Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will be referencing Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled". It is ironic that Answers in Genesis, a Young-Earth Creationist-run website, has posted a review of the documentary, especially since you have worked so hard to distance yourself from self-proclaimed Creationists. Let's look at the review:
http://answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/expelled-review
"Several weeks ago, the Answers in Genesis (AiG) staff was treated to a viewing of the director’s cut of the already-controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.1 Expected to release April 18, Expelled is a hard-hitting, yet often humorous, documentary that chronicles how Darwin-dissenters have been ruthlessly expelled, or otherwise persecuted, in their professions. It is hosted by the very entertaining civil rights activist/economist/presidential speechwriter/cultural icon (actor and quiz-show host), Ben Stein, whom filmmakers follow as he goes on a personal quest to examine the origins question."
Answers in Genesis merits a special viewing even though you claim to want to distance yourself from so-called Creation Scientists? This is ironic. It seems like you're opening your doors to them. But then again, one of your fellows (Dean Kenyon) appears to have the support of Answers in Genesis to some degree, and also defended the validity of Creation Science in a court case (see my earlier blog discussing this). Something is a bit fishy here.
"In another segment, Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, described Intelligent Design (ID) as mostly nonsense and would not come to the defense of fellow-evolutionist Sternberg. Shermer bizarrely contends that Sternberg must have done something wrong to have been forced out (even though Shermer admits on camera that he did not know what that might have been).
An hour and thirty minutes later, we watch atheist Dawkins sniff that evolution is a “fact” and “securely” so, and thus dissenters are either not sane or are stupid—or (somewhat more charitably) ignorant. In keeping with the film’s ongoing Cold War metaphors of freedom under attack, Dawkins, earlier in the film, describes the origins debate as a “skirmish” and a “war.”"
What is not mentioned here is the fact that scientists interviewed for this documentary were not told of the nature of the documentary. Therefore, while scientists such as Richard Dawkins were interviewed for this film, they were not told that the film was a defense of Intelligent Design, but rather that was an attempt to equally portray both sides of the debate. What is telling about this is the fact that Dawkins had to sneak into the film in order to actually see it, which immediately leads one to question the accuracy/honesty of the film makers.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
"At film’s end, Dawkins makes a remarkable concession—probably jaw-dropping for those who have read his books or watched his media interviews. When pressed by Stein, Dawkins allows for the possibility that life’s apparent design could have been produced by intelligent beings elsewhere in the universe—who themselves had evolved and then brought life here! "
This is not remarkable to anyone familiar to Dawkins' work. Richard Dawkins often makes the claim that life could have been created by intelligent aliens, then goes on to explain that this is not science because it only shifts the question of causality instead of attempting to answer it. This is a beautiful example of misquotation on the part of either the Discovery Institute/Ben Stein or Answers in Genesis.
"In the second half of the film, Expelled settles into a very serious tone, especially in those scenes when Stein visits World War II death camps and explores the connection between the Nazi worldview and Darwinian thinking. Stein is brilliant in these scenes as he goes with the flow of the story as it unfolds in front of him and as he carefully listens to the answers he receives—and then follows up with penetrating questions. He is obviously not working from a tight script."
Here it is. This is the commonly used Creationist tactic of claiming that Darwinian theory is responsible for Hitler's racist policies. This statement ignores the fact that Hitler used a massively twisted version of Darwinian evolution in an attempt to support his ideas (a version that is not accepted by mainstream scientists), and also the fact that Hitler also used Bible passages to give legitimacy to his cause. This shows that the Discovery Institute/Ben Stein, much like Answers in Genesis, have not done their historical research here.
"Expelled asks the question often posed by creation scientists: where does the new genetic information come from as a mechanism to drive molecules-to-man evolution? Natural selection cannot explain the rise of new genetic information."
So there is at least some connection, even though Answers in Genesis does not agree with all of Intelligent Design...here is a statement where the connection between Intelligent Design and Creationism slips through the cracks and is thus visible.
"AiG has not been sanguine about elements of the intelligent design movement and some of its well-intentioned activists. But having watched the movie twice now, we note that the film is not about trying to push ID on society, much less argue that ID should be mandated in schools (which AiG would not support).7 Also, the film makes it clear that the ID movement is not a Christian one (although many evangelicals are part of it). More than anything, the documentary seeks to expose the ruthlessness of radical atheists and evolutionists and their attempt to erode freedom in order to protect their own worldview. In its goal, Expelled has marvelously succeeded."
Here, we see Answers in Genesis arguing that they don't accept Intelligent Design in its entirity. However, Answers in Genesis appears to agree with at least some of the tenets of Intelligent Design, and also supports the goals of this film.
Now, the question is whether this showcases a tie between Creation Science and Intelligent Design. On its own, the viewing of Expelled by Answers in Genesis could be seen as an attempt to pick up on alternative perspectives for the film. However, both the fact that mainstream scientists such as Richard Dawkins had to sneak into a showing of the film to have a chance to view a film that they themselves were interviewed in raises questions about the legitimacy of the film. The connections between Creation Science and Intelligent Design already present within these blogs also bolsters the link between the Creationist movement and the ID movement. While this document does not prove that Creationism and Intelligent Design are linked, as another piece of evidence to add to our wedge attacking the claim that ID is not Creationism, it serves to streghten the proofs presented thus far.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
peer reviewed ID publications?
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will be considering the validity of your claim that there is a strong base of peer-reviewed articles and books on Intelligent Design. The articles in question will be taken directly from your website ( http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 ). The following question will be raised: do these publications truly qualify as peer-reviewed works in a valid sense (ie. a peer review system that doesn't include ID merely because it is ID, but rather on it's scientific merits?)/
The first questionable articles are those published in "Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer" (from your site). The fact that Meyer is both an editor of the book and also a major player in the internal politics of the Discovery Institute, it is apparent that there would, of course, be papers supportive of Intelligent Design included in this book. Therefore, it is not possible to consider this work an independent scientific publication due to the fact that ID is essentially guaranteed inclusion in the text with little or no regards to the validity of ID as a "science". Other ID-based or ID/evolution debate-based conference and journal publications are also removed with this group.
Removal of those sources strongly cuts down the base of "peer-reviewed" journal articles listed on your site. We will continue by removing "peer-reviewed" books, especially those that are either edited by strong ID proponents or attempting to cover both ID and evolution. While books may have valid information in them, the fact is that they are not required to be scientifically accurate, and thus are not admissible for consideration as scientific publication under our qualifications in this blog. This once again severly cuts down the list of so-called "peer-reviewed" publications.
Now we can begin to look at the scientific papers left. The first step in this process is to remove the journal articles that have been listed multiple times on your database (ie. multiple listings for single articles...almost seems like you're trying to make it look like you have more articles than you do...). Then we can begin looking at these papers (quotes taken from listed site unless stated otherwise:
"M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics. "
"Indirect scientific support" does not qualify as a scientific article on Intelligent Design. Nice try, but the ID movement needs to do more than this if they hope to gain scientific validity. We will now remove all articles providing only "indirect scientific support" for ID from our list.
The following article is introduced as if it provides a compelling peer-reviewed article supportive of ID, implying that ID has actually gotten through the peer-review process:
"D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
However, here it looks as if the author himself is stating that the article does not provide direct support for ID:
" concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. " ( http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html )
Here's another indirect article. Although the ID term "complex specified information" is used in description, this paper is still not a pure ID-supportive paper that has made it through peer-review:
"D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” "
Lets keep looking! Here's a math-based publication:
"
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”"
Looks promising at first glance. However, once the paper is looked at, it doesn't seem to argue in favor of ID. Here's the abstract and conclusion for the paper:
"Life never ceases to astonish scientists as its secrets are more and more revealed. In particular the origin of life remains a mystery. One wonders how the scientific community could unravel a one-time past-tense event with such low probability. This paper shows that there are logical reasons for this problem. Life expresses both function and sign systems. This parallels the logically necessary symbolic self-referring structure in self-reproducing systems. Due to the abstract realm of function and sign systems, life is not a subsystem of natural laws. This suggests that our reason is limited in respect to solve the problem of the origin of life and that we are left taking life as an axiom...
Subsystems of the mind as functional objects or formal systems are unique in respect to other phenomena that follows the laws of nature and are subsystems of the universe. Life express both function and sign systems, which indicates that it is not a subsystem of the universe, since chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals [26]. Quite contrary, the human mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations, the property of creativity with ability to create through choice with intent. This choice doesn’t violate any laws. It merely uses dynamically inert configurable switches to record into physicality the nonphysical choices of mind. It is therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans or symbolic number cruncher referred to by [25]. At least as observers we are left taking life as an axiom as Nils Bohr suggested in a lecture published in Nature [27] “life is consistent with, but undecidable from physics and chemistry” [19]."
http://home.online.no/~albvoie/index.cfm
While this article appears, at first, to support ID, a close read of the article shows that it, in fact, does not. Hypothetical mathematical arguments are employed to give an idea of complexity to the origin of life. However, science has shown us time and time again that mathematical probability arguments are often misguided. The following site also shows us more rebuttals of ID peer-review claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
The only articles left are either exceedingly difficult to access or continue to employ the same type of logic discussed above. If ID was a valid scientific entity, however, one would expect common, easily accessible, staunchly pro-ID papers published in mainstream journals such as Science or Nature rather than a few papers supposedly in support of ID that yet never seem to imply that ID is the cause behind these papers in obscure journals (for the most part). Publications in books put together by ID advocates or authors attempting to cover the ID movement and evolutionary theory do not count as independent peer-reviewed articles due to the fact that at least some pro-ID papers are guaranteed publication in these works by default. Somehow, the fact that the Discovery Institute repeats the listing of multiple articles multiple times on this list, as well as the fact that most of these publications are published specifically in bodies that are meant by nature to include ID theory publications, leads me to wonder about the validity of the Discovery Institute's claims. What is especially telling is the fact that many of the papers that the ID movement use for support don't even involve ID within the pagese of the papers involved. It seems like Discovery Institute is fishing for any possible citation in an attempt to buy credibility for their pet theory.
Today we will be considering the validity of your claim that there is a strong base of peer-reviewed articles and books on Intelligent Design. The articles in question will be taken directly from your website ( http://www.discovery.org/a/2640 ). The following question will be raised: do these publications truly qualify as peer-reviewed works in a valid sense (ie. a peer review system that doesn't include ID merely because it is ID, but rather on it's scientific merits?)/
The first questionable articles are those published in "Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer" (from your site). The fact that Meyer is both an editor of the book and also a major player in the internal politics of the Discovery Institute, it is apparent that there would, of course, be papers supportive of Intelligent Design included in this book. Therefore, it is not possible to consider this work an independent scientific publication due to the fact that ID is essentially guaranteed inclusion in the text with little or no regards to the validity of ID as a "science". Other ID-based or ID/evolution debate-based conference and journal publications are also removed with this group.
Removal of those sources strongly cuts down the base of "peer-reviewed" journal articles listed on your site. We will continue by removing "peer-reviewed" books, especially those that are either edited by strong ID proponents or attempting to cover both ID and evolution. While books may have valid information in them, the fact is that they are not required to be scientifically accurate, and thus are not admissible for consideration as scientific publication under our qualifications in this blog. This once again severly cuts down the list of so-called "peer-reviewed" publications.
Now we can begin to look at the scientific papers left. The first step in this process is to remove the journal articles that have been listed multiple times on your database (ie. multiple listings for single articles...almost seems like you're trying to make it look like you have more articles than you do...). Then we can begin looking at these papers (quotes taken from listed site unless stated otherwise:
"M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, 13 (2004): 2651-2664.
In this article, Behe and Snoke show how difficult it is for unguided evolutionary processes to take existing protein structures and add novel proteins whose interface compatibility is such that they could combine functionally with the original proteins. By demonstrating inherent limitations to unguided evolutionary processes, this work gives indirect scientific support to intelligent design and bolsters Behe’s case for intelligent design in answer to some of his critics. "
"Indirect scientific support" does not qualify as a scientific article on Intelligent Design. Nice try, but the ID movement needs to do more than this if they hope to gain scientific validity. We will now remove all articles providing only "indirect scientific support" for ID from our list.
The following article is introduced as if it provides a compelling peer-reviewed article supportive of ID, implying that ID has actually gotten through the peer-review process:
"D. A. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341 (2004): 1295–1315.
This experimental study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, finding that, “roughly one in 1064 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain” and that the “overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077.” Axe concludes that “functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.” Since Darwinian evolution only preserves biological structures which confer a functional advantage, this indicates it would be very difficult for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. This research also shows that there are high levels of specified complexity in enzymes, a hallmark indicator of intelligent design. Axe himself has confirmed that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design: "In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design." See Scientist Says His Peer-Reviewed Research in the Journal of Molecular Biology "Adds to the Case for Intelligent Design".
However, here it looks as if the author himself is stating that the article does not provide direct support for ID:
" concluded in the 2000 JMB paper that enzymatic catalysis entails "severe sequence constraints". The more severe these constraints are, the less likely it is that they can be met by chance. So, yes, that finding is very relevant to the question of the adequacy of chance, which is very relevant to the case for design. In the 2004 paper I reported experimental data used to put a number on the rarity of sequences expected to form working enzymes. The reported figure is less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Again, yes, this finding does seem to call into question the adequacy of chance, and that certainly adds to the case for intelligent design. " ( http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/journal_of_molecular_biology_a.html )
Here's another indirect article. Although the ID term "complex specified information" is used in description, this paper is still not a pure ID-supportive paper that has made it through peer-review:
"D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.
The opening paragraph of this article reads: Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” "
Lets keep looking! Here's a math-based publication:
"
Ø. A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.
In this article, Norwegian scientist Øyvind Albert Voie examines an implication of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem for theories about the origin of life. Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem states that certain true statements within a formal system are unprovable from the axioms of the formal system. Voie then argues that the information processing system in the cell constitutes a kind of formal system because it “expresses both function and sign systems.” As such, by Gödel’s theorem it possesses many properties that are not deducible from the axioms which underlie the formal system, in this case, the laws of nature. He cites Michael Polanyi’s seminal essay, Life’s Irreducible Structure, in support of this claim. As Polanyi put it, “the structure of life is a set of boundary conditions that harness the laws of physics and chemistry their (the boundary condition's) structure cannot be defined in terms of the laws that they harness.” As he further explained, “As the arrangement of a printed page is extraneous to the chemistry of the printed page, so is the base sequence in a DNA molecule extraneous to the chemical forces at work in the DNA molecule.” Like Polanyi, Voie argues that the information and function of DNA and the cellular replication machinery must originate from a source that transcends physics and chemistry. In particular, since as Voie argues, “chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals,” and since “mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations,” it is “therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans.”"
Looks promising at first glance. However, once the paper is looked at, it doesn't seem to argue in favor of ID. Here's the abstract and conclusion for the paper:
"Life never ceases to astonish scientists as its secrets are more and more revealed. In particular the origin of life remains a mystery. One wonders how the scientific community could unravel a one-time past-tense event with such low probability. This paper shows that there are logical reasons for this problem. Life expresses both function and sign systems. This parallels the logically necessary symbolic self-referring structure in self-reproducing systems. Due to the abstract realm of function and sign systems, life is not a subsystem of natural laws. This suggests that our reason is limited in respect to solve the problem of the origin of life and that we are left taking life as an axiom...
Subsystems of the mind as functional objects or formal systems are unique in respect to other phenomena that follows the laws of nature and are subsystems of the universe. Life express both function and sign systems, which indicates that it is not a subsystem of the universe, since chance and necessity cannot explain sign systems, meaning, purpose, and goals [26]. Quite contrary, the human mind possesses other properties that do not have these limitations, the property of creativity with ability to create through choice with intent. This choice doesn’t violate any laws. It merely uses dynamically inert configurable switches to record into physicality the nonphysical choices of mind. It is therefore very natural that many scientists believe that life is rather a subsystem of some Mind greater than humans or symbolic number cruncher referred to by [25]. At least as observers we are left taking life as an axiom as Nils Bohr suggested in a lecture published in Nature [27] “life is consistent with, but undecidable from physics and chemistry” [19]."
http://home.online.no/~albvoie/index.cfm
While this article appears, at first, to support ID, a close read of the article shows that it, in fact, does not. Hypothetical mathematical arguments are employed to give an idea of complexity to the origin of life. However, science has shown us time and time again that mathematical probability arguments are often misguided. The following site also shows us more rebuttals of ID peer-review claims: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html
The only articles left are either exceedingly difficult to access or continue to employ the same type of logic discussed above. If ID was a valid scientific entity, however, one would expect common, easily accessible, staunchly pro-ID papers published in mainstream journals such as Science or Nature rather than a few papers supposedly in support of ID that yet never seem to imply that ID is the cause behind these papers in obscure journals (for the most part). Publications in books put together by ID advocates or authors attempting to cover the ID movement and evolutionary theory do not count as independent peer-reviewed articles due to the fact that at least some pro-ID papers are guaranteed publication in these works by default. Somehow, the fact that the Discovery Institute repeats the listing of multiple articles multiple times on this list, as well as the fact that most of these publications are published specifically in bodies that are meant by nature to include ID theory publications, leads me to wonder about the validity of the Discovery Institute's claims. What is especially telling is the fact that many of the papers that the ID movement use for support don't even involve ID within the pagese of the papers involved. It seems like Discovery Institute is fishing for any possible citation in an attempt to buy credibility for their pet theory.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Transitional fossils
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will talk about your stance on transitional fossils once again. As suggested in my earlier post on transitional fossils, at least some of your members think that there are no transitional fossils. However, when a transitional form such as Tiktaalik comes up, obviously falling right between phases that were supposed to have had not transitional phases, you seem compelled to comment. We will consider an attack on mainstream scientists and Tiktaalik linked on your site in this letter.
First, here is a link to the article being discussed:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
Now, for our first quote:
"I love it when new "missing links" are discovered, because it's then--and only then--that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question. When reports came out this week of an alleged example of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetrapods -- Tiktaalik roseae -- evolutionists finally came clean about the previous lack of fossil evidence for such a transition"
I don't see the major issue with scientists admitting to not having a transitional form. An argument of this type is about as valid as attacking a scientist's background by claiming that the individual did not have a strong background before recieving an education. Just because Tiktaalik was not known initially does nothing to undermine it's validity as a transitional form. In fact, it serves to support evolutionary theory; evolution predicts the presence of a transitional form, paleontologists find exactly that in the rock record, and then claiming that the transitional fossil is invalid because scientists don't have the transitional fossils that fall between this transitional fossil, less complex fossils, and more complex fossils. But I guess this is the sort of attack that the Intelligent Design movement must resort to when any "evidence" of a Designer in the fossil record is completely and totally insignificant. Attacking admissions of the lack of transitional fossil A when we have B, C, and F does nothing to undermine the scientific validity of evolution. Rather, it shows that scientists aren't making up transitional fossils. Scientists have the transitional fossils that they claim exist. I guess this is the type of attack that must be resorted to when there is no scientific validity behind the claims of the attacking party.
The general trend with this type of argument is as follows: First, mention a transitional fossil, then make some sort of weak attack against modern science (often selectively quoting from technical papers that appear to support their claims when in actuality the article itself doesn't; I suggest referring to the link posted and checking out the papers discussed for more on this). Then, we see the argument from personal incredulity...ie "well I can't see how this can be a transitional fossil, so it must not be", ignoring that the scientists who studied the fossil may actually know more about paleontology than the author of the article debunking the science does. Funny. Does the article linked in this blog use this type of end claim? Of course!! Let's see it!
"But only now that we have Tiktaalik will we hear evolutionists boast about the size of the previously large "gap" in this transition, and how Tiktaalik solves all these previously unanswered questions. I'm super skeptical that this new fossil is good evidence that a transition took place: Acanthostega was truly a tetrapod, but Tiktaalik is a fish. As Clack and Ahlberg write, there's still a large gap (and any usefulness a fin had for walking was the result of a lucky pre-adaptation)"
My advice, trust scientists who have worked on the fossils, and not some random person writing on a website that claims that Tiktaalik can't be a transitional fossil because of some preconcieved devotion to the "wrongness" of evolution. I'll link some of the articles here. Have fun Discovery Institute, they make the author's points in the linked article above look extremely weak.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~karowe/tetrapod%20fish%20brief%20summary%20NAture%20April%202006.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5770/33
There's 4 peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles that support Tiktaalik's validity as a transitional form. I challenge you to show me even one peer-reviewed article debunking this fact.
Today we will talk about your stance on transitional fossils once again. As suggested in my earlier post on transitional fossils, at least some of your members think that there are no transitional fossils. However, when a transitional form such as Tiktaalik comes up, obviously falling right between phases that were supposed to have had not transitional phases, you seem compelled to comment. We will consider an attack on mainstream scientists and Tiktaalik linked on your site in this letter.
First, here is a link to the article being discussed:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/04/one_step_forward_two_steps_bac.html
Now, for our first quote:
"I love it when new "missing links" are discovered, because it's then--and only then--that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question. When reports came out this week of an alleged example of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetrapods -- Tiktaalik roseae -- evolutionists finally came clean about the previous lack of fossil evidence for such a transition"
I don't see the major issue with scientists admitting to not having a transitional form. An argument of this type is about as valid as attacking a scientist's background by claiming that the individual did not have a strong background before recieving an education. Just because Tiktaalik was not known initially does nothing to undermine it's validity as a transitional form. In fact, it serves to support evolutionary theory; evolution predicts the presence of a transitional form, paleontologists find exactly that in the rock record, and then claiming that the transitional fossil is invalid because scientists don't have the transitional fossils that fall between this transitional fossil, less complex fossils, and more complex fossils. But I guess this is the sort of attack that the Intelligent Design movement must resort to when any "evidence" of a Designer in the fossil record is completely and totally insignificant. Attacking admissions of the lack of transitional fossil A when we have B, C, and F does nothing to undermine the scientific validity of evolution. Rather, it shows that scientists aren't making up transitional fossils. Scientists have the transitional fossils that they claim exist. I guess this is the type of attack that must be resorted to when there is no scientific validity behind the claims of the attacking party.
The general trend with this type of argument is as follows: First, mention a transitional fossil, then make some sort of weak attack against modern science (often selectively quoting from technical papers that appear to support their claims when in actuality the article itself doesn't; I suggest referring to the link posted and checking out the papers discussed for more on this). Then, we see the argument from personal incredulity...ie "well I can't see how this can be a transitional fossil, so it must not be", ignoring that the scientists who studied the fossil may actually know more about paleontology than the author of the article debunking the science does. Funny. Does the article linked in this blog use this type of end claim? Of course!! Let's see it!
"But only now that we have Tiktaalik will we hear evolutionists boast about the size of the previously large "gap" in this transition, and how Tiktaalik solves all these previously unanswered questions. I'm super skeptical that this new fossil is good evidence that a transition took place: Acanthostega was truly a tetrapod, but Tiktaalik is a fish. As Clack and Ahlberg write, there's still a large gap (and any usefulness a fin had for walking was the result of a lucky pre-adaptation)"
My advice, trust scientists who have worked on the fossils, and not some random person writing on a website that claims that Tiktaalik can't be a transitional fossil because of some preconcieved devotion to the "wrongness" of evolution. I'll link some of the articles here. Have fun Discovery Institute, they make the author's points in the linked article above look extremely weak.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04637.html
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~karowe/tetrapod%20fish%20brief%20summary%20NAture%20April%202006.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5770/33
There's 4 peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles that support Tiktaalik's validity as a transitional form. I challenge you to show me even one peer-reviewed article debunking this fact.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
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
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
Quick news update
Dear Discovery Institute,
Just thought you'd enjoy seeing a recent publication that yet again proves Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument for the bacterial flagellum wrong. Here's the links, hope you enjoy!!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19726431.900-uncovering-the-evolution-of-the-bacterial-flagellum.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/flagellum-evolu-4.html#more
http://psom.blogspot.com/2008/02/evolutions-engine.html
As I have already touched upon this subject in a previous blog, I will not burden you with a full discussion of this information. The links above will be sufficient to show you some of the implications of the work.
Just thought you'd enjoy seeing a recent publication that yet again proves Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument for the bacterial flagellum wrong. Here's the links, hope you enjoy!!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19726431.900-uncovering-the-evolution-of-the-bacterial-flagellum.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/02/flagellum-evolu-4.html#more
http://psom.blogspot.com/2008/02/evolutions-engine.html
As I have already touched upon this subject in a previous blog, I will not burden you with a full discussion of this information. The links above will be sufficient to show you some of the implications of the work.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
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
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
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Intelligent Design, Creationism, and a panda with a sore thumb
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will be discussing Dean Kenyon and whether or not Intelligent Design is linked to Creation Science. It is perhaps best to let Kenyon's own words express his viewpoint, so let's let his own words speak for him.
Dean Kenyon is a prominent defender of Creation science. In fact,Answers in Genesis lists him in a listing of Creation Scientists (see list http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp), and he was a witness in the Edwards v. Aquillard evolution-creation case in favor of Creation Science(see link for trial transcript with Kenyon)(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html ). Let's consider parts of his affidavit:
" It is my opinion, although not in the area of my expertise, that creation-science is as nonreligious as evolution."
This shows that Kenyon accepts Creation Science as scientifically valid. Thus, it calls into question the validity of Pandas...ie could Of Pandas and People be a Creationist text in disguise? Let's see another quote from the above link:
"Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. Evolution-science is equivalent to evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some would disagree) to include biological evolution (or organic evolution) from simple life to all plants and animals, biochemical evolution (or chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution of the first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe). Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts. The subject of origins is a part of evolution, and the origin of the first life and tre-origin of the universe are generally regarded by the scientific community as part of evolution."
This almost sounds like an early discussion of Intelligent Design. Perhaps that is because it is. In "Of Pandas and People", Kenyon and Davis state the following:
"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." (Kenyon and Davis 1989)
Intelligent Design appears to be the same thing as Creation Science according to Kenyon. Would the Discovery Institute support such a text? If yes, then it would be evidence that the Discovery Institute accepts Intelligent Design as Creation Science. Here, we see Stephen Meyer, a major player at the Discovery Institute, actually writing a "note to teachers" to be published within the textbook supplement ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1671 ). Shows that at least some at Discovery Institute at one point at least accepted the validity of the textbook, and thus Creation Science as a whole. Is it possible that the book itself never was a Creationist textbook supplement? No. In 1986, this exact textbook was published as "Creation and Biology". The only differences between the 2 books are the name and the fact that Creation science is changed to intelligent design in the 1989 edition. Telling. So the Discovery Institute (or at least some of its higher-ups) support an initially Creationist textbook supplement.
Time for another statement by Kenyon (from the trial transcript linked):
"The creationist scientific conclusion is that empirical data currently in hand demand the inference that the first living organisms were created. This view of the origin of life is based on a detailed analysis of laboratory information from molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, the simulation experiments on chemical evolution, as well as relevant aspects of physics, geology, astrophysics, probability and information theory."
Again, sounds exactly like Intelligent Design theory. There seems to be some sort of pattern here. Let's read some more from the trial transcript:
"At the heart of the molecular activity of all living cells is the genetic coding and protein-synthesizing machinery which stores and translates biologic information. This information is contained in the specific linear sequences of the subunits of DNA, RNA and proteins. At least 20 different proteins are required for the replication of DNA. At least another 50 proteins are needed to transcribe and translate the information stored in the DNA molecules into the amino acid sequences of proteins (J. Fox 1978; Sheeler and Bianchi 1980). Among these proteins are the aminoacylsynthetases, the enzymes that link the various amino acids to their respective transfer RNA molecules. In the absence of even one of these enzymes, protein synthesis does not take place. The genetic code is actually read by the aminoacylsynthetases since they match an amino acid with its own transfer-RNA molecule. If we go back into the past to the first time the protein-synthesizing machinery functioned, we are faced with the problem of the origin of the necessary aminoacylsynthetases. Where did the proteins come from before the protein-synthesizing system originated? One can postulate that the necessary proteins formed abiotically in the primitive ocean, but there is virtually no experimental evidence for such a postulate. "
Here we have Behe's Irreducible Complexity concept, proposed as part of Creation Science. But Intelligent Design isn't the same thing as Creation Science. Or is it? What can one do to explain these extremely close similarities without accepting the two "sciences" as one in the same? Perhaps ignore the evidence and paper trail? Let's look at one final quote from the trial transcript:
"These scientific considerations form the core of biochemical creation, and show that it is as scientific as chemical evolution, and in fact is preferable in scientific plausibility to chemical evolution. These are weighty issues of fact. Evidence often taken to support a naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis, points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the creationist view of origins. Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto, the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."
Attacks on naturalistic explanations for life? Sounds like...Wedge Strategy. Probability attacks? Brings to mind the work of William Dembski. Sounds like Intelligent Design really does have a lot in common with Creation Science after all! What would be thoroughly damning for Discovery Institute's claim that Intelligent Design is not science would be to have a Creation Scientist, such as Kenyon, as a member. And surprisingly enough, Dean Kenyon is indeed a fellow of the Discovery Institute! http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=89&isFellow=true
Dear Discovery Institute, if you hope to uphold any scientific validity, you have a lot of explaining to do. It seems as if Intelligent Design is closer to Creation Science than you claim to accept. Perhaps we are not getting the whole story from you.
Davis, P. and Kenyon, D. "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". Haughton Publishing Company. Dallas. 1989
Edwards Vs Aguillard trial transcript links:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html (Kenyon's affidavit)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html
Today we will be discussing Dean Kenyon and whether or not Intelligent Design is linked to Creation Science. It is perhaps best to let Kenyon's own words express his viewpoint, so let's let his own words speak for him.
Dean Kenyon is a prominent defender of Creation science. In fact,Answers in Genesis lists him in a listing of Creation Scientists (see list http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/default.asp), and he was a witness in the Edwards v. Aquillard evolution-creation case in favor of Creation Science(see link for trial transcript with Kenyon)(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html ). Let's consider parts of his affidavit:
" It is my opinion, although not in the area of my expertise, that creation-science is as nonreligious as evolution."
This shows that Kenyon accepts Creation Science as scientifically valid. Thus, it calls into question the validity of Pandas...ie could Of Pandas and People be a Creationist text in disguise? Let's see another quote from the above link:
"Creation-science means origin through abrupt appearance in complex form, and includes biological creation, biochemical creation (or chemical creation), and cosmic creation. Evolution-science is equivalent to evolution. Evolution is generally understood by scientists (although some would disagree) to include biological evolution (or organic evolution) from simple life to all plants and animals, biochemical evolution (or chemical evolution or prebiotic evolution of the first life), and cosmic evolution (including stellar evolution) (of the universe). Creation-science does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts. The subject of origins is a part of evolution, and the origin of the first life and tre-origin of the universe are generally regarded by the scientific community as part of evolution."
This almost sounds like an early discussion of Intelligent Design. Perhaps that is because it is. In "Of Pandas and People", Kenyon and Davis state the following:
"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." (Kenyon and Davis 1989)
Intelligent Design appears to be the same thing as Creation Science according to Kenyon. Would the Discovery Institute support such a text? If yes, then it would be evidence that the Discovery Institute accepts Intelligent Design as Creation Science. Here, we see Stephen Meyer, a major player at the Discovery Institute, actually writing a "note to teachers" to be published within the textbook supplement ( http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1671 ). Shows that at least some at Discovery Institute at one point at least accepted the validity of the textbook, and thus Creation Science as a whole. Is it possible that the book itself never was a Creationist textbook supplement? No. In 1986, this exact textbook was published as "Creation and Biology". The only differences between the 2 books are the name and the fact that Creation science is changed to intelligent design in the 1989 edition. Telling. So the Discovery Institute (or at least some of its higher-ups) support an initially Creationist textbook supplement.
Time for another statement by Kenyon (from the trial transcript linked):
"The creationist scientific conclusion is that empirical data currently in hand demand the inference that the first living organisms were created. This view of the origin of life is based on a detailed analysis of laboratory information from molecular biology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, the simulation experiments on chemical evolution, as well as relevant aspects of physics, geology, astrophysics, probability and information theory."
Again, sounds exactly like Intelligent Design theory. There seems to be some sort of pattern here. Let's read some more from the trial transcript:
"At the heart of the molecular activity of all living cells is the genetic coding and protein-synthesizing machinery which stores and translates biologic information. This information is contained in the specific linear sequences of the subunits of DNA, RNA and proteins. At least 20 different proteins are required for the replication of DNA. At least another 50 proteins are needed to transcribe and translate the information stored in the DNA molecules into the amino acid sequences of proteins (J. Fox 1978; Sheeler and Bianchi 1980). Among these proteins are the aminoacylsynthetases, the enzymes that link the various amino acids to their respective transfer RNA molecules. In the absence of even one of these enzymes, protein synthesis does not take place. The genetic code is actually read by the aminoacylsynthetases since they match an amino acid with its own transfer-RNA molecule. If we go back into the past to the first time the protein-synthesizing machinery functioned, we are faced with the problem of the origin of the necessary aminoacylsynthetases. Where did the proteins come from before the protein-synthesizing system originated? One can postulate that the necessary proteins formed abiotically in the primitive ocean, but there is virtually no experimental evidence for such a postulate. "
Here we have Behe's Irreducible Complexity concept, proposed as part of Creation Science. But Intelligent Design isn't the same thing as Creation Science. Or is it? What can one do to explain these extremely close similarities without accepting the two "sciences" as one in the same? Perhaps ignore the evidence and paper trail? Let's look at one final quote from the trial transcript:
"These scientific considerations form the core of biochemical creation, and show that it is as scientific as chemical evolution, and in fact is preferable in scientific plausibility to chemical evolution. These are weighty issues of fact. Evidence often taken to support a naturalistic chemical origin of life, actually, upon close analysis, points in another direction, namely, toward the conclusion that the first life was created. The data of molecular biology, especially the details of the genetic-coding and protein-synthesizing systems, lend further powerful support to this view. Probability arguments applied to the problem of the origin of genetic information also confirm the creationist view of origins. Laboratory data and theoretic arguments concerning the origin of the first life lead one to doubt the evolution of subsequent forms of life. The fossil record and other lines of evidence confirm this suspicion. In short, when all the available evidence is carefully assessed in toto, the evolutionary story of origins appears significantly less probable than the creationist view."
Attacks on naturalistic explanations for life? Sounds like...Wedge Strategy. Probability attacks? Brings to mind the work of William Dembski. Sounds like Intelligent Design really does have a lot in common with Creation Science after all! What would be thoroughly damning for Discovery Institute's claim that Intelligent Design is not science would be to have a Creation Scientist, such as Kenyon, as a member. And surprisingly enough, Dean Kenyon is indeed a fellow of the Discovery Institute! http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=89&isFellow=true
Dear Discovery Institute, if you hope to uphold any scientific validity, you have a lot of explaining to do. It seems as if Intelligent Design is closer to Creation Science than you claim to accept. Perhaps we are not getting the whole story from you.
Davis, P. and Kenyon, D. "Of Pandas and People: The Central Question of Biological Origins". Haughton Publishing Company. Dallas. 1989
Edwards Vs Aguillard trial transcript links:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0482_0578_ZD.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html (Kenyon's affidavit)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)