A Plethora of Pandas; Discovery Institute, Amicus Briefs, and Kitzmiller v. Dover

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will explore Appendix A from your Amicus brief filed in Kitzmiller V. Dover. This section is titled "Documentation showing that the scientific theory of intelligent design makes no claims about the identity or nature of the intelligent cause responsible for life". This page is taken right from your site, at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=647 . We will study it one section at a time.

From 1st paragraph:
Plaintiffs have falsely asserted that the scientific theory of intelligent design postulates a "supernatural" creator. In fact, the scientists and philosophers of science who have developed the theory of intelligent design have constistently maintained that the scientific evidence and the methods of design detection that they employ cannot establish whether the intelligent cause(s) responsible for life are inside or outside of nature.

Well, you're starting out with a problematic statement. First, if the people behind Intelligent Design argue that the "scientific evidence" for intelligent design cannot tell us "whether the intelligent cause(s) for life are inside or outside of nature", then how can one qualify intelligent design as science? Science has to be testable, and disprovable. If you cannot scientifically identify a designer in nature, then by the nature of science (under the Discovery Institute's preferred definition of science), that designer does not exist. However, this is only under the Wedge Document's preferred definition of science, which also allows for the incorporation of the supernatural into science. According to the Wedge Document definition, the Intelligent Designer must not exist because there is no proof for its existence that can give us a smoking gun to identify what it is. Under the mainstream definition of science, however, there is no such issue. Mainstream science takes the stance that supernatural causation is outside the realm of science, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven by science. Therefore, while mainstream science cannot disprove God, the Discovery Institute has pushed a view of science that would allow for the disproof of God's existence.

You may notice that I'm going a bit God-heavy in a discussion of a theory that the Discovery Institute claims makes no statement on what the cause of intelligent design is. This is because many of the mainstream ID proponents (such as Jonathan Wells and William Dembski)have no qualms whatsoever about identifying the "designer". Let's look quickly at a quote by Jonathan Wells that explains his motivation as a scientist:

" At the end of the Washington Monument rally in September, 1976, I was admitted to the second entering class at Unification Theological Seminary. During the next two years, I took a long prayer walk every evening. I asked God what He wanted me to do with my life, and the answer came not only through my prayers, but also through Father's many talks to us, and through my studies. Father encouraged us to set our sights high and accomplish great things.

He also spoke out against the evils in the world; among them, he frequently criticized Darwin's theory that living things originated without God's purposeful, creative activity. My studies included modern theologians who took Darwinism for granted and thus saw no room for God's involvement in nature or history; in the process, they re- interpreted the fall, the incarnation, and even God as products of human imagination.

Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. "
taken from http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Wells/DARWIN.htm

As readers of this blog should know, Jonathan Wells is one of the major supporters of Intelligent Design. Is it a coincidence that his mission to destroy Darwinism for God coincides with his involvement with Intelligent Design, judging from the Discovery Institute's Wedge Document, probably not, as evidenced by the following piece of the Wedge Document:

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. "
(http://deardiscoveryinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/01/wedge-documentso-what.html )

So apparently ID is a tool that can overthrow materialistic science and "replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.". This wording is vague to the point that it is possible for the Discovery Institute to argue that the term "consonant" shows that ID proponents do not have a certain deity in mind when they use the term "Designer". However, statements such as that from Wells quoted above make that argument extremely weak. It is fairly obvious, that, whether implicitly or not, the Christian God is the Intelligent Designer.

Now, onto another quote from the Amicus brief:

"Intelligent Design theorists have written many technical articles which rely entire upon empirically-based arguments and make no appeal to the supernatural. Rather, technical literature explicating the scientific theory of intelligent design consistently uses observation-based scientific methods to detect the prior action of an unspecified designing intelligence"

First, it is obvious that the "unspecified designing intelligence" is the Christian God, as established above. Also, the claim that ID proponents have published peer-reviewed journal articles has been discussed on a previous blog ( http://deardiscoveryinstitute.blogspot.com/2008/03/peer-reviewed-id-publications.html ), so I won't waste my time re-discussing this subject here. On to another piece of the document, discussing religion:

"Theorists who have formulated the scientific theory of intelligent design have been consistent in stating that design theory does not postulate a supernatural creator, nor does it try to speculate on the basis of science about the nature or identity of the designing intelligence, even when writing before technical religious journals or popular religious audiences via religious publishing companies"

Well they're right here to a degree. Most of the claims that Intelligent Design supports the CHRISTIAN GOD are found in private documents such as the Wedge Document. However, some ID advocates (see Wells and Dembski) have been quite open in public about the religious nature of their work (Wells quote above). Now we'll look at a short statement from an interview by William Dembski:

"I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God.The focus of my writings is not to try to understand the Christian doctrine of creation; it’s to try to develop intelligent design as a scientific program.

There’s a big question within the intelligent design community: “How did the design get in there?” We’re very early in this game in terms of understanding the history of how the design got implemented. I think a lot of this is because evolutionary theory has so misled us that we have to rethink things from the ground up. That's where we are. There are lots and lots of questions that are now open to re-examination in light of this new paradigm. "
( http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006139.cfm )

As is evident in this statement, it is clear that Dembski "knows" that the intelligent designer is none other than the Christian God. It is clear from this, among the other topics discussed in this blog, that the claims by the Amicus brief appendix in question are extremely vague in that they are technically accurate, but only in the most technical and exact reading. Any research deeper into the issue, especially the surrounding documents (besides articles published dealing SPECIFICALLY with Intelligent Design), shows us that intelligent design is nothing more or less than an attempt to once again develop a theory of Creation in the post Edwards v. Aguilard and Mclean v. Arkansas world.

The end of this segment of the brief deals with the textbook Of Pandas and People. While I have discussed Of Pandas and People previously, I think it is worth looking at this segment of the of the brief quickly. Consider the final paragraph of this document:

"Thus even while design theory was in its infant stages, the authors of Pandas made it explicitly clear that unlike creationism, design theory does not posit a supernatural creator and cannot establish the existence of such a creator using its methods of design detection."

This may be true for the most recent versions of Of Pandas and People, but older versions of the book, as shown through the Dover trial, prove that the authors of Pandas did have a specific designer in mind...the Christian God. Pandas was initially nothing less or more than a Creationist textbook. One final quote, comparing sections of Of Pandas and People as used in the Dover trial, and a previous version:

"Intelligent Design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an abrupt agency, with their distinctive features already intact--fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Of Pandas and People, Kenyon and Davis 1989)

"Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact–fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (Biology and Creation 1986, FTE 3015, p. 2-10)
(second quote taken from http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/10/i_guess_id_real.html )

So clearly there is a Creationist heritage to Of Pandas and People. While the most recent versions of the text did not specifically identify the "designer", clearly this older version does. While it is still vague with regards to an exact identity of the Creator, judging from the fact that it was originally a Creationist textbook, it is apparent that the designer in question was the Christian God.

Clearly, this amicus brief is not as innocent as it appears. Judging from the evidence presented in this blog, there is much more to the Discovery Institute than meets the eye from this amicus brief. It leads one to question the validity of other documents published by the institute.

So Discovery Institute does, indeed, support Expelled.

Dear Discovery Institute,

Judging from a recent article on your website (http://www.discovery.org/expelled/whyitmatters.php), titled "Expelled, Why it Matters", it appears that you support the film Expelled. Judging from that fact, I assume that you accept the many inaccuracies within the film as well. As the inaccuracies with the film have been touched by both this blog and other sites (see also www.expelledexposed.com and http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part1 , both of these sites show the movie to be extremely flawed with regards to accuracy), I will not deal with those inaccuracies here. However, your support of this film raises even more questions about your integrity as an institution; how can one trust anything that comes through your press machine, especially with all the inaccuracies we've already discussed throughout the course of this blog? Let's discuss "Expelled, Why it Matters". We'll begin with your question:

"Why is Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed so important to the mission of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture and how can you join in our work to defend academic freedom?"

The answer to this question is obvious; it supports Wedge Strategy by pitting science against religion, makes it appear that all scientists who accept evolution are atheists, and compares scientists to Nazis. This serves to visually smear the scientific community in general, regardless of the fact that many of the claims made in the film are either flawed or dead wrong.

"Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documents the plight of scientists and scholars who dare to question the claims of Darwinian evolution. Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture exists to support research and writing by scientists who are questioning Darwin, to defend their academic freedom, and to expose efforts by Darwinists to shut down free speech. "

But the scientists that the film claim were "expelled" for anti-evolution actions were actually fired for other reasons (see http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2 ) for discussion of this. If scientists are punished for arguing against "Darwinism", then why do Lynn Margilus and William Schopf still have jobs? Oh yeah, I forgot...they're doing science, not psuedoscience. Think ID is science? It invokes supernatural causation, which science cannot do; science can say nothing of the supernatural, either in favor or against supernatural causation. ID is not science. That is beside the point, however. The scientists that "Expelled" claims were fired for supporting ID were canned for other reasons; for example, Gonzalez did not recieve tenure due to a heavy decline in papers published and graduate students attracted. Sternberg was fired for violating peer-review policy at his journal when he personally reviewed a pro-Intelligent Design article focusing on paleontology that he was not qualified to review. Are these people being persecuted? No. They weren't doing their jobs, so of course they got fired. Would you keep a guy on staff that you hired to clean your toilets if the only thing he does is re-organize your book collection? Of course not!

"We need your help to continue and expand our efforts as persecution increases. A donation of any amount will be greatly appreciated and will help us as we work on behalf of persecuted scholars and scientists"

So you're turning this into an attempt to recieve donations. Would this money truly fund efforts to protect "persecuted scholars and scientists", or would it be used to attack the firing of people that aren't doing their job? Are these scientists persecuted, or were they fired because they did not fulfill job requirements? I believe you'll find that the 2nd possibility is the correct one.

Ben Stein is a liar

Dear Discovery Institute,

Ben Stein is a liar. As are all individuals involved in producing the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I was, unfortunately (for I lament the money I wasted and put into Ben Stein's pockets...more on that later) able to see the film earlier this week. As discussed earlier, Dawkins was quoted nicely out of context, and this is explained in an earlier blog. That wasn't even an issue comparably however.

First, apparently all scientists are atheists, or so the film seems to tell us. The only scientists they show are known atheists, and are shown saying that they are. The filmmakers ignore the 40% of scientists who are actually deeply religious. And apparently all scientists are Nazis; whenever mainstream evolutionary theorists are shown, they are shown connected to images of Nazis. This leads to a deeply offensive point. Not to mention the fact that the film messes up when it claims eugenics was based on Darwinism (it was based on Social Darwinism, not Darwinism), Ben Stein first tells us that he is Jewish, then continues to film in a room where Holocaust victims were systematically murdered in an attempt to make a political statement and show that scientists were behind the Holocaust. What offended me most was not the implied idea that scientists are behind the Holocaust, but rather that Stein had the gall and total lack of respect for his own religion that allowed him to attempt to use Holocaust victims to make a political statement. YOU DO NOT USE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT. This is both deeply disrespectful and also extremely insulting.

It gets even better from here. Stein makes a point to misquote Darwin. Here's the statement he used from Darwin's Descent of Man:

"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We
civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick,
thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one
who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed."

This leaves the viewer thinking "wow, Darwin was horrible and supported eugenics". However, that is not the complete quote. Here is the part of the passage left out by Stein:

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner
previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check
our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest
part of our nature."

Funny; it's almost as if Ben Stein were trying to quote-mine in order to make his position more defendable. What is even more hilarious is when he brings "scientists who were fired for ID" onto the film. The following website (where the Darwin quotes were pasted from; I checked the passages in my copy of The Descent of Man; they're correct) contains a good rebutal for those claims, so I won't do it here. http://alaskanbrights.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html

Even funnier is the attempt to set up a battle between science and religion within the film, right along the lines of Wedge Strategy. Thus, the ID proponents on the film are shown as Christian martyrs who are falling victim to the Evil Empire called Science. This is not the case; the movie is complete rubbish (and the filmmaking itself is horrible as well...but that's besides the point). Anyone familiar with the Wedge Strategy and Discovery Institute can see your fingerprints all over the film.

So if anyone reading this wants to kill a few brain cells, see Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The title says it all, as no intelligent individual with a background in this topic can sit through the film without being majorly upset by the huge number of lies pushed by the film. A five-year-old with a camera phone could have made a better, more informative film than this one.

cdesign proponentist

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will be discussing my personal favorite transitional form, Cdesign proponentist. This organism falls between "Creationist" and "Design Proponent". First discovered in 2005, Cdisign proponentist was a major player in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. This organism was discovered in a draft of the textbook suppliment that you actually support, "Of Pandas and People". This transitional form occured as the book was being changed from a Creationist textbook supplement to an "Intelligent-Design"-based textbook suppliment.

Cdesign proponentist is a transitional form that proves that Intelligent Design arose from Creation Science. In fact, one could argue the point that this organism is proof that Creationists are, in fact, evolving. As for Michael Behe, if a stack of textbooks proving the evolvability of the bacterial flagellum is not enough to demonstrate the validity of evolution at this level, Cdesign proponentist must at least be sufficient to prove that evolution does, in fact, occur at least at some level.

Why are we talking about Cdesign proponentist right now? I was kind of hoping that Ben Stein would include this transitional form in his film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". However, as with any film that an individual is interviewed to be in, and subsequently blocked from viewing the film, I strongly question the validity of its claims. Oh well, I guess I probably won't be allowed to see it either, because I accept evolution and see Intelligent Design for what it really is (as shown by Cdesign proponentists).

Well let's take a look at your Wedge strategy for a bit. The Wedge Document sets up ID in 3 phases. Now that you have created your own "research" programs (funded by yourself, and not supported by the scientific community), it appears that you are in phase 2 of the Wedge Strategy (publicity). Stein's documentary falls right in with that process. However, given your governing goals for spiritual and cultural renewal, and the fact that A) you've been pushing Stein's documentary and B) Answers in Genesis was allowed to see it but scientists interviewed within the film were not, it seems to me that there are questions in the air with regards to credibility of the film. Go ahead and show it; anyone with an ounce of intelligence will see through what you're trying to do.

It may serve the reader of this blog to have the Discovery Institute's goals for spiritual and cultural renewal posted in this blog, so I will post them below:

"5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God "

This looks like Creationism. Thanks to the discovery of Cdesign proponentist, I think we have the smoking gun proof of this evolutionary linaeage.

Discovering Discovery Institute's science education policy

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today, I've been investigating your perspectives on science education. I have noticed some interesting trends, and would like to raise some questions as to the motives of your views. It appears that your view on science education is, like most of the articles and books your fellows publish, strongly consonant with Wedge Strategy.

To discuss your science education policy, we will consider the document on your website that explains it. First, let's take the beginning of the document:

"As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on."

At this point, we appear to be between phase 1 and 2 of Wedge strategy. There is the hesitance to teach Intelligent Design in the classrooms yet, but we are currently in a phase where there is a desire to undermine the validity of evolutionary theory in schools. As the opposition, with strong support from Discovery Institute yearns to "teach the controversy", they also deny any desire to teach Intelligent Design in the classroom. This is perhaps because we haven't reached that phase in the Wedge Document yet. Eventually, the Discovery Institute does, of course, wish to have Intelligent Design taught in classrooms; after all, the Wedge Document showcases a yearning to undermine the definition of science and the validity of evolutionary theory (and replace it with Intelligent Design).

"Four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. In addition, the Institute opposes efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner"

This statement should be revised to "Although Discovery Institute does not yet advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools". As mentioned above (and also in my Wedge Document blog), the Discovery Institute does support replacing evolutionary theory with Intelligent Design in the scientific realm, and also by default the classroom, eventually. Teach the controversy now, teach Intelligent Design 5 or 10 or 15 years down the road. This way, students will be raised to doubt evolution first, and thus will become more receptive to the teaching of Intelligent Design. With luck, in a few generations, you'll succeed in raising students who will easily accept Intelligent Design. This strategy is perhaps Discovery Institute's best chance to gain some sort of scientific legitimacy. By slowly wedging their way into the scientific curriculum, they would theoretically succeed in raising America's children to accept Intelligent Design. A nation of people open to Intelligent Design would most definitely be an asset to Discovery Institute's attempt to undermine scientific materialism and redefine society. Scary thought.

"The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the individual teacher’s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was unconstitutional, “…teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

Here's an attempt to gain legal validity by the Discovery Institute. They can't legally teach Intelligent Design in the classroom because, as shown in a previous blog, Intelligent Design is inseparable from Creationism. However, by slowly wedging into the curriculum by teaching "a variety of scientific theories" (hey, here's a new scientific theory called "Intelligent Design"?), the Discovery Institute appears to see a possible way to infilitrate America's education system. Whether or not they succeed remains to be seen.

Works Cited:

Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy. Discovery Institute. 9/10/2007

Stephen Meyer teaches Wedge Strategy

Dear Discovery Institute,

Haven't written in a while. How have you been? I've been good, but am growing intriqued by the work of Stephen C Meyer, one of your Vice Presidents. As you know, Stephen Meyer is a proponent of the "teach the controversy" approach to evolution and Intelligent Design, and also a supporter of "On Pandas and People", which we have experienced in an earlier discussion. Lets investigate his article titled "The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism".

First, we will return to a common theme in these blogs. Does this article remain consonant with Wedge Strategy? The answer is a resounding "yes", and as the following quote seems to imply, Intelligent Design is essentially a way to promote Wedge Strategy:

"Thus, for scientific materialists at the end of the nineteenth century, the whole history of the universe and life could be told as a seamless‚ or nearly seamless, unfolding of the potentiality of matter and energy. No longer could it be held that a pre-existent mind shaped matter. Rather, modern science showed that matter shaped and created the capacities of mind (and not the reverse). God did not create "the heavens and the earth." The heavens and the earth (i.e., matter) created (via evolution) the minds that created the concept of God.

By the turn of the twentieth century, this once shockingly materialistic approach to science had become the norm. Most twentieth century scientists have assumed no limits to the explanatory power of materialistic forces. Materialistic modes of thought and assumptions have spread from physics and biology to psychology, sociology, criminology, economics, educational theory, and even theology. Thus, Whitehead would in the end attempt to reconcile science and religion by asserting that even God himself evolves.

Yet now at the end of the twentieth century after many wars and genocidal policies pursued in the name of materialistic "science-based" ideologies, the scientific picture of the world is rapidly changing. From the microcosm of the cell and the quantum world, to the macrocosm of an expanding and finely-tuned universe, the materialistic vision of nature now seems incomplete. Even in biology where Darwin's theory, perhaps more than any other, inspired the possibility of a fully materialistic world view, materialism now seems to be failing as scientists have uncovered an awe-inspiring complexity in even the simplest of living cells. Indeed, nowhere is the inadequacy of materialistic science more evident than in the contemporary discussion of how life in its very "simplest" form might have first originated." (Meyer 1996)

So, as implied by this statement, the materialistic worldview is destined to fall; for those who haven't read my other blogs, in laymen's terms, the implication here is that the very definition of science is supposed to be due to be overthrown (or at least according to Meyer's comments here). But is this truly the case? As I have shown previously, the very structures paraded as "irreducibly complex" by the Intelligent Design movement have been shown to be evolvable. Therefore, this statement by Meyer is obviously outdated, and currently inaccurate. While
most groups would give up an argument once it becomes untenable, however, Discovery Institute still holds onto the "irreducibly complex" argument. Therefore, besides the point that this constitutes an extremely poor attempt at science, it is possible to still use Meyer's 1996 statement to day as a good explanation of Discovery Institute's views, mainly because it is still an accurate representation.

Next, Meyer goes on to attempt to deny the evolvability of DNA (after discussing origin-of-life research, which is not my area of expertise). See, for example, the following quote:

"Second, in nature every amino acid has a distinct mirror image of itself, one left-handed version or L-form and one right-handed version or D-form. These mirror-image forms are called optical isomers. Functioning proteins tolerate only left-handed amino acids, yet the right-handed and left-handed isomers occurs in nature with roughly equal frequency. Taking this into consideration compounds the improbability of attaining a biologically functioning protein. The probability of attaining at random only L-amino acids in a hypothetical peptide chain 100 amino acids long is again (1/2)100 or roughly 1 chance in 10^30. The probability of building a 100 amino acid length chain at random in which all bonds are peptide bonds and all amino acids are L-form would be (1/4)100 or roughly 1 chance in 10^60(zero for all practical purposes given the time available on the early earth). " (Meyer 1996).

While to some readers, this may seem like a valid argument, it is not. In April 2001, Robert Hazen published an article titled "Life's Rocky Start", which discusses geology-based research that accounts for the left-handed bias in amino acids. In this article, Hazen shows that if mineral facies are used as a point of growth for amino acids, then biases in "handedness" will occur. One of the most "useful" minerals for a left-handed bias is Calcite. While research is still ongoing on this possibility, it shows promising results thus far.

It is also worth noting that Meyer goes on to claim that Intelligent Design is the only known explanation for the creation of "information" in organic systems. Let's see the claim, however:

"since intelligent design is the only known cause of information-rich systems, the presence of information--including the information-rich nucleotide sequences in DNA--implies an intelligent source. Scientists in many fields recognize the connection between intelligence and information and make inferences accordingly. Archaeologists assume a mind produced the inscriptions on the Rosetta Stone. Evolutionary anthropologists try to demonstrate the intelligence of early hominids by arguing that certain chipped flints are too improbably specified to have been produced by natural causes. N.A.S.A.'s search for extra-terrestrial intelligence (S.E.T.I.) presupposed that information imbedded in electromagnetic signals from space would indicate an intelligent source. As yet, however, radio-astronomers have not found information-bearing signals coming from space. But closer to home, molecular biologists have identified encoded information in the cell. Consequently, a growing number of scientists now suggest that the information in DNA justifies making what probability theorist William Dembski and biochemist Michael Behe call "the design inference." (Meyer 1996).

To disprove this statement would severly undermine Meyer's credibility, and the credibility of the Discovery Institute as a whole. So, lets consider the following question: Is Intelligent Design the only explanation for the evolution of biological information? No. But don't take my word for it; let's see some of the technical literature!! First, here's an experiment showing the evolvability of information. I will quote the abstract, then link the entire article under works cited:

"How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial ‘protein’ in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium. " (Schneider 2000)

There's one source showing that information is evolvable. Is this conclusion repeatable? Adami et al show that it is, in fact reproducable.

"To make a case for or against a trend in the evolution of complexity in biological evolution, complexity needs to be both rigorously defined and measurable. A recent information-theoretic (but intuitively evident) definition identifies genomic complexity with the amount of information a sequence stores about its environment. We investigate the evolution of genomic complexity in populations of digital organisms and monitor in detail the evolutionary transitions that increase complexity. We show that, because natural selection forces genomes to behave as a natural "Maxwell Demon," within a fixed environment, genomic complexity is forced to increase. " (Adami et al 2000)

Thus, the claim that Intelligent Design is the only explanation for biological complexity is proven false. Yet another blow to the coffin of Intelligent Design, and also the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy. Let us conclude with a final quote from Meyer's 1996 article:

"Other work promises to reshape our conception, not only of living things but of our science and ourselves. If the simplest life owes its origin to an intelligent Creator, then perhaps man is not the "cosmic orphan" that twentieth century scientific materialism has taught. Perhaps then, during the twenty first century, the traditional moral and spiritual foundations of the West will find support from the very sciences that once seemed to undermine them. " (Meyer 1996)

Here we see more of Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy at work. This is a telling quote, because it shows that Intelligent Design advocates are appealing to religion as a source of legitimacy to some degree; see, for example, how the above quote attempts to show that Intelligent Design proves the validity of religion. As shown by the blogs on this site, however, Intelligent Design does not itself have scientific validity as a theory. However, ID proponents keep attempting to undermine the definition of modern science in attempt to give their "theory" scientific validity. Until they can provide compelling evidence in favor of this action, their attempts to gain scientific validity will consistently fail.

Works Cited:
Adami, C., Ofria, C., Collier, T. "Evolution of Biological Complexity". PNAS, April 25, 2000. Vol. 97, no. 9. 4463-4468. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/9/4463
Hazen, R. "Life's Rocky Start". Scientific American, April 2001.
Meyer, S.C. "The Origin of Life and the Death of Materialism". The Intercollegiate Review 31, no. 2. April 1, 1996.
http://www.discovery.org/a/98
Schneider, T. "Evolution of Biological Information" Nucleic Acids Research, 2000. Vol. 28 No 14. 2794-2799. http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/28/14/2794

The Wedge Document...so what?

Dear Discovery Institute,

Now it is time to face one of our biggest issues, namely, the Wedge Document itself. First, lets see the document itself. It is visible at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=349 , but I will include text of the Wedge Document on this blog as well:

"CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE


INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.


Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art


The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.


Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.


Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.


Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.


The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.


THE WEDGE STRATEGY


Phase I.


* Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity


Phase II.


* Publicity & Opinion-making


Phase III.


* Cultural Confrontation & Renewal


THE WEDGE PROJECTS


Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication


* Individual Research Fellowship Program

* Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)

* Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)


Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making


* Book Publicity

* Opinion-Maker Conferences

* Apologetics Seminars

* Teacher Training Program

* Op-ed Fellow

* PBS (or other TV) Co-production

* Publicity Materials / Publications


Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal


* Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences

* Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training

* Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities


FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY


The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeatng Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.


The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").


Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication


Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making


Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal


Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.


Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.


Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.


GOALS


Governing Goals


* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.


Five Year Goals


* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.


Twenty Year Goals


* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.


FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES


1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)


2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)


3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows


4. Significant coverage in national media:


* Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

* PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

* Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

* Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media


5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God


6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory


7. Scientific achievements:


* An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

* Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

* Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

* Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory


ACTVITIES


(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien's Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe's research laboratory in molecular biology)


(3) Teacher training


(4) Academic Conferences


(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences


(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets


(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking


(8) Op-ed and popular writing


(9) Documentaries and other media productions


(10) Academic debates


(11) Fund Raising and Development


(12) General Administrative support


THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY


Books


William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)


Nelson's book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski's book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.


These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.


InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.


McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.


Academic Articles


Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars' Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.


Television and Radio Appearances


During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley's Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger's invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications' Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall's America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."


Newspaper and Magazine Articles


The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works."

What does the Discovery Institute say about all this? They attempt to explain away the document as nothing more than a modest fundraising proposal. (see link) However, note that they do not attempt to debunk the validity of the document, and indeed admit to its authenticity. Note also that "Wedge Strategy" has been incorporated into the work of many ID theorists (for example, Jonathan Wells). The paper trail that has been pointed to throughout these blogs show that the Wedge Strategy is an attempt to redefine the definition of science itself. The Discovery Institute admits this fact as well, and complain that science is controlled by "Scientific materialists". However, the fact is that science cannot deal with that which can't be touched or percieved, and therefore by nature the supernatural is not part of science.

In "The Wedge Document, So What?" (see link), the Discovery Institute argues that they are not trying to force a theocracy. However, that is besides the point. The question is whether or not they are attempting to push religion into science classrooms. Although the Discovery Institute maintains that the Designer is not named (ie no religion is favored), lets look at a quote from the Wedge Document:


"Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture. "

This statement shows the fact that they are in fact (apparently) attempting to use Intelligent Design to support Christianity. Not a theocracy, but it is a practice that has been declared unconstitutional (if the Discovery Institute hopes to one day put Intelligent Design into the classroom). This action would violate the seperation of church and state clause in the Constitution, and similar attempts to do this have been repeatedly shot down by the Supreme Court.

Let's consider another short quote for more damning evidence:

"Governing Goals


* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. "

Let's look at Discovery Institute's comment on a similar statement from the Wedge Document (taken from linked article):

"Discovery Institute's Center...wants to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. [from Wedge Document]

This passage instead was referring to our conviction that sceince, rather than supporting a materialistic philosophy, is at least consistent with theistic belief, including Christian belief. In fact, some of our fellows actually go further than this. They think that new developments in science may actually support a theistic worldview or have "theistic implications," even though they do not think that science can "prove" the existence of God or specific religious doctrines"

Again, telling. This shows that the Discovery Institute does, indeed, aim to redefine science to include the supernatural. Under the definition of science required to incorporate Intelligent Design, astrology would also be considered a science. Also please note the Discovery Institute quote that ends with "even though they do not think that science can 'prove' the existence of God" (above). If you can't prove a Designer exists, then Intelligent Design necessarily fails the test of science, even if science were redefined to include the supernatural. As shown, Intelligent Design is not science. Besides, even if the definition of science were changed so that Intelligent Design could be considered science, it would fail the burden of proof. I have shown this before by showing evolutionary pathways for structures that the ID movement claims to be "irreducibly complex", and the Discovery Institute shows us that by admitting that you cannot prove the existence of "God" (the "Creator"). Game over.

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Dear Discovery Institute,

Today we will be looking at one of the star witnesses for the Intelligent Design movement, namely lawyer Phillip E. Johnson. With the publication of "Darwin on Trial" in 1991, Johnson instantly became a celebrity to those that would argue against evolutionary theory. Let's look at some of his works.

First, is Johnson's work consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy? Let's let his own words speak for him. The following is from his article "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism":

"There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism" (Johnson 2006 p. 32).

Johnson here precisely explains why Creationism is scientifically untenable. But Intelligent Design isn't creationism...is it? Johnson seems to think so:

"All persons who affirm that "God creates" are in an important sense creationists, even if they believe that the Genesis story is a myth and that God created gradually through evolution over billions of years" (Johnson 2006 p.28).

Johnson considers anyone who accepts the presence of a Creator, for scientific purposes especially or otherwise, a Creationist. And Johnson's entire attempt within the article cited is to overthrow "Scientific Naturalism" and replace it with a Theistic mindset, which aligns beautifully with the Wedge Strategy. Johnson's statement in "Darwin on Trial" thoroughly reveals his mindset:

"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth" (Johnson 1993 p. 133)

Telling. Can Phillip Johnson really be ignoring all evidence in favor of evolution? Not all of it. He mainly ignores the fossil record, which we will return to later. First, lets look at one of the evidences in favor of evolution that Johnson accepts:

"The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinsism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees that were the moths' habitat, the percentage of dark moths increased, because of their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as chagning conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring." (Johnson 2006 p. 24)

This is at least an admission that microevolution can occur. To see how microevolution and macroevolution can occur together in a population, refer to my discussion of ceratopsians in my fossil record blog.

What does Johnson have to say about fossils? Let's consider "Darwin on Trial":

[in reference to Darwinian Natural Selection] "There was a way to test the theoryby fossil evidence, however, if Darwin and his followers had wanted a test. Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediates must have been imense, even "inconceivable". Perhapse evidence of their existence was missing because in 1859 only a small part of the world's fossil beds had been searched, and because the explorers had not known what to look for. Once paneontologists accepted Darwinism as a working hypothesis, however, and explored many new fossil beds in an effort to confirm the theory, this situation ought to change. In time the fossil record could be expected to look very different, and very much more Darwinian.

The test would not be fair to the skeptics, however, unless it was also possible for the theory to fail. Imagine, for example, that belief in Darwin's theory were to sweep through the scientific world with such irresistible power that it very quickly beecame an orthodoxy. Suppose that the tide was so irrestible that even the most prestigious of scientists---Harvard's Louis Agassiz, for example---became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Suppose that aplentologists became so committed to the new way of thinking that fossi lstudies were published onliy hf they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absense of evolutionary change. As we shall see, that is what happened. Darwinism apparently passed the fossil test, but only because it was not allowed to fail." (Johnson 1993 p. 48)

First, evidence of stasis (periods of no evolutionary change) is published, as with Eldredge and Gould's work on Punctuated Equilibrium. Second, there are ways for evolution to fail the fossil record test. For example, show me a panda in the Permian, and you have disproven evolution. Third, evolution has passed the test. There are huge volumes of known transitional fossils (see my fossil record blog for just a few examples) available to paleontologists. It is when authors such as Johnson, who have no background in paleontology, brush past known fossil evidence in an attempt to support their ideas that there are problems with grasping the fact that the fossil record does indeed support evolutionary theory. See, for example, the following quote:

"The story to be tested is that a fish species developed the ability to climb out of the water and move on land, while evolving the peculiar reproductive system of amphibians and other amphibian features more or less concurrently. No specific fossil fish species has been identified as an amphibian ancestor, but there is an extinct order of fish known as the rhipidistians which Darwinists frequently describe as an "ancestral group" The rhipidistians have skeletal features resembling those of early amphibians, including bones that look like they could have evolved into legs. But according to Barbara J. Stahl's comprehensive textbook, "Vertebrate History", "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence od feveloping the stout limbs and ribs othat characterized the primitive tetrapods"

In 1938, a coelacanth, an ancient fish thought to have been extinct for about seventy million years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean. Many paleontologists considered the ceolacanth to be closely related to the rhipidistians, and thus a living specimen was expected to shine light on the soft body parts of the immediate ancestors of amphibians. When the modern coelacanth was dissected, however, its internal organs showed no signs of being preadapted for a land environment and gave no indication of how it might be possible for a fish to become an amphibian. The experience suggests that a rhipidistian fish might be equally disappointing to Darwinists if its soft body parts could be examined." (Johnson 1993 p.76-77).

Johnson seems to ignore transitional fossils that prove a fish ancestry for amphibians. While Tiktaalik wasn't known in 1993, Icthyostega was! Here are the transitional forms Johnson wants (see following link)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

Kind of kills Johnson's argument. Perhaps his lack of understanding of the fossil record has clouded his judgement, or maybe he has a prior commitment to the Wedge Strategy. Either way, he aims to change the rules of science to incorporate the supernatural, a strategy I've discussed many times before. Johnson is a lawyer, and therefore good at making the most of small amounts of evidence. However, as shown by the above quote on fossils, Johnaon himself does exactly what he accuses "Darwinists" of doing, namely, warping the evidence to suit his views.


Works Cited:
Johnson, P. "Darwin on Trial". Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove. 1993
Johnson, P. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism". presented in Dembski's "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing". ISI Books, Washington. 2006. p. 23-40