruption at the Fall, it had to be carefully modified, built, and released to carry out its designed job of causing suffering.
But Behe's Designer (and let's not pull any punches here, you all know exactly who Behe is talking about: the Christian God of the Bible) apparently was not satisfied in specifically designing a parasite responsible for the agonizing death of millions. No, He felt further moved to provide Plasmodium with an added feature: the ability to trigger leukemia in children:
Now, Arnaud Chene and colleagues have identified CIDRla as the first microbial protein able to spur a latently EBV-infected cell into active production. Their results suggest that P. falciparum-derived proteins can lead to a direct reactivation of EBV during acute malaria infection, increasing the risk of Burkitt lymphoma development for children living in malaria-endemic areas.
So, how does this fit in with God and the Catholic Church being "pro-life"?
Conservative Catholics and other Christian denominations apparently are so hungry to destroy Darwin that they appear to be more theologically comfortable with a God who specifically designs organisms to kill children, than with the idea that humans arose through non-directed processual mechanisms. Isn't this what they call a Faustian bargain?
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Discovery Institute's Luskin and Egnor Contradict Each Other On Archaeology's Role In Intelligent Design
While perusing the Rev. Big Dumb Chimp's blogsite I came across his post on an earlier exchange between Carl Zimmer and Casey Luskin over Zimmer's National Geographic article on the evolution of complex features. Part 3 of Luskin's response was very enlightening. He thinks he was showing that Zimmer and National Geographic were not conducting science so much as treading into an area of theology by questioning the capability of an "intelligent" designer. In other words, as Zimmer notes, Luskin (and other ID proponents) are saying that ID is only about detecting the presence of "specified complexity" (design) - move beyond that and begin to question the behavior of the designer, and you've moved beyond science and into the realm of theology, where everyone agrees science must not tread.
Well, with that discussion Luskin demonstrated precisely why ID's use of archaeology's "design detection" as an analogy with biology is misleading at best. Ironically, Luskin also completely castrates Egnor's fraudulent example of design detection using the Antikythera Mechanism, which I previously commented upon. I pointed out then that archaeological research is not about detecting design - in most cases in archaeology we already know items, including things like the Antikythera Mechanism, are made by humans. As Alun Salt expands upon in a similar post on Egnor's misplaced analogy, however, archaeology's "design detection" is understood only because of a body of background experience, observation, experimentation and general hypothesis testing has already informed us that an Acheulian handaxe, for example, was made by early Homo and is not the result of lightning bolts. But that was not always the case: the first encounters with stone tools described their origins as exactly that: formed from lightning - not the result of an intelligent designer! We recognize stone tools (and the Antikyther Mechanism) as designed only because we now know about fracture mechanics, have witnessed aboriginal people making stone tools, understand the development of bronze working and the history of wheels, gears and other already familiar mechanisms. Without that kind of referential knowledge (and a lot more) already in place, even the Antikythera Mechanism would appear as just another natural oddity to avoid stubbing your toe against while tracking that mammoth.
Archaeologists have already done a lot of the hard hypothesis testing behind design detection and have long since moved on to asking question about the designers themselves. But Luskin makes it clear that once design is detected, no more questions are needed - so very unlike archaeology. Archaeology follows the rules of science in its quest for understanding the behavior of the designers behind the arrowhead or the mechanism. It continues to question and accumulate data about the past. ID assumes design is present by comparing itself erroneously with archaeology and then stops. To paraphrase deGrasse Tyson in a previous post, ID is a philosophy of ignorance...archaeology is a philosophy of discovery.
While the "design detection analogy" with archaeology is frequently brought forth as "evidence" for ID it is nothing more than a cheap gimmick that works well with those unfamiliar with crtical thinking and accostumed to watching FOX every night, but has absolutely nothing at all to do with archaeological method and theory. And we can thank Luskin for helping to demonstrate that!
Well, with that discussion Luskin demonstrated precisely why ID's use of archaeology's "design detection" as an analogy with biology is misleading at best. Ironically, Luskin also completely castrates Egnor's fraudulent example of design detection using the Antikythera Mechanism, which I previously commented upon. I pointed out then that archaeological research is not about detecting design - in most cases in archaeology we already know items, including things like the Antikythera Mechanism, are made by humans. As Alun Salt expands upon in a similar post on Egnor's misplaced analogy, however, archaeology's "design detection" is understood only because of a body of background experience, observation, experimentation and general hypothesis testing has already informed us that an Acheulian handaxe, for example, was made by early Homo and is not the result of lightning bolts. But that was not always the case: the first encounters with stone tools described their origins as exactly that: formed from lightning - not the result of an intelligent designer! We recognize stone tools (and the Antikyther Mechanism) as designed only because we now know about fracture mechanics, have witnessed aboriginal people making stone tools, understand the development of bronze working and the history of wheels, gears and other already familiar mechanisms. Without that kind of referential knowledge (and a lot more) already in place, even the Antikythera Mechanism would appear as just another natural oddity to avoid stubbing your toe against while tracking that mammoth.
Archaeologists have already done a lot of the hard hypothesis testing behind design detection and have long since moved on to asking question about the designers themselves. But Luskin makes it clear that once design is detected, no more questions are needed - so very unlike archaeology. Archaeology follows the rules of science in its quest for understanding the behavior of the designers behind the arrowhead or the mechanism. It continues to question and accumulate data about the past. ID assumes design is present by comparing itself erroneously with archaeology and then stops. To paraphrase deGrasse Tyson in a previous post, ID is a philosophy of ignorance...archaeology is a philosophy of discovery.
While the "design detection analogy" with archaeology is frequently brought forth as "evidence" for ID it is nothing more than a cheap gimmick that works well with those unfamiliar with crtical thinking and accostumed to watching FOX every night, but has absolutely nothing at all to do with archaeological method and theory. And we can thank Luskin for helping to demonstrate that!
Friday, May 25, 2007
deGrasse Tyson And The History Of Intelligent Design
I never thought that I'd really "get into" astronomy, but thanks to Neil deGrasse Tyson I've become a consistent reader of his regular column in Natural History. So I had to watch when Red State Rabble posted a video of deGrasse Tyson talking about the role of intelligent design in history. It's something you have to see.
I was certainly struck by his analysis of intelligent design as a common theme throughout the history of science, but always being raised at the point at which the particular scientist (and science itself) did not possess the information to advance further in explanation. It is a consistent conclusion to problems for which we have insufficient information: "We can now explain A, B, C and D...but E God must have done...". As deGrasse Tyson explains, this is why Newton did not come up with perturbation theory and history had to wait a century before LaPlace did "the math" that Newton, although intellectually capable of conducting the calculations, could not conclude. Why? Because Newton was hamstrung by his "religiosity" - he could go no further because his "intelligent design" prevented him from asking questions that could be solved through simple observation. DeGrasse Tyson concludes:
Intelligent Design, while real in the history of science....is nonetheless a philosophy of ignorance...And so...science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's all.
However, I was additionally struck by his assessment of the ascendancy (and supremacy) of Arab science during the first millennium A.D. and its collapse approximately 1100 A.D. During the period of 800 to 1100 A.D., Bagdad, not the Vatican, was the center of intellectual advancment. With the advent of the 13th century, the Islamic world was overtaken by a fundamentalist religious dogma, codified in its government institutions (church and state merged) that resulted in a collapse of Arab society from which they have never recovered. The end result of a slow takeover of Islamic religious fundamentalism is guys strapping explosives around their waste and flying planes into buildings.
The rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States in the 21st century is nothing if not history repeating itself. And creationism, whether Ken Ham's creation museum or Dembski's Intelligent Design, is a mirror of the events of the 12th century Arab world. Our continued advancement as an enlightened society, capable of meeting new challenges, particularly economic ones, is dependent upon having people capable of making discoveries running our science classrooms. In this context DeGrasse Tyson has a particularly interesting twist on why he was not concerned about the outcome of the Dover trial, which concluded that Intelligent Design was nothing more than a religious effort to get creationism in the classroom:
Republicans, above else, do not want to die poor. So there's a limit to how far this will go. And I bet most poeple in this room...were highly concerned about the Dover trial, wondering how that would turn....I looked at that and I said "I'm not worried"...because it's a Republican judge. In the end, if you put people who are not making discoveries in the science classroom, that is the end of the foundation of your future economy.
Republicans might be blinded to social responsibility by the accumulation of personal wealth....but they're not stupid....
I was certainly struck by his analysis of intelligent design as a common theme throughout the history of science, but always being raised at the point at which the particular scientist (and science itself) did not possess the information to advance further in explanation. It is a consistent conclusion to problems for which we have insufficient information: "We can now explain A, B, C and D...but E God must have done...". As deGrasse Tyson explains, this is why Newton did not come up with perturbation theory and history had to wait a century before LaPlace did "the math" that Newton, although intellectually capable of conducting the calculations, could not conclude. Why? Because Newton was hamstrung by his "religiosity" - he could go no further because his "intelligent design" prevented him from asking questions that could be solved through simple observation. DeGrasse Tyson concludes:
Intelligent Design, while real in the history of science....is nonetheless a philosophy of ignorance...And so...science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's all.
However, I was additionally struck by his assessment of the ascendancy (and supremacy) of Arab science during the first millennium A.D. and its collapse approximately 1100 A.D. During the period of 800 to 1100 A.D., Bagdad, not the Vatican, was the center of intellectual advancment. With the advent of the 13th century, the Islamic world was overtaken by a fundamentalist religious dogma, codified in its government institutions (church and state merged) that resulted in a collapse of Arab society from which they have never recovered. The end result of a slow takeover of Islamic religious fundamentalism is guys strapping explosives around their waste and flying planes into buildings.
The rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States in the 21st century is nothing if not history repeating itself. And creationism, whether Ken Ham's creation museum or Dembski's Intelligent Design, is a mirror of the events of the 12th century Arab world. Our continued advancement as an enlightened society, capable of meeting new challenges, particularly economic ones, is dependent upon having people capable of making discoveries running our science classrooms. In this context DeGrasse Tyson has a particularly interesting twist on why he was not concerned about the outcome of the Dover trial, which concluded that Intelligent Design was nothing more than a religious effort to get creationism in the classroom:
Republicans, above else, do not want to die poor. So there's a limit to how far this will go. And I bet most poeple in this room...were highly concerned about the Dover trial, wondering how that would turn....I looked at that and I said "I'm not worried"...because it's a Republican judge. In the end, if you put people who are not making discoveries in the science classroom, that is the end of the foundation of your future economy.
Republicans might be blinded to social responsibility by the accumulation of personal wealth....but they're not stupid....
The Antikythera Mechanism And Intelligent Design: A Response To Egnor
As the late Stephen J. Gould once commented on reading the “scientific” arguments creationists put forth, he didn’t know “whether to laugh or to cry”. I found myself reacting similarly upon reading Michael Egnor’s latest attempt to use archaeological science in support of Intelligent Design. And once again, like every attempt at the “archaeologists seek design” analogy, Egnor’s fails because A) he gets his facts wrong; B) he completely misrepresents archaeological method and theory; and C) fails to understand the implications of ID’s real analogy with archaeology.
Egnor uses the Antikythera Mechanism as an example of detecting “intelligent” design. The Antikythera Mechanism, when recovered in 1901 from the submerged wreckage of a Roman merchant ship dated to approximately 65 BCE, appeared as little more than a series of bronze wheels and other fragments, all badly corroded. It remained largely unstudied until the 1950s through 1970s, when Derek De Solla Price studied the fragments extensively, particularly as more advanced radiography techniques became available. It was clear to Price that the bronze gear fragments were part of a machine apparatus, the purpose of which was not well established although Price’s reconstruction suggested it was used as an astronomical calculator. Egnor of course wants his audience to see the “detecting design” part of the story: here is a case of archaeologists detecting intelligent design and making no illusions about it. Egnor then wonders why biologists can’t accept (like their archaeologist brethren) that design exists in the natural world and move on. However, like all intelligent design arguments, Egnor’s requires that knowledge be incomplete in order to pull the story together:
Archeologists believe that the technology to produce such a device didn’t emerge until at least the 14th century A.D. They have no evidence as to who designed it, and no evidence even of who could have designed it. Yet the inference to design is obvious, and no archeologist doubts that it is a designed artifact. Design can be inferred from an artifact alone, regardless of the obscurity or the implausibility of a designer. [emphasis in the original].
First, we can assume that what is not reported in an Evolution News &Views story is usually far more intriguing than what actually makes it to website and Egnor has once again proven that assumption correct. Egnor pulled the 14th century A.D. date largely out of his ID hat of unsubstantiated facts. Current thoughts on the Mechanism’s dating suggests a manufacturing date of 100-150 BCE, with statements that nothing with its complexity occurs until almost a millennium later. By my calculation, that means closer to the 9th century A.D. (and if you are about to argue that an error of five hundred years is not a big deal, then we’ll need to have a serious discussion on the implications of 9th versus 10th century dates in the Holy Land).
Egnor then goes on to report that archaeologists “…have no evidence as to who designed it, and no evidence of who could have designed it”. Completely false. Convenient for an ID argument that relies on lack of knowledge, but a purely fabricated statement on Egnor’s part. At the most basic level we of course know it was humans who manufactured the mechanisms parts – because archaeologists know all about bronze and metal working during the first few centuries BCE (and for some time before and after that period!). But in the case of the Mechanism we can get even more specific. Evidence points to it being quite clearly Greek in origin, and probably from the island of Rhodes. We can even state with some confidence that it may have been designed by someone of the Hipparchos school during that time; Hipparchos being the great Greek astronomer from the very period when the Mechnism was constructed who probably died and was buried on Rhodes. In fact, such ideas regarding its origin have been bantered around for more than a decade. If you read some of the original Nature articles on the Mechanism (sorry, no direct link) especially Charette (2006), it is highly probable it was connected with Hipparchos in some way, in particular because it is in part a “mechanical realization” of a lunar geometrical model originally developed by the great astronomer himself. And how do we know this? Because archaeologists and historians have not ended their search with “it’s designed”. A number of hypotheses have been generated regarding its origins and its function. Price’s was not the only reconstruction – there have been several, including a more recent reconstruction by a combined British, Greek and American team. All are hypotheses built upon each other, using the most current data and observations and tested to reach the best explanation to account for the evidence. That process is unheard of in intelligent design. Egnor is creating illusions: there’s no revelation here that serves as an analogy to ID’s “unnamed Designer”…
Finally, let’s get something straight: archaeology is about understanding past human behavior, not artifact collecting. Egnor would probably make a great pot-hunter because all he understands is that ancient people made things that we can pick up today. That is the extent of Egnor’s inquisitiveness in the matter. But archaeologists don’t excavate things …we excavate information – information used to test ideas about the ultimate archaeological goal: how did the artifact “designers” behave and why did their behavior change through time. And more importantly we continue to test the designers’ behaviors and motivation. And archaeology is not in the business of detecting “design”… we know all about design, but for one reason only: we’ve observed, documented and tested the designer over and over again, from two and a half million years ago, when the ape-like designer first started making simple stone tools, to watching modern hunter-gatherer designers develop their own archaeological patterns today. And guess what?: those archaeological “designers” that Egnor and other ID advocates want to incorporate into their arguments? They were constrained and molded by the same evolutionary forces of contingency ID advocates so despise as an explanation for the world around us.
Archaeology doesn’t detect design;
Archaeologists gather data and test hypotheses:
Archaeology’s goal is to test hypotheses about the designers;
Archaeology shows that the designers are constrained by evolutionary contingency, just like squid, tigers and mammoths;
Doesn’t sound like intelligent design to me.
Egnor uses the Antikythera Mechanism as an example of detecting “intelligent” design. The Antikythera Mechanism, when recovered in 1901 from the submerged wreckage of a Roman merchant ship dated to approximately 65 BCE, appeared as little more than a series of bronze wheels and other fragments, all badly corroded. It remained largely unstudied until the 1950s through 1970s, when Derek De Solla Price studied the fragments extensively, particularly as more advanced radiography techniques became available. It was clear to Price that the bronze gear fragments were part of a machine apparatus, the purpose of which was not well established although Price’s reconstruction suggested it was used as an astronomical calculator. Egnor of course wants his audience to see the “detecting design” part of the story: here is a case of archaeologists detecting intelligent design and making no illusions about it. Egnor then wonders why biologists can’t accept (like their archaeologist brethren) that design exists in the natural world and move on. However, like all intelligent design arguments, Egnor’s requires that knowledge be incomplete in order to pull the story together:
Archeologists believe that the technology to produce such a device didn’t emerge until at least the 14th century A.D. They have no evidence as to who designed it, and no evidence even of who could have designed it. Yet the inference to design is obvious, and no archeologist doubts that it is a designed artifact. Design can be inferred from an artifact alone, regardless of the obscurity or the implausibility of a designer. [emphasis in the original].
First, we can assume that what is not reported in an Evolution News &Views story is usually far more intriguing than what actually makes it to website and Egnor has once again proven that assumption correct. Egnor pulled the 14th century A.D. date largely out of his ID hat of unsubstantiated facts. Current thoughts on the Mechanism’s dating suggests a manufacturing date of 100-150 BCE, with statements that nothing with its complexity occurs until almost a millennium later. By my calculation, that means closer to the 9th century A.D. (and if you are about to argue that an error of five hundred years is not a big deal, then we’ll need to have a serious discussion on the implications of 9th versus 10th century dates in the Holy Land).
Egnor then goes on to report that archaeologists “…have no evidence as to who designed it, and no evidence of who could have designed it”. Completely false. Convenient for an ID argument that relies on lack of knowledge, but a purely fabricated statement on Egnor’s part. At the most basic level we of course know it was humans who manufactured the mechanisms parts – because archaeologists know all about bronze and metal working during the first few centuries BCE (and for some time before and after that period!). But in the case of the Mechanism we can get even more specific. Evidence points to it being quite clearly Greek in origin, and probably from the island of Rhodes. We can even state with some confidence that it may have been designed by someone of the Hipparchos school during that time; Hipparchos being the great Greek astronomer from the very period when the Mechnism was constructed who probably died and was buried on Rhodes. In fact, such ideas regarding its origin have been bantered around for more than a decade. If you read some of the original Nature articles on the Mechanism (sorry, no direct link) especially Charette (2006), it is highly probable it was connected with Hipparchos in some way, in particular because it is in part a “mechanical realization” of a lunar geometrical model originally developed by the great astronomer himself. And how do we know this? Because archaeologists and historians have not ended their search with “it’s designed”. A number of hypotheses have been generated regarding its origins and its function. Price’s was not the only reconstruction – there have been several, including a more recent reconstruction by a combined British, Greek and American team. All are hypotheses built upon each other, using the most current data and observations and tested to reach the best explanation to account for the evidence. That process is unheard of in intelligent design. Egnor is creating illusions: there’s no revelation here that serves as an analogy to ID’s “unnamed Designer”…
Finally, let’s get something straight: archaeology is about understanding past human behavior, not artifact collecting. Egnor would probably make a great pot-hunter because all he understands is that ancient people made things that we can pick up today. That is the extent of Egnor’s inquisitiveness in the matter. But archaeologists don’t excavate things …we excavate information – information used to test ideas about the ultimate archaeological goal: how did the artifact “designers” behave and why did their behavior change through time. And more importantly we continue to test the designers’ behaviors and motivation. And archaeology is not in the business of detecting “design”… we know all about design, but for one reason only: we’ve observed, documented and tested the designer over and over again, from two and a half million years ago, when the ape-like designer first started making simple stone tools, to watching modern hunter-gatherer designers develop their own archaeological patterns today. And guess what?: those archaeological “designers” that Egnor and other ID advocates want to incorporate into their arguments? They were constrained and molded by the same evolutionary forces of contingency ID advocates so despise as an explanation for the world around us.
Archaeology doesn’t detect design;
Archaeologists gather data and test hypotheses:
Archaeology’s goal is to test hypotheses about the designers;
Archaeology shows that the designers are constrained by evolutionary contingency, just like squid, tigers and mammoths;
Doesn’t sound like intelligent design to me.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Lassen County Illuminati Responsible For Denying Gonzalez Tenure
I don't know if my fellow LACIS member (Lassen County Illuminati Society) are aware of this, but apparently we, along with Freemasons and Scientific American are part of a global conspiracy to deny tenure and other things to university professors who advocate intelligent design. Wow...only meeting secretly for month and already we've had a major impact....Ok, granted they didn't cite us by name, but how many Illuminati societies can there be?
Of course all of this is about the recent denial of tenure to Iowa State University professor and pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. Ever in a state of perpetual victimhood, the pro-ID websites are crying foul at one of their own being denied tenure and naturally, like euthanasia, eugenics, the European Union and eucher, it's all the Darwinists' fault. As Ed Brayton points out, lots of university professors with stronger track records than Gonzalez have been denied tenure...that's been my experience with friends in academia as well. Most people just pull up their bootstraps and find a different job...usually a better one. ID advocates seem to prefer wallowing in self-pity and conspiracy theories - I guess that's all you have when your ideas lack any evidence and are dependent on maintaining good PR with intellectual midgets.
The whining by Dembski, O'Leary, DaveScot, Casey Luskin and Robert Crowther is having an effect, however: it's getting really annoying. Ed points out the psychological problem IDist's have:
But ID advocates seem to have the same problem with the concept of discrimination that they do with the concept of evidence. Arguments are not evidence (especially old, bad taken directly from long-discredited creationist material) and criticism is not discrimination.
Of course all of this is about the recent denial of tenure to Iowa State University professor and pro-ID astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. Ever in a state of perpetual victimhood, the pro-ID websites are crying foul at one of their own being denied tenure and naturally, like euthanasia, eugenics, the European Union and eucher, it's all the Darwinists' fault. As Ed Brayton points out, lots of university professors with stronger track records than Gonzalez have been denied tenure...that's been my experience with friends in academia as well. Most people just pull up their bootstraps and find a different job...usually a better one. ID advocates seem to prefer wallowing in self-pity and conspiracy theories - I guess that's all you have when your ideas lack any evidence and are dependent on maintaining good PR with intellectual midgets.
The whining by Dembski, O'Leary, DaveScot, Casey Luskin and Robert Crowther is having an effect, however: it's getting really annoying. Ed points out the psychological problem IDist's have:
But ID advocates seem to have the same problem with the concept of discrimination that they do with the concept of evidence. Arguments are not evidence (especially old, bad taken directly from long-discredited creationist material) and criticism is not discrimination.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Intelligent Design Proponent Anika Smith Maintains Separation From The Real World
My wife and I attended a picnic yesterday and ran into a devout Catholic couple we know. After talking with their eldest daughter about which college she would be attending this fall, the expected answer materialized: a Catholic college in southern California. I commented later that this young woman would have get slapped in the face with reality sooner or later, to which my wife, in her frequently sage manner, replied, "Some people are pretty successful at remaining sheltered from the rest of the world".
I could not help but be reminded of that comment upon reading Anika Smith's current post on Evolution News and Views this morning. Some people just never move beyond their own contrived fantasy world of cherry-picked data, misinformation and post-hoc accommodating argument. I suppose it is sufficient to demonstrate Smith's lack of intellectual command over the relevant issues of the public evolution "debate" to point out that John Wise, biology professor at SMU easily corrected Smith and co-author Sarah Levy's recent assertion that "intelligent design" is something new; something scientific; something not related to creationism. In addition to showing how Smith and Levy are incorrect, Wise also eloquently explained something neither understands: why it matters.
Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces....
The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited to the laws of nature... [emphasis mine].
Wise further shows that proposed creationist texts were republished with "creationism" switched for "intelligent design" immediately after creationism was ruled as a religious view in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
If that were not enough, Smith pulls the blinders on tighter in the Evolution News and Views article by uncritically accepting David Limbaugh's discussion of Richard Sternberg's so-called academic "persecution" at the Smithsonian. The real story behind Sternberg's "persecution" can be found easily: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for starters...
But the real window into Smith's utter separation from anything remotely resembling a tangible argument is how eagerly she cites someone (Limbaugh) who relies on Tom Bethell as a good source of alternative information! Talk about someone who has completely aborted the Catholic tradition of scholarly achievement! Asking Bethell for a coherent discussion of evolution is like asking Britney Spears for advice on maintaining a stable relationship.
Smith wants us all to believe in intelligent design and the best she can come up with is a very poor understanding of science, the incoherent rantings from the brother of a drug addict, a highly propogandized persecution of a lab tech, and writings from the intellectual equivalent of Britney Spears....wow, I'm convinced!
I could not help but be reminded of that comment upon reading Anika Smith's current post on Evolution News and Views this morning. Some people just never move beyond their own contrived fantasy world of cherry-picked data, misinformation and post-hoc accommodating argument. I suppose it is sufficient to demonstrate Smith's lack of intellectual command over the relevant issues of the public evolution "debate" to point out that John Wise, biology professor at SMU easily corrected Smith and co-author Sarah Levy's recent assertion that "intelligent design" is something new; something scientific; something not related to creationism. In addition to showing how Smith and Levy are incorrect, Wise also eloquently explained something neither understands: why it matters.
Few people would dispute that our present scientific understanding of the physical world has led to a tremendously long list of advances in medicine, technology, engineering, the structure of the universe and the atom, and on and on. The list is nearly endless, but it does not include everything. Science can tell us only what is governed by natural forces....
The usefulness of science stems from the predictable action of the laws of nature and the strict rules regarding testable hypotheses. If you modify the definition of science to include unpredictable supernatural forces, magic and miracles, the utility of science will be lost because we won't be able to form reasonable predictions from what we observe in the natural world. No reverent believer would presume to know what goes on in the mind of God, so how can the actions of God be predicted? For science to progress and maintain its usefulness, it needs to be limited to the laws of nature... [emphasis mine].
Wise further shows that proposed creationist texts were republished with "creationism" switched for "intelligent design" immediately after creationism was ruled as a religious view in the Edwards v. Aguillard decision.
If that were not enough, Smith pulls the blinders on tighter in the Evolution News and Views article by uncritically accepting David Limbaugh's discussion of Richard Sternberg's so-called academic "persecution" at the Smithsonian. The real story behind Sternberg's "persecution" can be found easily: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, for starters...
But the real window into Smith's utter separation from anything remotely resembling a tangible argument is how eagerly she cites someone (Limbaugh) who relies on Tom Bethell as a good source of alternative information! Talk about someone who has completely aborted the Catholic tradition of scholarly achievement! Asking Bethell for a coherent discussion of evolution is like asking Britney Spears for advice on maintaining a stable relationship.
Smith wants us all to believe in intelligent design and the best she can come up with is a very poor understanding of science, the incoherent rantings from the brother of a drug addict, a highly propogandized persecution of a lab tech, and writings from the intellectual equivalent of Britney Spears....wow, I'm convinced!
Friday, May 04, 2007
More On Intelligent Design And Medicine
I have often advised people, when listening to creationists promote their worldview, that the first thing to consider is what they are NOT telling you. Uncommon Descent contributor Sal Cordovas's fraudulent assessment of Catriona MacCallum's editorial "Does Medicine Without Evolution Make Sense?" serves as a prime example of the lack of information quality and integrity being dished out by intelligent design creationists every day. (No wonder they lost in Dover!).
Ed Brayton provides more on what Sal Cordova is NOT telling us in his assessment; Respectful Insolence provides an additional assessment of Cordova's "rank dishonesty"; and Evolution Blog adds more evidence to the only interpretation one can draw from intelligent design activists: they prefer to feed propaganda to the masses rather than conduct actually science in the laboratory. Read these posts for the full assessment of what is being said and not said, but briefly here's the point.
An intelligent design proponent reads MacCallum's article and draws this assessment:
Darwinists claim how important Darwinism is to science, but MacCallum's editorial makes an embarrassing admission of Darwinism's irrelevance to medicine.
Darwinists (whoever they are...) and those with intellectual capacity and curiosity, knowing that when a creationist says the sun is shining the most appropriate response to take is to look out the window, bother to read the article and point out the conclusions actually being made by the author are clearly opposite what Sal and other IDists would have a general audience believe:
The most obvious examples of evolutionary biology's importance to medical understanding are related to infectious disease...
But evolution can also tell us that the origin of HIV was precipitated by a jump across the primate species barrier [10] and enables us to predict the imminent arrival of avian flu and the mutations most likely to be responsible for that evolutionary leap from birds to humans...
The relevance of evolution to medicine is, however, much broader....
The time has clearly come for medicine to explicitly integrate evolutionary biology into its theoretical and practical underpinnings The medical students of Charles Darwin's day did not have the advantage of such a powerful framework to inform their thinking; we shouldn't deprive today's budding medical talent of the potential insights to be gained at the intersection of these two great disciplines.
It is clear that preservation of a religious ideology is the primary factor driving the IDist and creationist contentions that modern medicine has no ties to evolutionary theory. So if your doctor does not "believe" in evolutionary theory because it contradicts his or her religious ideology, you have to ask yourself the following question:
Has my doctor chosen to follow the path of providing the best medical care possible, based on the best science available, and regardless of its potential impact on personal religious views?...or...Has my doctor chosen to follow the path of providing the best medical care possible only so long as it doesn't collide with religious beliefs?
Ed Brayton provides more on what Sal Cordova is NOT telling us in his assessment; Respectful Insolence provides an additional assessment of Cordova's "rank dishonesty"; and Evolution Blog adds more evidence to the only interpretation one can draw from intelligent design activists: they prefer to feed propaganda to the masses rather than conduct actually science in the laboratory. Read these posts for the full assessment of what is being said and not said, but briefly here's the point.
An intelligent design proponent reads MacCallum's article and draws this assessment:
Darwinists claim how important Darwinism is to science, but MacCallum's editorial makes an embarrassing admission of Darwinism's irrelevance to medicine.
Darwinists (whoever they are...) and those with intellectual capacity and curiosity, knowing that when a creationist says the sun is shining the most appropriate response to take is to look out the window, bother to read the article and point out the conclusions actually being made by the author are clearly opposite what Sal and other IDists would have a general audience believe:
The most obvious examples of evolutionary biology's importance to medical understanding are related to infectious disease...
But evolution can also tell us that the origin of HIV was precipitated by a jump across the primate species barrier [10] and enables us to predict the imminent arrival of avian flu and the mutations most likely to be responsible for that evolutionary leap from birds to humans...
The relevance of evolution to medicine is, however, much broader....
The time has clearly come for medicine to explicitly integrate evolutionary biology into its theoretical and practical underpinnings The medical students of Charles Darwin's day did not have the advantage of such a powerful framework to inform their thinking; we shouldn't deprive today's budding medical talent of the potential insights to be gained at the intersection of these two great disciplines.
It is clear that preservation of a religious ideology is the primary factor driving the IDist and creationist contentions that modern medicine has no ties to evolutionary theory. So if your doctor does not "believe" in evolutionary theory because it contradicts his or her religious ideology, you have to ask yourself the following question:
Has my doctor chosen to follow the path of providing the best medical care possible, based on the best science available, and regardless of its potential impact on personal religious views?...or...Has my doctor chosen to follow the path of providing the best medical care possible only so long as it doesn't collide with religious beliefs?
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Wells' Embryos: The Piltdown of Intelligent Design
As an instructor of undergraduates, I am concerned with providing them at least a basic understanding of evolutionary theory and human evolution. I also find myself concerned largely with correcting misinformation regarding both areas that they are likely to have received from their high school biology class (which typically either teaches nothing about the importance of evolution to biology), the media, or more frightfully, from their religious leaders. Further, if there is indeed a controversial issue, I do my best to highlight the nature of the controversy, provide at least a brief background on the data both "sides" may use, and also give them my two cents as to which position I favor because the evidence or arguments are better.
In this respect Intelligent Design really troubles me. We anthropologists have been trained to attempt looking at a situation from within the context of another culture, so it is almost reflexive on our part to view an issue through the lens of its advocates. When I ask myself, what is it that I am supposed to teach young people about evolution from the intelligent design perspective, I keep coming up blank. Consider, for example, Denyse O'Leary's recent comments (with Jonathan Wells' aid and comfort) on the issue of why textbooks have gone beyond the evidence for promoting Darwin's theory. Together she and Wells continue to beat the drum over the apparent use of Haeckel's embryos as a pillar of evolutionary theory that should not be taught.
So, using this issue as one example, if I am to properly teach students about evolutionary theory, I am supposed to stand up in class and point out that 1) similarities in the embryonic stage are critical evidence used to substantiate evolutionary; 2) these "similarities" actually don't exists; 3) textbooks continue to use Haeckel's drawings of embryos in error (meaning they continue to use embryo similarities as strong evidence - I might also be expected to say something about the devious nature of those promoting evolutionary theory); and 4) as a result of 1, 2 and 3, I should have them draw the conclusion that evolutionary theory is actually on pretty shaky ground.
And the evidence I am supposed to use for this is what? A mid 19th century quote from Charles Darwin, quotes from an out-dated 1975 biology textbook, and two out-of-context quotes from relatively recent textbooks? This is what I need to do to properly "teach the controversy" about intelligent design? This lesson plan will satisfy all of those who say intelligent design is not getting a fair assessment by those of us who teach classes on evolution?
And what about discussions I am NOT supposed to enter into while "teaching the controversy"?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss the fact that there are many similiarities in embryonic stages between species that certainly are explained better by evolutionary development, although not in the way that Haeckel and others first proposed, or the way in which Wells and O'Leary perceive them?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that Darwin's proposal of natural selection was developed before Haeckel's suggestion of embryonic development recapitulating phylogeny?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that the majority of recapitulationists Wells and O'Leary cite as evidence for biologists basing evolutionary theory on Haeckel actual condemned Haeckel's ideas?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that modern textbooks use Haeckel only in a historical sense and that scientists consider Haeckel's ideas as obsolete (and should I NOT, in all fairness for "teaching the controversy" point out that Wells and O'Leary have borne "false witness" in this regard)?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that Haeckel's embryos were never a critical "pillar" of evolutionary theory, were never used as an argument for Darwin's theory of natural selection, and that, when they are not taken out of context, modern biology texts actually discuss Haeckel's idea in the past tense?
Apparently, what I am NOT supposed to talk about is as critical to teaching intelligent design as what I AM supposed to talk about. I'm sorry, but there's nothing there to talk about. There's no controversy; no data in proper context; nothing but an interesting historical footnote that is certainly no "icon" of evolutionary theory.
If I am going to be justified in teaching Wells' version of Haeckel and the embryos, I would be equally justified in discussing our 21st century understanding of human evolution in the context of Piltdown...
In this respect Intelligent Design really troubles me. We anthropologists have been trained to attempt looking at a situation from within the context of another culture, so it is almost reflexive on our part to view an issue through the lens of its advocates. When I ask myself, what is it that I am supposed to teach young people about evolution from the intelligent design perspective, I keep coming up blank. Consider, for example, Denyse O'Leary's recent comments (with Jonathan Wells' aid and comfort) on the issue of why textbooks have gone beyond the evidence for promoting Darwin's theory. Together she and Wells continue to beat the drum over the apparent use of Haeckel's embryos as a pillar of evolutionary theory that should not be taught.
So, using this issue as one example, if I am to properly teach students about evolutionary theory, I am supposed to stand up in class and point out that 1) similarities in the embryonic stage are critical evidence used to substantiate evolutionary; 2) these "similarities" actually don't exists; 3) textbooks continue to use Haeckel's drawings of embryos in error (meaning they continue to use embryo similarities as strong evidence - I might also be expected to say something about the devious nature of those promoting evolutionary theory); and 4) as a result of 1, 2 and 3, I should have them draw the conclusion that evolutionary theory is actually on pretty shaky ground.
And the evidence I am supposed to use for this is what? A mid 19th century quote from Charles Darwin, quotes from an out-dated 1975 biology textbook, and two out-of-context quotes from relatively recent textbooks? This is what I need to do to properly "teach the controversy" about intelligent design? This lesson plan will satisfy all of those who say intelligent design is not getting a fair assessment by those of us who teach classes on evolution?
And what about discussions I am NOT supposed to enter into while "teaching the controversy"?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss the fact that there are many similiarities in embryonic stages between species that certainly are explained better by evolutionary development, although not in the way that Haeckel and others first proposed, or the way in which Wells and O'Leary perceive them?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that Darwin's proposal of natural selection was developed before Haeckel's suggestion of embryonic development recapitulating phylogeny?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that the majority of recapitulationists Wells and O'Leary cite as evidence for biologists basing evolutionary theory on Haeckel actual condemned Haeckel's ideas?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that modern textbooks use Haeckel only in a historical sense and that scientists consider Haeckel's ideas as obsolete (and should I NOT, in all fairness for "teaching the controversy" point out that Wells and O'Leary have borne "false witness" in this regard)?
Am I NOT supposed to discuss that Haeckel's embryos were never a critical "pillar" of evolutionary theory, were never used as an argument for Darwin's theory of natural selection, and that, when they are not taken out of context, modern biology texts actually discuss Haeckel's idea in the past tense?
Apparently, what I am NOT supposed to talk about is as critical to teaching intelligent design as what I AM supposed to talk about. I'm sorry, but there's nothing there to talk about. There's no controversy; no data in proper context; nothing but an interesting historical footnote that is certainly no "icon" of evolutionary theory.
If I am going to be justified in teaching Wells' version of Haeckel and the embryos, I would be equally justified in discussing our 21st century understanding of human evolution in the context of Piltdown...
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Pope Calls Intelligent Design's Bluff
If someone who regularly posts on Uncommon Descent were to suggest that the sun was shining, the first action I would recommend is to run outside and look up...
Lee Bowman posts comments on an article discussing Pope Benedict's recent "clarifications" regarding his views on evolution and creation. The IDists are clearly upset about the Pope's latest statements, but they've gotten so used to spinning negative statements about evolution (and faking outside support for intelligent design) that their automated responses to evolution news are simply Pavlovian in nature. Bowman begins with the following quote from the article:
“Paris - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory… ”
...then discusses some historical points of interest about evolution, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's statements, Ken Miller and Francis Ayala's request that the Church clarify its position, yada, yada...
Then Bowman summarizes with this:
According to an AP report, the Pope addressed the issue to a general audience in Rome on 11/9/05. He stated that the universe was made as an “intelligent project”, and criticized those who say that it is without direction or order.
Someone please tell me that Uncommon Descent isn't actually trying to spin the Pope's latest comments into an endorsement of intelligent design. Here are some more tidbits from the article conveniently left out by Bowman:
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book Schoepfung und Evolution (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Ok, everybody, say it together...did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views...
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture,"
Whoa! Hold the phone! Is actually suggesting that there is something beyond faith?...something reasoned?....something logical?....something materialistic?
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
Ken Miller laid a knock-out blow to Dembski and Behe and the Pope just counted to ten! The premise of intelligent design is dependent upon actual science being unable to explain something...so that a designer can be "logically" inferred.
Ok, I'm not defending the Pope's entire statement (at least as currently reported). I actually find agreement with readers' comments at Uncommon Descent on thing: it's a religious figure making the proclamation, so who the hell really cares? The Pope is not a scientist and completely reiterated the same backward understanding of scientific proof, mutation, selection and random chance that almost every local preacher and conservative radio talk show host parrots to uncritically thinking sheep across this nation on a daily basis.
Still, the ID community can't be happy...and I'm going to go drink a beer!
Lee Bowman posts comments on an article discussing Pope Benedict's recent "clarifications" regarding his views on evolution and creation. The IDists are clearly upset about the Pope's latest statements, but they've gotten so used to spinning negative statements about evolution (and faking outside support for intelligent design) that their automated responses to evolution news are simply Pavlovian in nature. Bowman begins with the following quote from the article:
“Paris - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory… ”
...then discusses some historical points of interest about evolution, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's statements, Ken Miller and Francis Ayala's request that the Church clarify its position, yada, yada...
Then Bowman summarizes with this:
According to an AP report, the Pope addressed the issue to a general audience in Rome on 11/9/05. He stated that the universe was made as an “intelligent project”, and criticized those who say that it is without direction or order.
Someone please tell me that Uncommon Descent isn't actually trying to spin the Pope's latest comments into an endorsement of intelligent design. Here are some more tidbits from the article conveniently left out by Bowman:
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book Schoepfung und Evolution (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Ok, everybody, say it together...did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views...
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture,"
Whoa! Hold the phone! Is actually suggesting that there is something beyond faith?...something reasoned?....something logical?....something materialistic?
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
Ken Miller laid a knock-out blow to Dembski and Behe and the Pope just counted to ten! The premise of intelligent design is dependent upon actual science being unable to explain something...so that a designer can be "logically" inferred.
Ok, I'm not defending the Pope's entire statement (at least as currently reported). I actually find agreement with readers' comments at Uncommon Descent on thing: it's a religious figure making the proclamation, so who the hell really cares? The Pope is not a scientist and completely reiterated the same backward understanding of scientific proof, mutation, selection and random chance that almost every local preacher and conservative radio talk show host parrots to uncritically thinking sheep across this nation on a daily basis.
Still, the ID community can't be happy...and I'm going to go drink a beer!
Friday, April 06, 2007
My Alma Mater Strikes Against Intelligent Design
My Alma mater, UC Davis, seems to be figuring prominently in the blogosphere today with regard to events and discussions relevant to criticisms of intelligent design and creationism. First, Afarensis gives us another follow up on Sal Cordova's ridiculously premature mental spewage regarding the "new" reconstruction of the 1470 skull by citing none other than my undergraduate advisor at Davis, Henry McHenry:
And Henry McHenry, an anthropology professor at University of California, Davis, said Bromage faced some sharp questioning from colleagues when he first presented his findings at a symposium on human evolution in South Africa last year.
"I am a bit skeptical that Tim's version is all that much superior and that the original reconstructions violated principles of craniofacial development," said McHenry.
On another front, Ken Miller gave what was apparently a fantastic talk on the UC Davis campus this week. Miller clearly has a sense of humor too (you have to when dealing with the perpetually angry Dembski and Behe). I missed his appearance on the Colbert Report, but the article has him quoted as saying:
"I have a higher opinion of God than the people who favor intelligent design," he said. "This is a guy who was so clever that he set a process in motion that gave rise to everything on this planet, and you, and me, and maybe even Bill O'Reilly."
Beautiful.
Miller's Finding Darwin's God, is on my reading list for my Anthropology 1 class; those students who have chosen to read Miller for their book review project have always had positive responses and a deeper appreciation for what science and evolution are truly about. It usually (and in a positive way) shatters the creationist propaganda they've grown up with.
And Henry McHenry, an anthropology professor at University of California, Davis, said Bromage faced some sharp questioning from colleagues when he first presented his findings at a symposium on human evolution in South Africa last year.
"I am a bit skeptical that Tim's version is all that much superior and that the original reconstructions violated principles of craniofacial development," said McHenry.
On another front, Ken Miller gave what was apparently a fantastic talk on the UC Davis campus this week. Miller clearly has a sense of humor too (you have to when dealing with the perpetually angry Dembski and Behe). I missed his appearance on the Colbert Report, but the article has him quoted as saying:
"I have a higher opinion of God than the people who favor intelligent design," he said. "This is a guy who was so clever that he set a process in motion that gave rise to everything on this planet, and you, and me, and maybe even Bill O'Reilly."
Beautiful.
Miller's Finding Darwin's God, is on my reading list for my Anthropology 1 class; those students who have chosen to read Miller for their book review project have always had positive responses and a deeper appreciation for what science and evolution are truly about. It usually (and in a positive way) shatters the creationist propaganda they've grown up with.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Of Homind Facial Reconstructions, Transitional Fossils, and Lazy Creationists
As I would have expected, Afarensis comes up with the details into Sal Cordova's paleoanthropological buffoonery regarding Tim Bromage's reconstruction of Richard Leakey's 1470 skull. Afarensis initially provides his usual flare for finding the raw data here (including Bromage's poster in a readable size - I couldn't find one the night before). But he doesn't stop there. Afarensis comes back with a more complete assessment of the struggle Leakey and others went through trying to initially reconstruct the skull and properly assails Cordova's and Wells' biased and absolutely false assessment that Leakey purposefully faked the reconstruction. (Readers of Uncommon Descent should learn to read the entire text before penning the incredibly naive statements I see there - they should also stop dredging up arguments that were put to rest long before any of them were actually born: Oxnard and Piltdown, for example). Afarensis then nails the coffin lid shut with a post on Hawk's comments regarding the new reconstruction.
No need to re-invent the wheel here, but I want to emphasize a couple of themes running through these posts that the creationists never accept. First, Hawks' comments clearly show that both Afarensis and I were correct in our initial assessments of Bromage's reconstruction - it might be true, but let's see the actual data first. On the other hand (but meeting expectations) the ID crowd willingly followed the scienfically ignorant media lemmings in their rush to condemn paleoanthropology. Turns out, the Bromage reconstruction is not as flawless as the ID crowd would have hoped. It seems the media showed the reconstructed version of the skull at a different angle than Leakey's reconstruction, making it appear to have a much greater (hence, ape-like) slope. When oriented correctly, the slope is somewhat greater, but not sufficiently so to warrant an accusation of fraud on the part of paleoanthropologists. Clearly, reconstructing skulls is difficult work and if Bromage's reconstruction is affirmed by further studies (note to the ID crowd: we do that in actual science) it will demonstrate only one thing to me: that Leakey, without the aid of computerized reconstruction methods, 30+ years ago, pretty much nailed the reconstruction. (Now, if I were to employ the standard "scientific" approach common among the ID folks in its mirror opposite, I would immediately issue a media release stating that the media clearly faked the angle to make the skull appear more apelike because they are, of course, biased against evolution and clearly favor Christian worldviews...I would further claim that the IDists are violating my free speech rights by arguing against my position...and then sniffle with bag of Kleenex in hand as I point out that the "establishment" is just against me and my followers).
There is another thing Hawks points out that was bothering me as well: calculation of 1470's brain size. The ID groupies couldn't help but point out the media reports suggesting that 1470's skull size was smaller with the reconstruction, but that didn't quite mesh, particularly since the whole cranial vault was recovered. Hawks confirmed my own unease regarding the "new" brain size estimation:
There is a lot of talk about the brain size of the specimen. I don't have any details of the presentation, and it is possible that Bromage was incorrectly quoted. Here is what the article says:
The new reconstruction suggests H. rudolfensis' jaw jutted out much farther than previously thought. The researchers say the cranial capacity of a hominid can be estimated based on the angle of the jaw's slope and they have downsized KNM-ER 1470's cranial capacity from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. (Humans have an average cranial capacity of about 1,300 cc.)
That, of course, is utter nonsense. Ralph Holloway produced an endocast, the joins between the fragments are good, and the volume of 752 cc was measured by water displacement. Why in the world would you estimate brain size from the face when you have a perfectly good vault? It has to be a misquote. [emphasis mine].
Seems the ID proclamation that 1470's brain size is smaller than previously thought is well...(par for the course!)...in error.
Secondly, the very fact that Cordova et al. are so hinging their hopes on a slight change in the angle of the face here, a drop in a few cc's there, and the addition of a minor sagittal crest here and there is due to the 800 pound gorilla that they won't acknowledge standing in the ID/Creationist reading room: these fossils are ALL transitional. We have an extremely difficult time calling one Homo and another Australopithecus, or one Homo erectus and another Homo rudolfensis, precisely because they all share characteristics with each other and none clearly stands out anatomically as separate from the others. Creationists will focus on the ape-like characteristics of one fossil so they can comfortably call it an ape, while completely ignoring its human characteristics. None are distinctly ONLY ape or distinctly ONLY human. And the problem gets more complex every year as more and more hominid fossils are uncovered. I tell my Anthropology 1 students when it comes to reviewing each of the fossil hominids available that they have more to memorize than last year's class (and next year's class will have more to memorize than they do now!).
Finally, Duane's comment on Afarensis' first post cuts to the chase and gets at the heart of why creationists like Sal, Davescot, Casey Luskin and their demi-gods Behe, Dembski and Wells have such a problem with paleoanthropology:
What gets me is that the creationists do absolutely no work. But when there is a suggestion by real scientists that previous work might be in error they jump all over it.
Pretty much describes creationism to a "T"....
No need to re-invent the wheel here, but I want to emphasize a couple of themes running through these posts that the creationists never accept. First, Hawks' comments clearly show that both Afarensis and I were correct in our initial assessments of Bromage's reconstruction - it might be true, but let's see the actual data first. On the other hand (but meeting expectations) the ID crowd willingly followed the scienfically ignorant media lemmings in their rush to condemn paleoanthropology. Turns out, the Bromage reconstruction is not as flawless as the ID crowd would have hoped. It seems the media showed the reconstructed version of the skull at a different angle than Leakey's reconstruction, making it appear to have a much greater (hence, ape-like) slope. When oriented correctly, the slope is somewhat greater, but not sufficiently so to warrant an accusation of fraud on the part of paleoanthropologists. Clearly, reconstructing skulls is difficult work and if Bromage's reconstruction is affirmed by further studies (note to the ID crowd: we do that in actual science) it will demonstrate only one thing to me: that Leakey, without the aid of computerized reconstruction methods, 30+ years ago, pretty much nailed the reconstruction. (Now, if I were to employ the standard "scientific" approach common among the ID folks in its mirror opposite, I would immediately issue a media release stating that the media clearly faked the angle to make the skull appear more apelike because they are, of course, biased against evolution and clearly favor Christian worldviews...I would further claim that the IDists are violating my free speech rights by arguing against my position...and then sniffle with bag of Kleenex in hand as I point out that the "establishment" is just against me and my followers).
There is another thing Hawks points out that was bothering me as well: calculation of 1470's brain size. The ID groupies couldn't help but point out the media reports suggesting that 1470's skull size was smaller with the reconstruction, but that didn't quite mesh, particularly since the whole cranial vault was recovered. Hawks confirmed my own unease regarding the "new" brain size estimation:
There is a lot of talk about the brain size of the specimen. I don't have any details of the presentation, and it is possible that Bromage was incorrectly quoted. Here is what the article says:
The new reconstruction suggests H. rudolfensis' jaw jutted out much farther than previously thought. The researchers say the cranial capacity of a hominid can be estimated based on the angle of the jaw's slope and they have downsized KNM-ER 1470's cranial capacity from 752 cubic centimeters to about 526 cc. (Humans have an average cranial capacity of about 1,300 cc.)
That, of course, is utter nonsense. Ralph Holloway produced an endocast, the joins between the fragments are good, and the volume of 752 cc was measured by water displacement. Why in the world would you estimate brain size from the face when you have a perfectly good vault? It has to be a misquote. [emphasis mine].
Seems the ID proclamation that 1470's brain size is smaller than previously thought is well...(par for the course!)...in error.
Secondly, the very fact that Cordova et al. are so hinging their hopes on a slight change in the angle of the face here, a drop in a few cc's there, and the addition of a minor sagittal crest here and there is due to the 800 pound gorilla that they won't acknowledge standing in the ID/Creationist reading room: these fossils are ALL transitional. We have an extremely difficult time calling one Homo and another Australopithecus, or one Homo erectus and another Homo rudolfensis, precisely because they all share characteristics with each other and none clearly stands out anatomically as separate from the others. Creationists will focus on the ape-like characteristics of one fossil so they can comfortably call it an ape, while completely ignoring its human characteristics. None are distinctly ONLY ape or distinctly ONLY human. And the problem gets more complex every year as more and more hominid fossils are uncovered. I tell my Anthropology 1 students when it comes to reviewing each of the fossil hominids available that they have more to memorize than last year's class (and next year's class will have more to memorize than they do now!).
Finally, Duane's comment on Afarensis' first post cuts to the chase and gets at the heart of why creationists like Sal, Davescot, Casey Luskin and their demi-gods Behe, Dembski and Wells have such a problem with paleoanthropology:
What gets me is that the creationists do absolutely no work. But when there is a suggestion by real scientists that previous work might be in error they jump all over it.
Pretty much describes creationism to a "T"....
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Paleoanthropology Breaks a Finger Nail...Cordova Claims a Mortal Wound
In a mind-numbing display of intellectually vapid arrogance, Sal Cordova, who couldn't identify a fossil hominid if it bit him on the ass, has the audacity to accuse Richard Leakey of deliberately reconstructing the 1470 skull to appear more human-like. All of this is derived from reports of Tim Bromage's recent reconstruction of the skull based on computer modeling, which makes its face more protruding and brain size somewhat smaller than Leakey originally reconstructed. The immediate implication of this is that all fossil reconstructions must be hiding something (including I'm sure, the fossils that aren't actually reconstructions) and intelligent design is somehow vindicated. It is absolutely amazing the extent to which Intelligent Design proponents really need to cling to every change in scientific thinking and publicly decry it as a failure in order to prop up their own failed methods. Assuming for the moment that Tim Bromage's reconstruction actually holds up (which may or may not happen - it was presented as a poster at a conference and my bet is the full range of the method and data have not been presented, or more importantly, formally reviewed by other experts in the field), what we have here is another case of scientists continually asking questions, formulating hypothesis and testing them against new methods of analysis or new theoretical approaches in order to find more parsimonious explanations of the world around them. Just what does Cordova think he has? The death nell of early hominid evolution? Geez, Sal...wake up from your ID dilusion and have an honest gander at the voluminous (and annually mounting) evidence of the fact that humans and chimps share a common ancestor and were not specialy designed. Since intelligent design proponents don't actually work with data, theoretical perspective or hypothesis testing I suppose I can understand how these concepts are foreign to you, but even you and your band of driveling Ovis can't possibly think a single modified reconstruction is a mortal blow to fact that we have a ton of early hominid ancestors, all at various stages of transition between apes and humans. I mean, you have readers who think Piltdown is still a valid argument against evolution, for Christ sake!
Jonathan Wells is not vindicated by this issue, Sal (he can't even acurately discuss the early hominid evidence). If this holds true, it actually clarifies some issues in paleoanthropology. So keep bailing water out of that sinking ID ship , Sal...
Jonathan Wells is not vindicated by this issue, Sal (he can't even acurately discuss the early hominid evidence). If this holds true, it actually clarifies some issues in paleoanthropology. So keep bailing water out of that sinking ID ship , Sal...
Friday, March 23, 2007
Meat for Sex...And Intelligent Design
This morning’s symposium on "Human Behavioral Ecology and California Archaeology" at the Society for California Archaeology meetings comprised a number of papers on the use, abuse and differenting perspectives on the nature of evolutionary ecology models for interpreting the archaeological record. Much of this started a year or so ago, with the argument put forth by Kelly McGuire and Bill Hildebrand (both friends of mine) that the ascendancy of artiodoctyl hunting in California might have arisen not, as some suggest, as the result of simple caloric returns (larger mammals are a bigger package of meat, and therefore more “worth the effort” to find, hunt and process them than are smaller animals like rabbits), but rather as the advent of “signaling” by individual hunters, who through increased hunting success, “signal” to females that they are good providers and should therefore seek them as mates. (McGuire sardonically referred to the latter idea this morning as the “meat for sex” model!).
Regardless of which side of the debate one falls on (and a good range of issues on both sides was discussed) several things struck me listening to the papers this morning. The first is that archaeology is clearly a scientific discipline – there is far more to it than just digging square holes in the ground! All papers presented clearly presented well-developed theoretical approaches, which also clearly guided collection and interpretation of the data itself. The link between solid theory, hypothesis testing and data interpretation could not have been stronger. I have always argued that this is the true nature of archaeological research (developing a theoretical structure in which to frame and test problems is as critical as data recovery), but it was highly satisfying to see the two mesh so well this morning.
The symposium also highlighted the fact that the best innovations in archaeological thinking and interpretation derive from the rigorous application of evolutionary theory. Other theoretical perspectives have been tried, but explanations of archaeological data are best explained by evolutionary theory. I would argue that the advancement of “Syro-Palestinian” archaeology (read “Bible” archaeology) would also be better served by a solid dose of evolutionary theory instead of a misguided depdendence on humanly written texts (another discussion, I suppose….).
To the extent that the symposium demonstrated archaeology’s commitment to interpretation of data within a rigorously defined theory, it also showed archaeology’s commitment to science. Over and over again, I heard the broad “If/Then” statements so critical to developing testable hypotheses and then actually demonstrating whether or not the data fit the expectations suggested by the model. I couldn’t help but think of the great extent to which Intelligent Design is both theory and data derived. Papers presented this morning generally took the following form:
1) Here are the basic concepts behind theoretical approach X;
2) If theoretical approach X is an appropriate model, we would expect A, B and C in the archaeological record;
3) Here are the data from the archaeological record;
4) Data are best explained by the proposed model; or if not, it was identified precisely where the theoretical approach or the data may not have been adequate, or fit the expectations of a different model;
5) Here’s where additional research would be helpful;
In contrast, I would bet that the upcoming Darwin vs. Design Conference will proceed more along these lines:
1) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad;
2) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad and wrong;
3) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad, wrong, and has a deleterious effect on morals;
4) Therefore, we should all accept Intelligent Design.
I was also reminded that when McGuire and Hildebrand proposed the idea of signaling as a better explanation for certain archaeological trends we were seeing in California, they received a significant drubbing from the foraging theory community. In response, McGuire and Hildebrand did not whine about the “militant foraging theorists” dominating the discipline, write op-ed pieces for the various newspapers complaining about how they were being picked on, or outright lie about the nature of foraging theory. Instead, they wrote additional papers, clarifying their ideas, responding to specific arguments and more importantly, they developed testable hypotheses and collected more data. Whether or not they have offered a better theoretical approach, the fact that 13 scientists got together this morning to present data and tests on the idea of “meat for sex” shows that they are successfully engaging in that most precious commodity that still eludes Intelligent Design: good science.
Regardless of which side of the debate one falls on (and a good range of issues on both sides was discussed) several things struck me listening to the papers this morning. The first is that archaeology is clearly a scientific discipline – there is far more to it than just digging square holes in the ground! All papers presented clearly presented well-developed theoretical approaches, which also clearly guided collection and interpretation of the data itself. The link between solid theory, hypothesis testing and data interpretation could not have been stronger. I have always argued that this is the true nature of archaeological research (developing a theoretical structure in which to frame and test problems is as critical as data recovery), but it was highly satisfying to see the two mesh so well this morning.
The symposium also highlighted the fact that the best innovations in archaeological thinking and interpretation derive from the rigorous application of evolutionary theory. Other theoretical perspectives have been tried, but explanations of archaeological data are best explained by evolutionary theory. I would argue that the advancement of “Syro-Palestinian” archaeology (read “Bible” archaeology) would also be better served by a solid dose of evolutionary theory instead of a misguided depdendence on humanly written texts (another discussion, I suppose….).
To the extent that the symposium demonstrated archaeology’s commitment to interpretation of data within a rigorously defined theory, it also showed archaeology’s commitment to science. Over and over again, I heard the broad “If/Then” statements so critical to developing testable hypotheses and then actually demonstrating whether or not the data fit the expectations suggested by the model. I couldn’t help but think of the great extent to which Intelligent Design is both theory and data derived. Papers presented this morning generally took the following form:
1) Here are the basic concepts behind theoretical approach X;
2) If theoretical approach X is an appropriate model, we would expect A, B and C in the archaeological record;
3) Here are the data from the archaeological record;
4) Data are best explained by the proposed model; or if not, it was identified precisely where the theoretical approach or the data may not have been adequate, or fit the expectations of a different model;
5) Here’s where additional research would be helpful;
In contrast, I would bet that the upcoming Darwin vs. Design Conference will proceed more along these lines:
1) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad;
2) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad and wrong;
3) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad, wrong, and has a deleterious effect on morals;
4) Therefore, we should all accept Intelligent Design.
I was also reminded that when McGuire and Hildebrand proposed the idea of signaling as a better explanation for certain archaeological trends we were seeing in California, they received a significant drubbing from the foraging theory community. In response, McGuire and Hildebrand did not whine about the “militant foraging theorists” dominating the discipline, write op-ed pieces for the various newspapers complaining about how they were being picked on, or outright lie about the nature of foraging theory. Instead, they wrote additional papers, clarifying their ideas, responding to specific arguments and more importantly, they developed testable hypotheses and collected more data. Whether or not they have offered a better theoretical approach, the fact that 13 scientists got together this morning to present data and tests on the idea of “meat for sex” shows that they are successfully engaging in that most precious commodity that still eludes Intelligent Design: good science.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Egnor Evolution Malpractice:The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Just when you thought the science blogging community had finished demonstrating Egnor's ignorance regarding evolution, it turns out there's more...a LOT more...
Just read Orac's latest post at Respectful Insolence.
Not much else to say.
Just read Orac's latest post at Respectful Insolence.
Not much else to say.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Real Question Is Would You Want Egnor As Your Doctor?
Our esteemed creationist M.D., Michael Egnor, continues distorting evolutionary theory and its relationship to medicine. In a Evolution News and Views piece yesterday, Egnor makes fun of an Alliance for Science essay contest for high school students where they are asked to answer the follwoing question: "Why would I have wanted my doctor to have studied evolution?". PZ (several times) and Orac (again, several times) demonstrate Egnor's ignorance on the topic of evolution as well as the relationship between evolutionary biology and medicine. In this piece Egnor suggests the following point-blank:
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Egnor also trots out the "Darwin = Eugenics = Hitler" BS again although that has been debunked time and again and shown for what it is: a marketing ploy creationists use to try to get the stupid to believe evolutionary biology is evil. But, just in case you haven't heard the argument, Orac provides a quick synopsis:
Aaagh! I can't believe he's invoking the whole "Darwinism equals eugenics" canard. That's about as idiotic as it comes. Even if it were true that eugenicists used evolutionary theory to justify their vile activities in the early 20th century and the whole concept of "racial hygiene," it would be irrelevant. Just because some people put a scientific theory to evil use does not say anything whatsoever about whether that scientific theory is valid or not. One might just as well condemn Einstein, Neils Bohr, and all the physicists whose work formed the basis for the construction of the atomic bomb for the use to which their work was put.
As for that last line, I recently made the same point when our northstate's creationist lawyer Larry Caldwell propped up the same old tired connection:
It seems likely to me that Goethe's eugenics views were underwritten not by Darwinian evolution, but by biblical teaching. We certainly know that, contrary to creationist claims, Hitler, Himmler and most of the Nazis used the guise of Christian religion to justify their behavior. Eugenics might be a theoretical derivative of evolution...but its application is driven by religious worldviews. In his zeal to tag evolution with the mark of human atrocity, Caldwell misses the more fundamental connection.
It is not biological theory that leads to human atrocity, it is the politicization of religious faith, absent reason and logic and disdainful of proper science, that promotes and then justifies human atrocities committed in the name of whatever god happens to be convenient.
Orac further trounces Egnor's faulty assertion that evolutionary biology has nothing to do with medicine. I also remember commenting on an article a while back, in which researchers specifically used evolutionary theory to develope new enzymes, some of which will have medical application. Despite the fact that doctors may not themselves apply evolutionary biology in their day-to-day practice, the basic tenets of how organisms are put together and work (or don't work and could be fixed) are evolutionary in origin. Again, follow the links to read the volumes of material Egnor leaves out of his comments on evolution.
Egnor's question did, however, get me to thinking. Not about how much evolution I'd want my doctor to understand, but how much of an Intelligent Design proponent would I want my doctor to be?:
- since my neurosurgeon cannot recite a single actual fact evolutionary biology, should I be cocerned there are a lot of other medical facts he doesn't understand?;
- since my neurosurgeon is willing to distort some science to make way for his personal belief system, perhaps I should question what medical science is being distorted when he operates on me?;
- if my neurosurgeon thinks my particular neuro-pathways were designed, then should I be worried that he won't fix a problem because to doesn't want to interfere with God's handiwork?;
- would my neurosurgeon be open to the implication of his work, that the intelligent designer is not perfect and screws up the design every once and while, and even look for serious problems that I might have?;
- if I am gay (or an atheist), should I be worried that my ID advocating neurosurgeon will simply chock my condition up to whim of an omnipotent deity who wanted me to suffer these problems because I was gay (or an atheist)?
- if new treatments became available because another, less intellectual hamstrung researcher developed them using evolutionary principles, will my ID advocating neurosurgeon not use them because he thinks evolutionary theory and eugenics are the same thing?
Egnor's question gets you to think, doesn't it?
[postscript: I see that PZ caught Egnor's idiocy and responded with "Career Day at the Discovery Institute Preschool"]
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Egnor also trots out the "Darwin = Eugenics = Hitler" BS again although that has been debunked time and again and shown for what it is: a marketing ploy creationists use to try to get the stupid to believe evolutionary biology is evil. But, just in case you haven't heard the argument, Orac provides a quick synopsis:
Aaagh! I can't believe he's invoking the whole "Darwinism equals eugenics" canard. That's about as idiotic as it comes. Even if it were true that eugenicists used evolutionary theory to justify their vile activities in the early 20th century and the whole concept of "racial hygiene," it would be irrelevant. Just because some people put a scientific theory to evil use does not say anything whatsoever about whether that scientific theory is valid or not. One might just as well condemn Einstein, Neils Bohr, and all the physicists whose work formed the basis for the construction of the atomic bomb for the use to which their work was put.
As for that last line, I recently made the same point when our northstate's creationist lawyer Larry Caldwell propped up the same old tired connection:
It seems likely to me that Goethe's eugenics views were underwritten not by Darwinian evolution, but by biblical teaching. We certainly know that, contrary to creationist claims, Hitler, Himmler and most of the Nazis used the guise of Christian religion to justify their behavior. Eugenics might be a theoretical derivative of evolution...but its application is driven by religious worldviews. In his zeal to tag evolution with the mark of human atrocity, Caldwell misses the more fundamental connection.
It is not biological theory that leads to human atrocity, it is the politicization of religious faith, absent reason and logic and disdainful of proper science, that promotes and then justifies human atrocities committed in the name of whatever god happens to be convenient.
Orac further trounces Egnor's faulty assertion that evolutionary biology has nothing to do with medicine. I also remember commenting on an article a while back, in which researchers specifically used evolutionary theory to develope new enzymes, some of which will have medical application. Despite the fact that doctors may not themselves apply evolutionary biology in their day-to-day practice, the basic tenets of how organisms are put together and work (or don't work and could be fixed) are evolutionary in origin. Again, follow the links to read the volumes of material Egnor leaves out of his comments on evolution.
Egnor's question did, however, get me to thinking. Not about how much evolution I'd want my doctor to understand, but how much of an Intelligent Design proponent would I want my doctor to be?:
- since my neurosurgeon cannot recite a single actual fact evolutionary biology, should I be cocerned there are a lot of other medical facts he doesn't understand?;
- since my neurosurgeon is willing to distort some science to make way for his personal belief system, perhaps I should question what medical science is being distorted when he operates on me?;
- if my neurosurgeon thinks my particular neuro-pathways were designed, then should I be worried that he won't fix a problem because to doesn't want to interfere with God's handiwork?;
- would my neurosurgeon be open to the implication of his work, that the intelligent designer is not perfect and screws up the design every once and while, and even look for serious problems that I might have?;
- if I am gay (or an atheist), should I be worried that my ID advocating neurosurgeon will simply chock my condition up to whim of an omnipotent deity who wanted me to suffer these problems because I was gay (or an atheist)?
- if new treatments became available because another, less intellectual hamstrung researcher developed them using evolutionary principles, will my ID advocating neurosurgeon not use them because he thinks evolutionary theory and eugenics are the same thing?
Egnor's question gets you to think, doesn't it?
[postscript: I see that PZ caught Egnor's idiocy and responded with "Career Day at the Discovery Institute Preschool"]
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Teaching Anti-Evolution Promotes Greater Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory
An interesting post at Telic Thoughts reports on a study in which teaching both evolution and anti-evolution (ID/Creationism) in class leads to students' greater acceptance of evolution:
At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so — and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.
The post is followed by the usual ID hand-wringing (led by Sal Cordova) about how the study must be "flawed" because, logically, students would always choose ID over evolution when confronted with both (Cordova reports that Dembski gets 100% turnover from evolution to ID when he teaches!).
While the study may have some methodological issues, the overall result is interesting and backs up some anectodal information from my own college classes here in Susanvlle. When the significant flaws in Intellilgent Design are pointed out to students and the disinformation ID activists hand out about evolution is corrected, my experience is that a large proportion of students, if not becoming strict adherents to evolutionary theory, at least realilze they've been fed a line of BS from Behe, Dembski, Wells and the pastors, teachers and other adults in their lives who regurgitate ID propaganda back to them. Certainly greater numbers of students walk away thinking there is something more susbstantial to evolutionary theory than what they have been lead to believe by local creationists.
At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so — and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.
The post is followed by the usual ID hand-wringing (led by Sal Cordova) about how the study must be "flawed" because, logically, students would always choose ID over evolution when confronted with both (Cordova reports that Dembski gets 100% turnover from evolution to ID when he teaches!).
While the study may have some methodological issues, the overall result is interesting and backs up some anectodal information from my own college classes here in Susanvlle. When the significant flaws in Intellilgent Design are pointed out to students and the disinformation ID activists hand out about evolution is corrected, my experience is that a large proportion of students, if not becoming strict adherents to evolutionary theory, at least realilze they've been fed a line of BS from Behe, Dembski, Wells and the pastors, teachers and other adults in their lives who regurgitate ID propaganda back to them. Certainly greater numbers of students walk away thinking there is something more susbstantial to evolutionary theory than what they have been lead to believe by local creationists.