I just found this (you'll have to scroll down to Oct. 22, the day it was posted) courageous defense of academic freedom and free and open scientific inquiry posted by the The American Council of Trustees and Alumni. It's a blog post responding to the recent wave of viewpoint discrimination against ID in higher education. ACTA writes:

Denunciations are not reasoned refutations. Administrative bans on intellectual inquiry do more to chill debate than to foster it, and do considerable damage not only to the ideas being banned, but also to those being protected from challenge or dispute. ... Universities should be actively fostering debate about intelligent design, not seeking to shut down investigation of the idea entirely. And they should be doing this not because intelligent design is right, or even viable--fostering debate about an idea does not mean endorsing that idea--but because it is anti-intellectual and hypocritical of them to do otherwise.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

California Parent Larry Caldwell has won a preliminary victory in his lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union School District in Sacramento, CA.

According to a press release issued by Caldwell yesterday:

a federal judge has ruled that California citizens have a Constitutional right under the First Amendment to put proposed evolution policies on the agenda of local school board meetings for public debate and potential adoption, and that school officials who refuse such a request are subject to potential civil rights remedies in federal court.

Caldwell filed his suit against the district alleging that his constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and religious freedom were violated in his efforts to improve the teaching of evolution in his district. In Roseville only the scientific strengths of evolution are taught in scinence classes, and no discussion of the scientific weaknesses or criticism of evolution is allowed. According to Caldwell, for eight months, district officials repeatedly refused to put his Quality Science Educcation policy on the school board agenda, contrary to California state law and the U.S. Constitution.

The QSE policy is a modest one by any reading. In part it says:

teachers in the Roseville Joint Union High School District are expected to help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution.

Recently Caldwell, along with the Pacific Justice Insitute brought suit in federal court against the National Science Fourndation for using federal funds to develop a website explicity using religion to push evolution in public schools.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mathematician, philosopher, and theologian William Dembski has written a thorough response to many of the claims made by plaintiffs' expert witnesses in their expert reports for the Dover trial. The experts to which he responds are Barbara Forrest, Robert Pennock, John Haught, Kevin Padian, and Kenneth Miller.

See: Rebuttal to Reports by Opposing Expert Witnesses [PDF, 720 kb]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In this column in the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum writes:

Americans and their leaders will have to get over their love affair with intelligent design. Polls show that most don't believe in evolution. But it is actually impossible to talk logically about bird flu, or any other rapidly evolving and constantly changing virus, without using the language of evolution -- specific words such as "mutant," "recombination," "genome" and "selection." Without that language, a sensible popular or political discussion, let alone a scientific discussion, is impossible: We're stuck talking about the virus "jumping" from birds to humans, as if it were a magic bug with a mind of its own. We're stuck thinking that a virus is a hex that can be lifted with a single lucky charm, not something that will change over time.

We're also stuck with magic solutions: silver bullets, protective amulets, Tamiflu prescriptions.

First the mischaracterization. "Evolution" is a very broad term meaning change over time. No design theorist questions microevolution, the sort of change that produces new flu viruses.

Now the question begging. There is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, and even mainstream biologists debate whether microevolution provides convincing support for macroevolution. Microevolution says a virus can change over time; macroevolution says a virus can change into a cow. Sounds to me like the proponents of macroevolution are the ones likely to talk about magic bugs. [Update: to be precise, most Darwinists would say a bacterium evolved into a cow.]

For a detailed look at the issue of bird flu, evolution and ID, go here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 1:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The President of Cornell stirred up a hornets nest when he spoke out against intelligent design last week. While he stopped short of trying ban it from campus science courses as has been tried at University of Idaho and Iowa State University, he definitely struck a blow against academic freedom. The IDEA Club at Cornell was quick to point out that the President really didn't know what ID is, or was willfully misleading with his characterizations of it.

This article from Inside Higher Ed is typically biased (refers to ID as a "sham"), though it does have some good comments from leaders of the IDEA Club at Cornell. William Provine provides us with an unfiltered view of the materialist's dogmatic clinging to naturalism. And, he is very adamant in defending a more open aproach to debate over ID, though he regards it as unscientific.

Provine said that he encourages students who believe in intelligent design to defend their views and to challenge his, which is that intelligent design “is anti-science” and that those who are trying to add it to the school curriculum in some way “are trying to teach religion in science classes.”

Evolution does pose a challenge for some students’ religious beliefs, Provine said, and that is why he believes it is under attack right now. “I find that evolution is the most effective engine of atheism ever invented by humans, and I think the creationists are really afraid of something,” he said.

Then there is this article from the Cornell Daily Sun. Provine is interviewed for this one and has some interesting comments about Rawlings monkeying with how he talks about the numbers from Provine's annual survey of biology students about their opinions on theories of origins.

Provine, referenced several times in the speech, said he was a puzzled by the remarks. “It’s not exactly clear to me what he’s saying in it,” he said.

He said that, when Rawlings discussed the poll of Provine’s class, the president used only last year’s figures. Rather than being typical, Provine said that in prior years 70 percent of his students believed in a “purpose-driven,” rather than mechanistic, evolution — 20 points higher than the number Rawlings cited, suggesting that the number of students who believe in one form or another of intelligent design taking the course has recently dropped sharply.

“I don’t see Cornell under any pressure from the I.D. people,” he said. He added that he did not believe it was a large problem nationally, either.

...

“To me, the teaching of I.D. in the public school system is flatly illegal, and no I’m not particularly worried about it,” he said. A bigger problem, he said, was teaching outdated evolutionary theories that had not been updated in decades.

“I would rather [Rawlings] try to get more classics in the high schools, rather than fighting I.D.,” Provine said. “More Plato, more Aristotle, more Thycudides.”

Provine also took issue with Rawlings’ implication that intelligent design does not have any place in a science classroom.

“I don’t have to teach creationism,” he said, “but the students raise the issue, then we’ll discuss them. I’m 100 percent in favor of that, discussing that in a science class. It’s my class.”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The IDEA Club at Cornell sent me this today about the anti-ID statements made by Cornell President Hunter Rawlings during his recent state-of-the-campus-address. I first learned about this press release after reading about it in this article in the Cornell Daily Sun.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Hannah Maxson
Email: idea@cornell.edu

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, October 22 – The Intelligent Design Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Club at Cornell is deeply concerned with President Hunter Rawlings' blatant disregard for the facts concerning Intelligent Design in Friday's State of the University Address. In a speech usually reserved for current university business, he spent over two thirds of his time blasting the emerging Intelligent Design theory as anti-scientific and religious in an unscrupulous, unknowledgeable manner.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a scientific theory which holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution. It follows the principles of the scientific method, scorns the biases of either religion or naturalism, and attempts to follow all the available evidence to a valid conclusion. ID is testable and falsifiable, and so far its predictions have repeatedly been shown accurate.

The IDEA Club at Cornell holds that the problems with Neo-Darwinian evolution can no longer be ignored, and it is time for true research and debate about the issues surrounding the beginnings of life to take place at universities across the country.

Attacking ID as a non-scientist and without addressing its scientific claims, Rawlings states that it is religion masquerading as science and is a religious belief at its core. This gross misstatement is a disservice to unbiased discourse, besides being an insult to people of faith throughout America. Ad hominem attacks and confusing people's religious beliefs with their scientific research is not befitting a university president. We would hope Rawlings will instead follow Cornell's often lauded commitment to a free and open exchange of ideas.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

George Neumayr of the American Spectator has a good column about the Dover trial:

The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory.

The problem with Behe's testimony for Hanna Rosin [of Slate] was not too little scientific explanation but too much. She found it all very taxing.

Scientists who stood alone used to inspire a little more deference in the left. But Michael Behe is one nonconformist they won't defend. The silencers of unpopular science once feared ACLU lawyers. Now they retain them.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 4:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Stephen E. Jones has his finger on the pulse of the debate over design in Australia. See:

Ban design theory in class: [Australian] scientists, etc

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A press release has reported that over 7000 people (over half of which are scientists with Ph.D.s) have signed an online petition rejecting ID. Elsewhere, equally newsworthy reports tell us that there is unrest in the Middle East, and smoking causes cancer. Oh yeah, and according to Al Jazeera, Europe apparently still doesn't support George Bush. Incredible? Think again.

Seriously, no one denies that Darwin's theory is the majority view. What's the big deal about this press release? The issue is whether the Darwinists are right to make appeals to authority to argue that evolution should be taught one-sidedly in schools. It is for this reason that Discovery has made it clear that a growing number of legitimate, highly-credentialed scientists (many of whom are on the science faculties of major universities) are expressing scientific doubts about Darwin. Darwinists try to insist that there are no such people, but our growing list refutes their claim.

Darwinists also try to amass their lists because they think that sheer numbers are better ways to win policy arguments than actually dealing with the evidence. Discovery does not list scientists because we think such lists should be used as a sheer force-of-numbers argument. Rather, we think these lists help rebut an argument-from-authority that some Darwinists use in the public debate. The lists also show that there are objections to Darwinism based upon science, and not religion. The most effective way to rebut the Darwinist argument from authority and shift the discussion back to the reality of the scientific evidence is to show that there are significant numbers of scientists who are skeptical of evolution for scientific reasons.

There are a few other things wrong with the press release as well:

1) It implies that Discovery is trying to force ID into classrooms.

The petition purported to protest

"Discovery Institute's ongoing efforts to include Intelligent Design content in public school science classes"

This is odd, given that Discovery has opposed the mandatory inclusion of intelligent design in the classroom. This reminds me of the 38 Nobel Laureates who hastily penned a letter to the Kansas State Board of Education telling them not to do something they weren't even doing [i.e. include ID in the curriculum].

In any case, the petition seems a bit unnecessary given that Discovery's position has been that school boards should not mandate ID in schools, but should merely require students to learn about scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism:

"[A] recent news report seemed to suggest that the Center for Science & Culture endorses the adoption of textbook supplements teaching about the scientific theory of intelligent design (ID), which simply holds that certain aspects of the universe and living things can best be explained as the result of an intelligent cause rather than merely material and purposeless processes like natural selection. Any such suggestion is incorrect.

"'Locally elected school boards usually have broad discretion in curricular matters, and we would not presume to tell them what they must do,' added Cooper. 'Nonetheless, our policy approach in favor of exposing students to the leading scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory remains clear.'"

Pennsylvania School District Considers Supplemental Textbook Supportive of Intelligent Design; October 6, 2004

This policy has been consistently reiterated in a December 14, 2004 statement, in a Sept 28, 2005 Op-Ed, and also in other locations. So this press release seems to get its facts wrong. Rather, Discovery focuses its efforts regarding ID into getting scientific research published which supports design.

2) The press release implies that Discovery's list of 400+ scientists has something to do with ID.

The press release states:

"I organized this project as a response to the Discovery Institute's four-year petition initiative which gathered only 400 scientist signatures opposing evolution and promoting Intelligent Design as a scientific theory"

Yet Discovery's dissent from Darwin statement says nothing about ID theory. The signers of the statement merely affirm the following:

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Again, Discovery Institute's statement by scientists focuses on skepticism toward the mechanism of neo-Darwinism, not support for intelligent design.

3) The news release implies that intelligent design postulates a supernatural entity, and thus rejects only a straw-man version of design.

Approvingly quoting a politically charged statement by Lehigh University biology professors, the release says:

"'Intelligent Design' is not a scientific theory, but rather a loosely veiled attempt to explain natural phenomena by invoking the concept of a supernatural entity."

This clearly shows that the 7000 who reject ID did so based upon a misunderstanding of ID, because they wrongly thought that ID postulates a supernatural entity. Again, this is just like the Nobel Laureates, where I commented:

According to these critics, ID isn't science because it investigates the unobservable [or as here, untestable] supernatural. But as those who actually read the writings of ID proponents already know, ID theory does not identify the designer because to do so would go beyond the realm of testable science. ID theory thus limits its claims to those which can be established via the scientific method: it limits its claims to detecting the action of intelligence--something which we have observed, and the effects of which we understand quite well. It does not get into metaphysical speculation about the nature or identity of the designer, because to do so would go beyond science. So the reality is that ID theory purposefully avoids the very mistake these Nobel Laureates attribute to it.

So this petition only rejects a straw man version of ID. The mass enlistment of scientists rejecting ID can only be blamed upon the Darwinist Misinformation Train, where people reject ID because it has been misrepresented to them as a non-empirically based theory of the supernatural.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In this case, plaintiffs have made two main types of claims. First, they have made fact-based claims that the specific policy adopted by the Dover Area School Board (“DASB”) violates the first and second prongs of the Lemon test. Second, they claim that the theory of intelligent design is an “inherently religious concept” such that teaching students about it would necessarily violate Lemon’s first and second prongs under any circumstances. Amicus vigorously disputes this second, more general claim, but takes no position on the first.

Amicus takes no position on the first set of claims because Amicus lacks access to the factual record regarding the motives and actions of the DASB. Amicus disputes the second, more general claim, because it ignores the many secular purposes under which the theory of intelligent design could be taught, as well as the likely primary effect of teaching about intelligent design—to advance science education.

Secular purposes for teaching about the theory of intelligent design include informing students about competing scientific theories of biological origins, helping students to better understand the contrasting theory of neo-Darwinism (the standard textbook theory of evolution), and enhancing critical thinking skills.

As to the second prong of the Lemon test, plaintiffs falsely assert that the theory of intelligent design necessarily has the primary effect of advancing religion. Instead, there is every good reason to regard the theory of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and thus, the primary effect of informing students about it is to improve science education; further, the inclusion of such “alternative scientific theories” was clearly authorized by Edwards v. Aguillard. Moreover, plaintiffs’ argument rests upon (a) the demonstrably false claim that design theory postulates a “supernatural creator” and (b) discredited and misapplied definitions of science.

Were it true that teaching about intelligent design had the primary effect of advancing religion, then by the same logic teaching neo-Darwinism would have a similar primary effect, since (as even plaintiffs have acknowledged) both theories have larger religious, anti-religious or metaphysical implications. Notwithstanding these implications, courts have repeatedly sanctioned the teaching of neo-Darwinism because (presumably) its primary effect is to advance science education and any effect on religion is merely incidental. Thus, since both neo-Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design may have larger, if contradictory, philosophical implications, teaching students about it not only should be permitted, but could serve to advance religious neutrality.

Thus, whatever the merits and history of DASB’s policy, Amicus urges the court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that teaching students about the theory of intelligent design necessarily violates the Establishment Clause. If the Court strikes down DASB’s policy, Amicus urges the court to fashion relief that does not impugn the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design, since policies permitting such instruction might reflect valid secular purposes and could enhance religious neutrality.

Click here to read the entire Amicus Brief filed by Discovery Institute.
For background information and a list of news articles about the Dover trial go here.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Lately there have been a lot of people resurrecting a long debunked charge against ID of merely being “God-of-the-Gaps”. One such person was Slate Senior Editor Dahlia Lithwick.

Never one to let the facts of what ID proponents actually propose get in the way of a vacuous potshot Ms. Lithwick says:

But the critics are missing the beauty of this new theory. Because the really great thing about intelligent design is that it takes all the awkward uncertainty out of science. It says, "You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don't need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God fills those gaps."

Of course, many scientists have argued that to infer design gives up on science. They say that inferring design constitutes an argument from scientific ignorance--a "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Since science doesn’t yet know how biological information could have arisen, design theorists invoke a mysterious notion--intelligent design--to fill a gap in scientific knowledge. Many philosophers, for their part, resist reconsidering design, because they assume that Hume’s objections to analogical reasoning in classical design arguments still have force.

Yet developments in philosophy of science and the information sciences provide the grounds for a decisive refutation of both these objections. First, contemporary design theory does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Design theorists infer design not just because natural processes cannot explain the origin of biological systems, but because these systems manifest the distinctive hallmarks of intelligently designed systems--that is, they possess features that in any other realm of experience would trigger the recognition of an intelligent cause. For example, in his book Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Michael Behe has inferred design not only because the gradualistic mechanism of natural selection cannot produce "irreducibly complex" systems, but also because in our experience "irreducible complexity" is a feature of systems known to have been intelligently designed. That is, whenever we see systems that have the feature of irreducible complexity and we know the causal story about how such systems originated, invariably "intelligent design" played a role in the origin of such systems. Thus, Behe infers intelligent design as the best explanation for the origin of irreducible complexity in cellular molecular motors, for example, based upon what we know, not what we don’t know, about the causal powers of nature and intelligent agents, respectively.

Similarly, the "sequence specificity" or "specificity and complexity" or "information content" of DNA suggests a prior intelligent cause, again because "specificity and complexity" or "high information content" constitutes a distinctive hallmark (or signature) of intelligence. Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of "high information content," experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role.

Design theorists infer a past intelligent cause based upon present knowledge of cause and effect relationships. Inferences to design thus employ the standard uniformitarian method of reasoning used in all historical sciences, many of which routinely detect intelligent causes. We would not say, for example, that an archeologist had committed a "scribe of the gaps" fallacy simply because he inferred that an intelligent agent had produced an ancient hieroglyphic inscription. Instead, we recognize that the archeologist has made an inference based upon the presence of a feature (namely, "high information content") that invariably implicates an intelligent cause, not (solely) upon the absence of evidence for a suitably efficacious natural cause.

Second, contra the classical Humean objection to design, the "DNA to Design" argument does not depend upon an analogy between the features of human artifacts and living systems, still less upon a weak or illicit one. If, as Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more complex, it makes sense, on analogical grounds, to consider inferring that it too had an intelligent source.

Nevertheless, while DNA is similar to a computer program, the case for its design does not depend merely upon resemblance or analogical reasoning. Classical design arguments in biology typically sought to draw analogies between whole organisms and machines based upon certain similar features that each held in common. These arguments sought to reason from similar effects back to similar causes. The status of such design arguments thus turned on the degree of similarity that actually obtained between the effects in question. Yet since even advocates of these classical arguments admitted dissimilarities as well as similarities, the status of these arguments always appeared uncertain. Advocates would argue that the similarities between organisms and machines outweighed dissimilarities. Critics would claim the opposite.

The design argument from the information in DNA does not depend upon such analogical reasoning since it does not depend upon claims of similarity. As noted above, the coding regions of DNA have the very same property of "specified complexity" or "information content" that computer codes and linguistic texts do. Though DNA does not possess all the properties of natural languages or "semantic information"--i.e., information that is subjectively "meaningful" to human agents--it does have precisely those properties that jointly implicate an antecedent intelligence.

Posted by Keith Pennock at 5:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Writing about Michael Behe's cross-examination, the Philadelphia Inquirer has alleged that "Backer of theory contradicted self, lawyer suggests."

(Nevermind that the news media didn't write such headlines about Dr. Kenneth Miller when he testified on direct that his textbooks contained NO religious discussions [see Day 1 AM transcript, page 104], but then the next day admitted under cross-examination that some versions of his textbook had religious descriptions of evolution [see Day 2 AM transcript, page 4-5]).

The question remains, did Behe contradict himself on the stand while under intense cross examination? A factual examination reveals the answer is no! Let's dig in!

Does the scientific theory of intelligent design identify the designer?
Firstly, the article claims that Behe contradicted his claim that ID theory cannot identify the designer. According to Worden, plaintiffs' counsel Mr. Eric Rothschild found that Behe had written "that intelligent design is 'much less plausible for those that deny God's existence.'"

Behe's statements were taken from an article he wrote in "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution," a peer-reviewed article published in Biology and Philosophy (Vol 16 (5): 685-709, Nov. 2001). Let's read a more complete version of the text of what Behe wrote:

"As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument is less plausible to those for whom God’s existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God’s existence. People I speak with who already believe in God generally agree with the idea of design in biology (although there are certainly exceptions), those who are in doubt are interested in the argument but often are skeptical, and as a rule those who actively deny God’s existence are either very skeptical or wholly disbelieving (Apparently, the idea of a natural intelligent designer of terrestrial life is not entertained by a large percentage of people)."

Michael J. Behe, "Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution," published in Biology and Philosophy (Vol 16 (5): 685-709, Nov. 2001)

As can be seen, Behe here was talking about the general psychology of how people deal with accepting intelligent design theory. This is appropriate for a philosophy journal, which looks at how people accept the philosophical implications of various scientific theories. All Behe is saying is that for those who already believe in God, it's often easier for them to accept intelligent design. And Behe qualifies his statements by noting that there are "exceptions" to his experience--showing that he's not talking about hard-and-fast conclusions from ID theory, but the general psychology and philosophical implications that people often find from it. This does not mean that the scientific theory of ID mandates that the designer is God.

If this is the best quote that can be dredged up to try to claim that Behe believes that ID theory identifies the designer, then the plaintiffs' case is indeed very weak.

To see just how weak the plaintiffs' case actually is, consider how Behe has repeatedly made it clear that the scientific theory of design does not tell you who the designer is:

"Although intelligent design fits comfortably with a belief in God, it doesn't require it, because the scientific theory doesn't tell you who the designer is. While most people - including myself - will think the designer is God, some people might think that the designer was a space alien or something odd like that."

(Michael Behe, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 02/08/01).

"Inferences to design do not require that we have a candidate for the role of designer. We can determine that a system was designed by examining the system itself, and we can hold the conviction of designer much more strongly than a conviction about the identity of the designer. In several of the examples above, the identity of the esigner is not obvisous. We have no idea who made the contraptionin the junkyard, or the vine trap, or why. Nonetheless, we know that all of these things were designed because of the ordering of independent components to achieve some end."

(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 196)

"The conclusion that something was designed can be made quite independently of knowledge of the designer. As a matter of procedure, the design must first be apprehended before there can be any further question about the designer. The inference to design can be held with all the firmness that is possible in this world, without knowing anything about the designer."

(Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box, pg. 197)

"The most important difference [between modern intelligent design theory and Paley's arguments] is that [intelligent design] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. This while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo."

(Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), pg. 165, emphasis added.)

Clearly Behe has made it unequivocally obvious that as far as the scientific theory of ID goes, it cannot identify the designer. Behe might find that, based upon "his experience," philosophy or psychology might cause some people to be inclined towards believing the designer is God, but that doesn't mean that the scientific theory of ID tells you who the designer is.

Behe has been ultra-consistent between his testimony and his writings. There was no contradiction.

Did Behe claim support for everything in Pandas?
The second alleged contradiction was that Behe supposedly contradicted himself in that he claimed that he was a reviewer of Pandas but yet disagreed with a statement in Pandas which defined ID as the claim that "various forms of life began abruptly..." Here's what the article alleged:

Rothschild also showed a section of the intelligent design book Of Pandas and People, in which Behe contributed a chapter and was listed as a "critical reviewer," stating that intelligent design means life forms "began abruptly."

Behe said under questioning that he did not agree with that definition of intelligent design.

Behe, who defines intelligent design as "the purposeful arrangement of parts," defended the concept as a "well-substantiated theory" that seeks to explain gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution.

"The concern of intelligent design is to examine the empirical, physical and natural world," he said. "It is no more religious than the big bang theory [of the origin of the universe] is religious. Both rely on observed evidence."

The reporter here got confused. The definition of ID given by Pandas comes from Chapter 4, "The Fossil Record," where it states "intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly..." Though Behe was a contributor to Pandas, it was on the blood clotting cascade section (found in Chapter 6, "Biochemical Similarities")--not the fossil record section in which this notorious definition of ID as rejecting common ancestry dwells (pg. 99-100). Apparently this reporter wasn't listening when Behe testified as to his limited role in Pandas.

Behe is a biochemist, and thus it is not likely that the authors of Pandas sought Behe's input on sections dealing with paleontology. The fact that Behe was a "critical reviewer" of the book does not mean that he therefore endorsed everything in the book. Even if Behe did review the section on the fossil record, perhaps Behe even expressed disagreement with this definition of ID as "abrupt appearance" but then the actual authors of this section chose to ignore Behe's criticisms, since his primary input was solicited for biochemistry issues.

Behe has made it clear that he supports ID, but also believes that ID could be consistent with common descent:

"[Eugenie] Scott refers to me as an intelligent design “creationist,” even though I clearly write in my book “Darwin's Black Box” (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent."

Michael J. Behe, Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism, Science, Published E-Letter Responses for Scott, 288 (5467):813-815 (July 30, 2000)

Showing that Pandas defines ID to include rejection of common ancestry in no way undermines Behe's statement that ID does not necessarily reject common ancestry--unless you take Pandas to be the definitive manefesto of design theory, which we all know is far from true (after all, the book doesn't even contain the phrase "irreducible complexity"). Thus Behe only expressed disagreement with Pandas.

Behe never claimed, nor implied, he endorsed 100% of everything in the textbook, and therefore he never contradicted himself when he acknowledged his long-standing position that he believes that ID does not require the rejection of common descent.

A sidenote on usage of "Abupt Apperance" language
I would also like to note that Pandas' usage of "abrupt appearance" terminology does not link it to creationist thought, as "abrupt appearance" terminology is not uncommon in the mainstream paleontological literature:

"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group. Thus, it has seldom been possible to piece together ancestor-dependent sequences from the fossil record that show gradual, smooth transitions between species."

(Hickman, C.P., L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman. 1988. Integrated Principles of Zoology. Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, St. Louis, MO., pg. 866; emphasis added)

"Paleontologists had long been aware of a seeming contradiction between Darwin's postulate of gradualism ... and the actual findings of paleontology. Following phyletic lines through time seemed to reveal only minimal gradual changes but no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty. Anything truly novel always seemed to appear quite abruptly in the fossil record."

(Mayr, E., 1991, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 138; emphasis added)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."

(Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24; emphasis added)

"The gaps in the fossil record are real, however. The absence of a record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement of one by another, and change is more or less abrupt."

(Wesson, R., 1991, Beyond Natural Selection, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, p. 45; emphasis added)

"Phyla appear abruptly in the fossil record without intermediates to link them to their putative ancestors. This pattern presumably reflects derivation of most or all phyla from small, soft-bodied ancestors that had virtually no potential for fossilization. However, most classes and orders of durably skeletonized marine animals also appear abruptly, without obvious linkage to their durably skeletonized antecedents...."

(Erwin D.H., Valentine J.W. & Sepkoski J.J., "A Comparative Study of Diversification Events: The Early Paleozoic Versus the Mesozoic," Evolution, Vol. 41, No. 6, p1178; emphasis added)

"The Cambrian explosion is named for the geologically sudden appearance of numerous metazoan body plans (many of living phyla) between about 530 and 520 million years ago, only 1.7% of the duration of the fossil record of animals."
"It is this relatively abrupt appearance of living phyla that has been dubbed the ‘Cambrian explosion.’"

(Valentine, Jablonski, Erwin, Development 126:851-859 (1999); emphasis added)

Finishing on a High Note
Finally, I would like to note a fair and accurate article by Martha Raffaele which, according to reports we received, accurately portrays Rothschild's attempt to perform a "literature dump" upon the steadfast Michael Behe:

Eric Rothschild, a lawyer for eight families suing to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum, presented Behe with a stack of more than a half-dozen books written about the evolution of the immune system.

"A lot of writing, huh?" Rothschild said.

But Behe was unmoved, noting that "evolution" has multiple meanings.

"I am quite skeptical that they present detailed, rigorous models of the evolution of the immune system through random mutation and natural selection," he said.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I'll make one unnecessarily obvious point: Michael Behe, I, and everybody else at Discovery believe that geocentrism and astrology are 100% wrong.

Michael Behe today concluded his testimony at the Dover Trial. Behe did a great job of making his views excruciatingly clear to the Court and fending off attacks during cross-examination.

Unfortunately, one article misleads readers by wrongly insinuating that Behe somehow endorsed astrology as a scientific theory. Since these false allegations are in print, we will respond to them here. (I'll make one unnecessarily obvious point: Michael Behe, I, and everybody else at Discovery believe that geocentrism and astrology are 100% wrong.)

The tilted article is titled "Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told" and it alleges the following

"Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday. Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of “theory” was so broad it would also include astrology.

This unqualified statement does no justice to Behe's views (which include Behe's complete rejection of astrological explanations). Let's now return to reality.

The line of questions came when Eric Rothschild, counsel for the plaintiffs, asked Behe about the definition of the term "theory." Behe explained that the National Academy of Science's (NAS) definition of a theory is not one typically used by scientists. The NAS defines "theory" as:

"In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as "theory, not as fact" confuses the common use of these words through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences."

(Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, 2nd Ed. (1999), pg. 2)

This definition does not actually represent how scientists usually use the word in their technical writing. To witness this fact, perform a PubMed search for the phrase "new theory" (go to pub med and type " "new theory" " [leave in the double quotes]) and you'll find hundreds of hits showing scientists using the word "theory" to describe a "new" idea which can explain a lot of things, but may not yet be "well-substantiated" and may not yet enjoy evidentiary support from many scientific studies.

Many scientists who have used the phrase "new theory" use the term based upon the new findings of a single study. The phrase "new theory" is antithetical to the idea of "extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection" and the phrase should not exist in scientific literature if the NAS is correct in its definition.

Nonetheless, let's explore the implications of the NAS's definition.

About 500 years ago, most "scientists" believed (albeit incorrectly) that the Earth was the center of the solar system. Had you asked an early astronomer in the year 1500 if the geocentric model of the solar system was "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses ... that develop[ed] from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection ... [and] incorporate[s] a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences" she would have probably told you YES!

Put the NAS on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of "theory." In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put "astrology" under the NAS definition (note: we find this incredible today, but in his time, it was not scandalous that Newton was an astrologer). Today we know both astrology and geocentrism are totally wrong, and so nobody wants them taught as science in school.

But how does Behe define a scientific theory? Behe's testimony referenced his definition from a paper he authored in Philosophy and Biology:

"Without getting into the difficult problem of trying to define science, I will just say that I think any explanation which rests wholly on empirical evidence and basic logic deserves the appellation 'scientific'.8"

[Footnote] "8 On the other hand, if an explanation depends critically on specific tenets of a particular faith, such as the Trinity or Incarnation, or on sacred texts, then that of course is not a scientific explanation."

(Behe M.J., “Reply to my critics: A response to reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution,” Biology and Philosophy, 16 (5): 685-709, Nov, 2001)

Plaintiffs' attorney tried to twist Behe's statements into making it appear that Behe believed that astrology was a scientific theory. Behe did say that 500 years or so ago, when people knew much much less about the world and were trying to explain things, they had an idea that things on earth might have been influenced by things on stars. This was a historical fact. But Behe made it clear that today, astrology is known to be incorrect. This is just like phlogiston theory of burning--people once thought it was true, and once thought it was an empirically-based scientific theory, but today it would not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

The problem with astrology is not that it could have fit the NAS or Behe's definition of science 500 years ago. The problem is that it is not supported by the evidence. That is why, unlike ID, no serious scientists are advocating astrology as a good theory which could be presented to students in science classrooms. Nor do serious academics reference the peer-reviewed scientific literature in support of astrology, as serious scientists do for ID.

Nonetheless, under the NAS's defintion, a "theory" is in the eye of the beholder. And there are many scientists, like Behe, who believe that intelligent design is a "well-substantiated explanation." Perhaps the NAS might want to try finding a new definition of "theory" which better excludes ID.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 5:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, have sued to block the teaching of intelligent design ordered by the school board. They claim that intelligent design “effectively promotes the Bible’s view of creation.” For them, what’s happening there in Dover and elsewhere is merely an attempt to get “Christian creationism” in through the back door.

Tenzin Gyatso would probably be surprised to learn that he’s promoting “Christian creationism.” It’s true that his new book criticizes what he calls “radical scientific materialism.” And, like Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley professor, he doesn’t hesitate to point out that the materialistic worldview is every bit as metaphysical as a theistic one.

Still, it’s absurd to label Gyatso’s work a stalking horse for “Christian creationism.” After all, if you call him by his proper title, he is the 14th Dalai Lama.

In his new book, The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama warns readers about the consequences of seeing people as “the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes.” This materialistic account is “an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty.” Correct.

He writes that “the view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is . . . as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.” What’s more, he insists that both “are legitimate interpretations of science.”

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 11:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, Michael Behe completed his second day of testimony in the Dover trial. Below are more highlights based upon informal notes submitted by the Discovery Institute's Logan Gage, who is currently observing the trial.

Direct Examination
Behe responded to many claims made by plaintiffs' expert Dr. Kenneth Miller, including:

o Behe explained that Miller's critiques of Behe's arguments regarding the blood clotting cascade have been flawed. Miller’s slide (from his earlier testimony) shows that the cascade isn’t broken if some proteins are knocked out of a pufferfish cascade; but Behe says there are 2 pathways, like 2 lightswitches, which will turn on the clotting. Miller only showed that the other pathway still works (a point which Behe qualified in DBB). Miller didn't show that there isn't an irreducible core which is still irreducibly complex. Miller’s citing of sequence comparisons says nothing about the mechanism of evolution.

o Behe also responded to Russell Doolittle's critiques of Behe's arguments about the blood clotting cascade.

o Behe explained how accounts of the evolution of the immune system are exceedingly speculative.

o Behe reported a search for Miller’s cited articles, which allegedly support Darwinism, by searching for the words “Natural Selection” and “Random Variation” (Behe made clear which he checked visually and which he searched online for the words; the point is that while Miller claims to have cited overwhelming evidence for Darwinism, the articles he cites hardly mention the mechanism):
• Blood clotting articles Miller mentioned: 0
• Immune System articles Miller mentioned: 0
• TTSS articles Miller mentioned: 1 (one reference to natural selection—but at least it was one reference)
• Common ancestry of hemoglobin: 0
• Molecular trees: 0

o Miller cited citrochrome C as a line of evidence which Pandas botches. But Behe explains that evolutionary theory doesn’t make clear predictions with regards to the molecular clock.

o Behe explained that the “John Loves Mary” example written on the beach example comes from Pandas, p.7. Miller said any logician would spot the flaw in reasoning, because we know humans made this. But Behe replied that this is inductive reasoning, like all scientific reasoning (e.g. Big Bang as an induction from explosions; e.g. SETI)

Behe on other topics...

o Behe also critiqued the Lenski study. He said that computer studies are fine; but they must model real biological processes. He said Lenski "stacked the deck," creating a model that assumes the disputed point. Behe points to his paper he coauthored with physicist David W. Snoke (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) which more closely mirrors bio reality; and shows how hard it is to get 2 or more amino acid changes.

o Behe explained that creationism means young earth creationism, flood geology, Genesis, etc. But he said that ID is none of these; it’s scientific, not theological; doesn’t require special creation; doesn’t rely on religious texts or religious leaders; Behe testified that ID requires physical evidence.

o Behe explained that ID can’t explain the source of design. If it was space aliens, or time traveling biologists (as mentioned tongue-in-cheek in Darwin's Black Box), these show we can’t rule out natural explanations for design. Behe noted that even Francis Crick's hypothesis about directed panspermia would be intelligent design.

Behe on Methodological Naturalism:
o Behe said that methodological naturalism hobbles and constrains our conclusions. Science should be a no-holds-bard search for true explanations. Identifying design is thus rightly part of science (e.g. and it already is--SETI!)

o Behe criticized statement by plaintiffs' expert Brian Alters, saying, when Alters claimed that the Dover policy would make Dover kids learn about God and make them have to know how to defend their religion before learning a scientific theory is. Behe called this criticism “histrionic.”

o Behe felt that the Dover policy would provide more than one theoretical framework, which is a good lens for students to learn about data.

Cross Examination of Behe:

o Plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild tried to make Behe say that “creationism” could be substituted for ID at particular places in Pandas; Behe says no, it couldn't.

o Plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild chides Behe for being listed as a “critical reviewer” of PANDAS, when he is really a contributor, unless he is critically reviewing his own work. Behe responds that they must have envisioned a future role for him in the book, because he is not presently listed as a co-author here.

o Plaintiffs' attorney Rothschild rattled off the organizations and prominent scientists who oppose ID, like the NAS. This was Behe’s finest hour: Behe explained that the NAS statements against ID were “political statements,” not a scientific argument, and were only against a strawman version of ID.

o Behe also rebutted declarations by the AAAS against ID—he noted that neither one made any sort of reference to the literature, and Behe said all their declarations aren’t worth a single peer-reviewed paper showing how Darwinism can build complex biochemical systems.

o Rothschild enthusiastically noted that even Behe's own department at Lehigh University repudiated ID. Behe coolly replied that faculty shouldn’t swear allegiance to theories, especially without citations to the literature. Behe repelled all of these examples cited by Rothschild of scientific organizations which oppose ID by noting that they expose the huge political bias against ID coming from the scientific community.

o Behe also explained that we can’t know anything (scientifically) about the Designer’s intentions/motives except what can be inferred from the limited amount of empirical/physical data we have from the designed system—so, for instance, we can know the designer had the power to make this complicated of a system, etc. But we can't necessarily know if it was "special creation" or what the designer's purposes were.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:06 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today an ACLU attorney, T. Jeremy Gunn, authored an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled, "It's a belief, and wrong for science courses," which was placed side-by-side with an op-ed by Discovery Institute fellow David K. Dewolf and attorney Randall Wenger entitled "Anti-ID stance is good old intolerance again." The arguments used by Mr. Gunn mimic those being made by the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, and are self-refuting and do not hold up to scrutiny.

Firstly, Mr. Gun claims that:

"ID is simply the latest incarnation of what first was promoted as 'creationism.'"

This is one of the oldest and most tiresome lines of criticism against intelligent design. It's also one of the most simply factually incorrect criticisms of ID. Let's trace its pedigree.

As early as 1989, Eugenie Scott wrote the following in an NCSE publication about Of Pandas and People:

"The book [Of Pandas and People] is cleverly-disguised "scientific" creationism, the "theory" that the six-day Genesis creation story, literally interpreted, can be supported scientifically. Scientific and educational organizations have roundly criticized "scientific" creationism as being bad science and bad education. Consensus opinion is that it has no place being advocated as a scientifically accurate history of the world. Pandas has fooled many teachers and even some scientists because it does not use creationist terms but instead contrasts evolutionary theory with a neologism called the "theory of intelligent design."

Scott & Uno (1989): Introduction to NCSE Bookwatch Reviews for Of Pandas and People by Eugenie C. Scott and Gordon E. Uno; in Bookwatch Reviews: Candid Appraisals of Science Textbooks Published by the National Center for Science Education, Inc. Volume 2, Number 11, 1989

Scott (and Uno) had it wrong from the very beginning. Firstly, they call Pandas a young earth creationist book, which it isn't. Pandas nowhere claims that the earth is young, and at many places seems to use dates from an "old earth" chronology (see 2nd ed., pages 99, 101, 110-112 for some examples).

Indeed, the 2nd edition (published in 1993, after Scott's statement) explicitly disclaims that the intelligent design theory promoted in Pandas requires a young earth:

"Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source."

(Pandas, 2nd ed, 1993, pg. 161; Perhaps Scott should retract her claims that Pandas promotes the "six-day Genesis creation story" unless she wants another Larry Caldwell episode on her hands.)

Scott and Uno go on to say that the ideas promoted in Pandas are just like all other forms of creationism. Yet Scott herself has explained that creationism is marked by postulating a supernatural creator:

"Creationism generally refers to the idea that a supernatural entity(s) created the universe and humankind. Creation stories are extensively studied in comparative religion and in the anthropology of religion. Christian creation theology stories take a wide range of forms, from the most general - "God created" - to the specific - exactly what, how, and when God created."

I completely agree 100% with Scott's definition of creationism here. In fact, many scholars and authorities on all sides of the debate have commonly defined creationism by noting that it appeals to a specifically "supernatural creator." The question must be asked, does Pandas meet Scott's definition for creationism by stating that "a supernatural entity(s) created the universe and humankind"?

The answer is clearly no:

"If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause."

(Pandas, pg. 7, emphasis added)

"Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science."

(Pandas, pg. 126-127, emphasis added)

It's clear that Pandas fails Eugenie Scott's test for creationism.

Gunn's opening shot has thus failed in that it follows a long line of people fuzzy and factually incorrect arguments about Pandas promoting creationism. (More to come about allegations that Pandas used the word "creationism" in earlier versions" in a subsequent post.)

Mr. Gunn then goes on to use a typical argument-to-authority against intelligent design:

"Dozens of America's leading scientific organizations and scores of Nobel Prize winners denounce ID as unscientific. No legitimate scientific organization in the country credits ID for being anything other than a distraction from science."

Mr. Gunn cites to "Dozens" of leading scientific organizations which have denounced ID. The question I want to ask is, "Is this opposition coming from a fair and objective evaluation of the evidence, or is it stemming from political opposition?"

Firstly, it should be noted that even prominent Darwinists admit that ID faces harsh political opposition from the scientific community. Prominent Darwinist philosopher of science Michael Ruse concurs that intelligent design faces such intolerance from the powers that be in scientific community:

“To say that Intelligent Design is controversial is to offer a truism. It is opposed, often bitterly, by the scientific establishment. Journals such as Science and Nature would as soon publish an article using or favourable to Intelligent Design as they would an article favourable to phrenology or mesmerism – or, to use an analogy to the claims of the Mormons about Joseph Smith and the tablets of gold, or favourable to the scientific creationists’ claims about the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Recently, indeed, the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] (the organization that publishes Science) has declared officially that in its opinion Intelligent Design is not so much bad science as no science at all and accordingly has no legitimate place in the science classrooms of the United States.”

(Michael Ruse and William Dembski in General Introduction to Debating Design, pg. 3-4 (Cambridge University Press, 2004))

As mentioned by Ruse and Dembski above, one of the of organizations Mr. Gunn might have had in mind is the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In 2002, the AAAS released an "AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory,” asserting without any discussion of the scientific evidence, that "the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution." Additionally, the AAAS board members who themselves issued the edict appeared uninformed about intelligent design theory (see Intelligent design could offer fresh ideas on evolution. Importantly, the AAAS Declaration encourages other scientific organizations to similarly oppose intelligent design.

When top scientific organizations issue directives to the scientific community to oppose a particular theory, not only is this bizarre behavior for supposedly eminent and open-minded scientists, but it exposes the political pressure urging other scientists to oppose intelligent design. Such a political climate is hostile towards scientists who support intelligent design.

The AAAS Declaration has led to discrimination and circular logic from those opposing intelligent design. The scientists persecuting Dr. Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian privately cited the AAAS statement as justification for their discriminatory actions. Additionally, when the Biological Society of Washington repudiated the publication of a paper in their journal providing scientific evidence supporting intelligent design, they cited the AAAS statement as justification.

Yet the AAAS statement urges scientists to oppose intelligent design because intelligent design has supposedly failed to offer credible evidence in favor of intelligent design. This circular logic reveals that intelligent design is being handed guilty verdicts and sentences of excommunication from the scientific community without any being given any right to a trial, much less a fair one.

Mr. Gunn also cites to “scores of Nobel Prize winners” who denounced ID as unscientific. Does Mr. Gunn have any idea what they actually said or why they denounced ID? In reality, as I discussed here, the 38 Nobel Laureates completely misunderstood ID. I explained:

According to these [Nobel Laureate] critics, ID isn't science because it investigates the unobservable supernatural. But as those who actually read the writings of ID proponents already know, ID theory does not identify the designer because to do so would go beyond the realm of testable science. ID theory thus limits its claims to those which can be established via the scientific method: it limits its claims to detecting the action of intelligence--something which we have observed, and the effects of which we understand quite well. It does not get into metaphysical speculation about the nature or identity of the designer, because to do so would go beyond science. So the reality is that ID theory purposefully avoids the very mistake these Nobel Laureates attribute to it.

Additionally, Mr. Gunn didn't realize that in their letter, the 38 Nobel Laureates defined evolution in religious terms:

"evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" (emphasis added)

These precise sorts of statements were declared by Ken Miller, while on the witness stand, to be religious in nature. It seems that these Nobel Laureates only oppose ID because it conflicts with their religious views, not because they understand the science of ID and oppose it on its merits. (Why isn't the ACLU prosecuting textbooks which use such religious descriptions of evolution? Stay tuned for more to come on religious advocacy in pro-evolution textbooks and the ACLU's selective enforcement of the law in a future post.)

At this point, I am reminded of a famous line by anti-ID activist Eugenie Scott that “Science is not a democracy.” Eugenie uses this line to remind people that it isn’t the number of people who believe something that matter, but rather it is what the evidence says. Eugenie made this argument to encourage people to not let popular politics decide education issues, but rather let science tell us what should be taught.

I agree with Eugenie that evidence, not political force, should determine science. I thus find it highly ironic that immediately following Mr. Gunn’s reference to all the scientific organizations, is a perfect example of how scientists aren’t letting the evidence direct them, but rather politics:

Even ID proponent professor Michael Behe, of Lehigh University, has been repudiated by his own colleagues with regard to his ID opinions. On its Web site, the university's Department of Biological Sciences says:

"The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory... While we respect Professor Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."

I find great irony in the fact that Mr. Gunn thinks that this statement supports his side. In reality, these sorts of declarations and statements show that there is a tremendous bias against ID proponents in the scientific community. Even Behe mentioned this on the stand today that this is evidence of political bias amongst scientists. Behe noted that these statements typically come without any discussion of the evidence. This is the epitome of issuing statements without doing your homework. These edicts against ID are proof of strong anti-ID political forces at work in the scientific community. And it shows that their rejection of ID is political, not based upon the merits of ID theory.

Mr. Gunn then makes another false assertion about ID:

"ID has been unable to gain a scientific foothold. Rather than first publishing its "evidence" and "proofs" in serious scientific journals, its supporters have taken the backdoor approach of trying to insert its doctrines into school textbooks and of lobbying school boards."

Um, what was that again? Perhaps Mr. Gunn just simply isn't aware of various peer-reviewed papers which provide both direct and indirect support for ID. A list of peer-reviewed articles in mainstream scientific journals, by ID proponents, supporting ID is detailed here.

Perhaps Mr. Gunn also didn't know that Discovery has always opposed Dover's policy to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

Mr. Gunn then goes on to insult the AAAS, Aristotle, Sir Isaac Newton, Charles Lyell (the "father of modern geology"), and the one, the only, Charles Darwin:

"We can be grateful that real scientists such as Jonas Salk, Marie Curie, and Louis Pasteur spent their time in productive scientific research rather than engaging in ID-style public relations campaigns and issuing press releases."

What do Newton, Aristotle, Lyell, and Darwin all have in common? You guessed it: they all first formulated their theories in BOOKS and other publications, outside of normal works of the scientific community! Does this make their work unscientific? Absolutely not!

But there is one unscientific thing which fits Mr. Gunn's description: the AAAS News Release condemning ID! Mr. Gunn's argument is eminently self-refuting!

Not only is Mr. Gunn's "A argument" (i.e. that ID proponents rely upon press releases and don't publish peer reviewed papers supporting their theory) wrong, but his "B argument" (that it's inappropriate to publish your ideas outside of the mainstream scientific community) would disqualify many other mainstream scientific theories.

In fact, ID proponents have found great opposition from the scientific community towards publishing their ideas, because of an incredible bias. This should come as no surprise, because Thomas Kuhn explained that new ideas, such as those promoted by the visionaries listed directly above, are often opposed by "normal scientists":

"No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others."

(Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed, 1970, Univ of Chicago Press, pg. 24)

Kuhn notes that evaluating different paradigms cannot be done by looking at how one paradigm (i.e. a set of journals) treats another paradigm:

"Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defence."

(Kuhn, T., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Ed, 1970, Univ of Chicago Press, pg. 94)

Perhaps 50 years from now, Kuhn would add to the list Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box and/or William Dembski's The Design Inference. For now, it seems clear that the opposition to ID which Mr. Gunn so proudly cites is coming from (a) complete misunderstandings of how ID theory works, and (b) extreme politics, plain and simple.

Mr. Gunn ends with a scare-tactic:

"Only last week an advisory panel created by the National Academies (which includes the National Academy of Sciences) issued a report warning of the drastic dangers to the United States as it continues to lose its competitive edge in science and science education."

While Gunn's account of the NAS report may indeed be correct, the relevant question is: "is the status quo working?" Currently, the vast majority of public schools in America only teach the evidence which supports Neo-Darwinism. So if there's a problem currently, perhaps the solution is to change the status quo.

When it comes to studying biological origins, students aren't learning it in a way which fosters (1) critical thinking, (2) increased student interest in science by exposing them to a lively debate about an interesting subject (i.e. where they came from), or (3) a better understanding of the facts. I thus think Mr. Gunn's final quoted statement provides a powerful argument that something needs to change about biological origins education!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Coverage of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial has been about as could be expected, all over the board. There's been good, bad, and downright ugly.

Here then is a snapshot of how reporters can shape the public's perception in the way they report a single statement. This example comes from the coverage of Michael Behe's testimony in the courtroom yesterday.

Michael Powell form the Washington Post is to be commended for being fair and accurate. Compare this statement of Powell's with the AP's (mis)characterization of the same thing yesterday. (see the Post story here, and the AP story here)

Michael Powell, Washington Post: "The question of religion came up several times Monday. Behe freely acknowledged that he is Roman Catholic and believes the hand of the intelligent designer belongs to God. But he emphasized that this was a personal, philosophical belief. Intelligent design, he argued, must succeed or fail as a scientific theory."

Martha Raffaele, AP: " biochemistry professor who is a leading advocate of "intelligent design" testified Monday that evolution alone can't explain complex biological processes and he believes God is behind them. ... The intelligent design concept does not name the designer, although Behe, a Roman Catholic, testified he personally believes it to be God. "I conclude that based on theological and philosophical and historical factors," he said.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today biochemist Michael Behe testified as an expert witness for the defendants in the current trial, Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School Board.

According to Discovery Institute’s Logan Gage, who observed all of Michael Behe’s testimony today at the Dover trial in Harrisburg, Pa, Behe covered a wide variety of topics. Below is an informal report on some topics covered by Behe's testimony, based upon Mr. Gage's report. Links are provided after some of the bullet points to articles where Dr. Behe has discussed these topics outside of today's testimony.

Points Behe made today during his testimony:

o Evolution should be taught in schools. (See Behe's Teach Evolution in the NY Times, Aug 13, 1999.)

o Behe cited some of his own professional experience which has taught him that there is bias within mainstream scientific journals against intelligent design. (See Correspondence with Science Journals: Response to critics concerning peer-review.)

o He explained how many scientists opposed the Big Bang for religious reasons to show how religious implications can deter one from accepting scientific hypotheses.

o Behe explains that knowledge of the designer is not necessary to design inference.

o Behe also freely acknowledged that he believes the designer is God (Behe was open about the fact that Behe is a Roman Catholic); But Behe explained that his view about the identity of the designer is based on religious and historical arguments, not upon the science of intelligent design. (See "Intelligent Design Is Not Creationism.")

o Behe explained that design is inferred using empirical observation, not religious arguments. He also discussed how ID can be falsified. (See Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design: Response to Critics.)

o Behe explained that irreducible complexity (IC) is indeed a critique of evolution, but that design theory is much more than a negative argument against evolution, because design is inferred from the purposeful arrangement of parts in IC systems. (See Darwin Under the Microscope.)

o Behe observed that other scientists have treated biological structures such as the bacterial flagellum as if they are motors. (See Design for Living by Michael Behe (NY Times, Feb 7, 2005, and Behe's letter in the WSJ responding to Feb. 13 article by Sharon Begley.)

o Miller’s presentation of IC was flawed (here Behe used Miller’s slide from his testimony). In short, Miller absolutizes Behe’s argument unfairly. Behe explained that he had qualified IC to say indirect pathways cannot be ruled out in DBB, p.40, 1996. Yet IC can still stand.

o Miller misidentified design as special creation.

o Miller's account of the Type III Secretory System (TTSS) isn't compelling because there is much scientific disagreement about whether the TTSS evolved before the flagellum, or if the flagellum evolved before the TTSS. (See Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria by Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer for more on this topic).

o Behe then pointed out that Darwinism is post hoc--it is compatible with any result here and would survive regardless of which came first (the TTSS or the flagellum?)

o Miller's book, Finding Darwin's God (1998), p.146, said that to wipe out a complex system and see if evolution comes to the rescue would be a good text of IC—Behe agreed with this test. Behe then went into transcription of lac operon for background. But, despite what Miller says, Barry Hall didn’t knockout the whole, or even much of the system—only one protein, and so of course a near identical protein took its place Thus Hall proves really, really minor changes can be accounted for by Darwinism! (See Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design and "A True Acid Test": Response to Ken Miller.)

o Padian testified that molecular data couldn’t decide if hippos’
and whales’ common ancestor was aquatic or terrestrial, but the fossil record, he said, could. Behe agreed molecular analysis couldn't establish this, but neither can paleontology tell you the mechanism by which the change took place.

o Behe was also critical of the NAS’s 1999 “Science and Creationism: a view from the NAS” booklet. On p. 6-7, it acts like we the Origin of Life is completely. Behe explained that this does not accurately explain the current state of the research. Also, the booklet focuses on scientists’ attitudes (their assurance that OOL will be figured out) rather than real science. This may be interesting sociologically speaking, but it’s not science.

o This NAS article tells teachers, and hence students, to keep exploring the same fruitless paradigm of the last 50 years! (this Behe said with gusto)

o Behe explained that there is a scientific controversy over ID (citing Debating Design and other publications). (See Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated).)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 5:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Today, the Discovery Institute, the nation’s leading think tank researching intelligent design, filed an Amicus Curiae (i.e. “Friend of the Court”) brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case urging the judge to rule that it is not unconstitutional to teach about the scientific theory of intelligent design.

The filing of the brief coincides with the beginning of the defense offered by the Dover School Board, which has required students to be notified about the existence of the theory of intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinian theory.

“The ACLU is claiming that no matter how carefully intelligent design is presented, and no matter what good educational reasons there might be for teaching it, doing so is just plain illegal and we think that’s nonsense,” said David DeWolf, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute and a law professor at Gonzaga University in Spokane.

Discovery Institute opposes efforts to mandate intelligent design as misguided, but it supports the right of teachers and students to voluntarily discuss intelligent design.

“The ACLU’s heavy-handed effort to ban all teaching about intelligent design is a blatant attempt at censorship,” said Casey Luskin, a program officer in public policy and legal affairs with Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture.

Discovery Institute’s Brief reviews the constitutional law regarding the establishment clause, which is broken up into questions about whether the school board’s actions have a secular purpose and whether they have a neutral effect on religion.

According to the Brief, there are many secular purposes for teaching students about intelligent design including informing students about competing scientific theories of biological origins, helping students to better understand the contrasting theory of neo-Darwinism, and enhancing critical thinking skills.

The Brief also answers the ACLU’s claim that intelligent design is not a scientific theory, and as a result its primary effect is to advance religion. As the Brief explains, “there is every good reason to regard the theory of intelligent design as a scientific theory, and thus, the primary effect of informing students about it is to improve science education.”

DeWolf further noted that: “The inclusion of alternative scientific theories was clearly authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court Edwards v. Aguillard.”

The Brief will be available on line at the Discovery Institute website, www.discovery.org by the end of the day.

Regular reporting of developments in the trial and commentary by Discovery Institute Fellows is available at Evolution News & Views, www.evolutionnews.org.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:34 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A parent in California is suing the National Science Foundation for using more than a half-million federal dollars to develop a website that encourages science teachers to use religion to promote evolution in public schools.

In announcing the suit Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, who is co-counsel in the suit with the Pacific Justice Institute, said, “the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in science classes are clamoring for public school teachers to expressly use theology in order to convince students to support evolution.”

The website, Understanding Evolution, was jointly developed by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a private group whose self-described mission is "Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public School," and the University of California Museum of Paleontology. The avowed purpose of the website is to help teachers teach evolution better. Much of the website was funded by a $530,000 grant from the National Science Foundation.

Parts of the website explicitly uses religion to promote evolution. In one section, teachers are told that nearly all religious people, theologians, and scientists who hold religious beliefs endorse modern evolutionary theory, and that indeed such a view "actually enriches their faith." Teachers are also directed to a page on the NCSE's own website containing statements by religious groups endorsing evolution.

“This is unquestionably a violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause,” says Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. “What business is it of the federal government to tell people what their religious beliefs about evolution should be?

“Groups like the NCSE claim they promote teaching science in public schools but here they are pushing a Darwinist version of Sunday school,” West added.

West reported on the federally-funded website in an article in April 2004 for National Review Online. Click here for additional information.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Austria discomfited Darwinists last July when he published an article in the New York Times taking them to task for claims the Church backs Darwin's theory of evolution. Now on his website, his staff points out that some in "the English-speaking press" misreported a lecture two weeks ago in Vienna's St. Stephen's Cathedral as "somehow drawing back from his essay in the New York Times."

Annotation: It has come to our attention that the content of Cardinal Schönborn's first catechesis has been mis-reported in the English-speaking press as somehow drawing back from his essay in The New York Times. This is inaccurate, as will be apparent from the full text. In order to clear up this misunderstanding, we are posting here an initial draft of an English translation. (Official and final German and English versions will follow when the lectures are compiled into book form.)

Much of the speech traces the foundational significance of creation to Judeo-Christian thinking and the way in which this tradition uniquely served to encourage the rise of modern science. Darwin's work, says the cardinal, is "a great oeuvre in the history of ideas", but flawed. Further, as he shows, Darwin's followers have taken repeated pains to denounce religion in no uncertain terms.

The Cardinal's website is a bit hard to negotiate if you don't speak German, but when you find the right page, it turns out that the good Cardinal--a former theology student of Pope Benedict XVI and senior editor of the Roman Catholic Catechism--is planning a series of nine lectures on Creation and Evolution during the rest of the fall and winter. The lectures are meant to become a book, and they undoubtedly will be widely read.

As early as 1987 Cardinal Schönborn apparently wrote a major paper on the subject of Darwinian evolution as a chapter for a book on the topic, published in German but available in English. He clearly has taken up the case again and intends to pursue it. His website mentions numerous events where he has spoken on the subject lately.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 7:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

There has been a lot of talk lately about the Avian (i.e. Bird) Flu, and how it's a new virus which has sadly killed a few dozen people and millions of birds. This post will briefly assess whether the Avian Flu is an example of evolution, and also assess the implications for the origin of new genes and biological structures.

Our immune systems are engaged in an eternal arm's race, or perhaps better put, a cat-and-mouse game, against pathogens like viruses. Viruses are trying to hijack our cells' machinery to make more copies of themselves. When they succeed, our cells can become damaged or destroyed.

Our bodies respond by generating antibodies which can attack these viruses and stop them. But our immune systems are based upon a "memory": they can only target pathogens which resemble ones they've seen before. If our bodies must contend against something new or highly different, our immune systems have to try generate new types of antibodies until one does the trick and stops the virus. If we can't generate the right antibody in time, the virus wins, as has unfortunately happened to nearly 60 people who have been infected by the Avian Flu.

The origin of the Avian Flu is indeed an example of evolution. However, as many of us learned in school, evolution can simply mean change over time. Scientists suspect that this new "Avian Flu" strain of the flu virus arose because two flu viruses (probably one previously in humans, and another in birds), swapped genetic material in a process known as "reassortment."

This reassortment thus happened when there was a coinfection of two viruses in the same cell, and then the resulting viruses that came out were a mixture of the genes in two different viruses. This process is analagous to horizontal gene transfer, which has been identified in bacteria as a way for spreading antibiotic resistance. This link provides an excellent graphical illustration.

So our fight to combat the Avian Flu is undoubtedly a fight against evolution. The question is, has there been a net increase in genetic information through this "evolution"? The Avian Flu is essentially the swapping of genes--but its genes probably came from other pre-existing viruses.

One new twist on the Avian Flu is that it can infect organs other than the lungs and cause damage to greater parts of our bodies. This more widespread attack has caused some fatalities. The fact that the Avian Flu can activate this protein in other places probably has something to do with its new configuration of genes. But we're really not dealing with anything new.

Viruses are always mutating to avoid detection by our immune system by becoming something that current antibodies can't recognize. Thus, many viruses survive by having extremely high mutation rates. However, viruses only mutate at a certain rate or they will mutate themselves into oblivion.

Thus, there are limits to the amount that viruses can mutate. When they breach this limit they will experience "error catastrophe." Even virus populations which don't breach this limit can experience permanent fixation of deleterious mutations. Indeed, some scientists are trying to create vaccines for HIV by targeting viruses in the very sites where they can't mutate. The limits are wider than what our immune system can handle at any given time and often when we are sick, it is because a virus has mutated into something our immune system cannot immediately target. But still, even the evolution of viruses has limits. Some researchers have called this the "mutation limit."

The reason that the Avian Flu is succeding thus far is because when the two previously-existing viruses swapped some genetic material and created Avian Flu strains, its current configuration is different enough from microbes our immune systems can already target that many people are unable to fight off the virus.

But it's evolution within limits, and it's evolution that generally uses pre-existing genetic material. After all, the current strains of the Avian flu are nothing more than viruses, which are descended from nothing more than a line of billions upon billions of generations of viruses, which, as far as we can tell, have always been viruses, and aren't becoming anything other than more viruses.

Viruses are masters at taking what already exists and swapping it around to dodge our immune system. And that's what has happened here. It's still a virus, and there's probably nothing "new" in terms of new genes. This does not show that evolution can create new genetic information.

But there's good news. Scientists are working on creating antibodies. In fact, perhaps you, the reader, already have the cure within you.

What does this mean for intelligent design theory?
Some people have alleged that the evolution of new viruses poses some kind of a challenge to intelligent design. As illustrated above, design proponents do not question the possibility that populations can evolve, especially when it is microevolution within fixed limits.

Intelligent design is concerned with the origin of novel biochemical pathways and new complex biological features. But intelligent design freely grants that pre-existing specified complexity can be swapped around among different organisms (see William Dembski's No Free Lunch or his webbed article, Searching Large Spaces: Displacement and No Free Lunch Regress). That seems to be precisely what created the Avian Flu: pre-existing viral genes through a natural process of “gene swapping” were combined in a new way to create the Avian Flu virus.

Some have alleged that because viruses cause death, that therefore they could not have been designed. (i.e. it is “malicious design”) As a scientific theory, intelligent design says nothing about philosophical questions like the moral purposes of a designed object. Intelligent design theorists have observed, after all, that even objects which are designed to kill (i.e. guns, bombs) are still designed. Thus, the "morality" or "moral purpose" of an object tells you nothing about whether or not it was designed.

This is thus a theological objection to design pertaining to the “problem of evil.” Theological questions require theological answers, which are outside the scope of design theory. However, nearly every religion has a different way of trying to cope with the problem of evil. Those religious answers will not be explored here, but suffice to say, for those concerned with the theological problem of evil, there are plenty of answers out there.

Conclusion
In conclusion, viruses are constantly trying to out-evolve your immune system. That's how they survive. All they can do is mutate certain non-essential portions of their DNA within a mutation limit, and try to acquire other pre-existing genes to create combinations your antibodies haven't seen before. But in the end they're still always viruses. Our immune systems are generally pretty good at keeping up with them, but just in case, it never hurts to give yours a boost, so don't forget to get your flu shot!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A lawsuit has been filed by parent and attorney Larry Caldwell against the usage of government funds to promote some of the material on the "Understanding Evolution Website" website. Caldwell alleges that the federal funds are being used to maintain an evolution website in which the government endorses certain religious beliefs and denominational statements.

Before you assume that Caldwell is somehow arguing that evolution itself is a religious viewpoint, read what Caldwell actually is saying. This is not at all what Caldwell is alleging. Caldwell's lawsuit is not trying to stop the teaching of evolution.

Caldwell's actual arguments are explained pretty well in this Daily Cal article:

"According to the complaint, the site violates the clause through its assertion that most religious denominations find no conflict between their religious doctrine and evolutionary theory, citing a section of the site that dispels common misconceptions of evolution."

Caldwell thus does not allege that teaching evolution endorses religion. Rather Caldwell is alleging that when the government specifically suggests to students that "religion need not conflict with evolution," that the government is telling students what their religious beliefs should be. According to Caldwell, this form of telling students how their religious beliefs should deal with evolution constitutes impermissible religious endorsement on the part of the government.

Submit Your Caption
We'll all just have to wait and see how Caldwell's lawsuit plays out...but for starters, we decided to have a little fun.

Caldwell's complaint mentions a graphic (displayed and linked below) on the Understanding Evolution Website's page entitled "Misconception: 'Evolution and religion are incompatible.'" Caldwell contends that this government-sponsored graphic endorses a religious message to students that there is no conflict between evolution and religious beliefs.

We sent out a "Submit Your Caption" request for this graphic to many supporters of ID. Below are some of the anonymous submissions we received:

(Note: This graphic is not stored on our server; this graphic is linked from http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/images/scienceandreligion.gif where the graphic was created by the "Understanding Evolution" website at http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/misconceps/IVAandreligion.shtml)

Some Submitted Captions:

"Great! You don't think that God can do anything in the natural world either!"

"Religious groups that have no conflict with the theory of evolution are good; all others are bad."

"The Case Against Cloning."

"The Church-State Wedding."

"Meet me in the parking lot after the photo-op."

“Religion has no place in biology unless it is to support Darwinian teaching.”

Theologian: "I won't say 'How' if you won't say 'Why.'"
Scientist the next day: "'Why' and "How.'"

"Darwin's deal with the devil?"

"The blind leading the blind."

"The blind congratulating the blind on not being led by the evidence."

"Our random, unguided, undirected, and chance meeting was obviously pre-ordained.

"Warning: The dangers of inbreeding between left-handed relatives."

"Optical Illusion."

Scientist: "Just don't look at the evidence too closely."
Theologian: "Just don't look at the Bible (or theology in general) too closely."

"We may not agree about whether or not God exists, but we both agree that Geico will give you the best auto insurance rate."

Scientist: "Sucka!"

"A Jekyll-and-Hyde character."

"Lefties rule!"

"We’re just cloning around!"

"Working together to tear down the wall of separation erected by the Establishment Clause."

"Divide and Conquer!"

"Concur and Divide!"

"Dog loves you! God loves you!"

"So that's what the Bible means!"

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Academic Freedom is still under siege at the University of Idaho, and Discovery Institute fellow Dr. Scott Minnich is unfortunately just the latest target of a national campaign to stifle dissent from Darwinism and suppress information about intelligent design.

University of Idaho president Timothy White issued an edict last week banning “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula" as inappropriate topics of discussion for university faculty, staff and students.

John Miller of the Associated Press reported on Oct 5 that the University of Idaho was not targeting Minnich with the statement.

"Harold Gibson, a school spokesman, said the views of Minnich, a tenured professor in the school's College of Agriculture, didn't prompt the letter."

"Zemetra said Friday that White's announcement was intended in part to make sure people knew that Minnich was acting as an individual and not on behalf of the university."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dr. Jerry Coyne's flimsy and coarse demolition of what in fact is a straw man version of intelligent design would not warrant response if The New Republic had not promoted it as a cover story recently. We asked TNR's editors if they would like an article in rebuttal, but the editors apparently thought such would not be needed.

So here is a reply by Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist and author of Icons of Evolution. Darwinists will respond to it with their customary scholarly sobriety, assailing Wells personally, whooping it up for "overwhelming evidence" for Darwin's theory that doesn't have to be inspected because, after all, it is "overwhelming", and suggesting that those who differ from them want to install a theocracy.

But we suggest the reader read (or re-read) Coyne's piece from TNR, then read Wells. It is a fair means of comparison not available in TNR.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 5:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"A California parent, Jeanne Caldwell, is filing a federal lawsuit today against officials of the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for spending more than $500,000 of federal money on a website that encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution in violation of the First Amendment," according to a news release from Quality Science Education for All."

More than a year ago, CSC associate director John West wrote about the establishment of state-funded Church of Darwin when he reported on the NSF's funding of a website developed in conjunction with the NCSE that explicitly uses religion to justify teaching Darwinian evolution. So, who is it that keeps bringing up religion? The Darwinists, naturally.

Reprinted with permnission from Quality Science Education for All. For IMMEDIATE RELEASE on October 12, 2005
Contact: Larry Caldwell
lcaldwell@qsea.org

Lawsuit Alleges that Federally-Funded Evolution Website Violates Separation of Church and State by Using Religion to Promote Evolution

San Francisco, CA -- A California parent, Jeanne Caldwell, is filing a federal lawsuit today against officials of the National Science Foundation and the University of California at Berkeley for spending more than $500,000 of federal money on a website that encourages teachers to use religion to promote evolution in violation of the First Amendment.

“In this stunning example of hypocrisy, the same people who so loudly proclaim that they oppose discussion of religion in science classes are clamoring for public school teachers to expressly use theology in order to convince students to support evolution,” said Larry Caldwell, President of Quality Science Education for All, who is co-counsel in the suit with the Pacific Justice Institute.

Called "Understanding Evolution," the website identified in the lawsuit directs teachers to doctrinal statements by seventeen religious denominations and groups endorsing evolutionary theory. A statement by the United Church of Christ, for example, declares that evolution is consistent with "the revelation and presence of... God in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit."

The website further suggests classroom activities that explicitly use religion to promote evolution. In one suggested activity, teachers are supposed to share with students statements by religious leaders on evolution, but only those "stress[ing] the compatibility of theology with the science of evolution." In another activity, students are assigned to interview ministers about their views on evolution, with the purpose of showing students that "Evolution is OK!" Teachers are cautioned, however, that this particular activity may not work if they live in a community that is "conservative Christian."

“While the government has a legitimate purpose in educating students about the science of evolution, it's outrageous that tax dollars would be spent to indoctrinate students into a particular religious view of evolution. There are many different religious views about evolution. How dare the government tell students which religious view is correct!" said plaintiff Jeanne Caldwell. "This is propaganda, not education."

The lawsuit alleges that the state and federal government are promoting religious beliefs to minor school children through the website in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The suit seeks injunctive relief to remove these government endorsed religious beliefs from the website.

The lawsuit also alleges that the website is being used to further the religious agenda of a private organization, the National Center for Science Education (NSCE), which has a “long history of religious advocacy” on the evolution issue. According to the suit, the NCSE, which helped design the website, provides religious “outreach” programs and “preaching” on evolution to churches, all aimed at convincing people of faith that there is no conflict between their religious beliefs and evolution.

“It turns out that the NCSE and its allies in the scientific and educational establishments don’t mind having religious beliefs discussed in science class, as long as those discussions are aimed at convincing students to convert to the religious beliefs favored by the NCSE”, added attorney Caldwell. “Their willingness to flagrantly violate students’ constitutionally protected religious freedoms in order to sell evolution to our children is the height of hypocrisy.”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I see that a couple of fascinating new websites have "evolved" on the Internet (and if you think sites really do evolve, there are some web "designers" I'd like you to meet). For reporters and others who imagine that only the likes of Discovery Institute fellows believe that Darwin's theory is in the process of imploding, go to the new Stephen J. Gould Initiative for Non-Darwinian Evolution site and its companion, Biological Self Organization: Evolution by Mechanical Causation.
There is much to read there. It's a curiosity, to say the least.

For its first few days, the site was rather tendentious and even cribbed our Dissent from Darwin list, but then it settled down and also started adding interesting and original content.

You know what? These structuralists, first of all, may have something worthwhile to examine. Let's find out.

Second, many of them, according to the sites' organizer, Stuart Pivar, a noted art collector and science author in New York, are almost as peeved with the intimidation tactics of the Darwinistas as we are.

Indeed, the site indicates that there may be far more scientists who are in sympathy with the Dissent List statement--simple as it is--than the brave number who have lent their names so far. We know of some. But the stephenjgould.org site may know of more.

And why not? The Dissent from Darwin is not a statement for intelligent design, no matter how the Darwinists try to misrepresent it. Nor are the signers themselves necessarily supporters of ID. Some simply don't have an alternative. A few call themselves--yes, it's true--structuralists.

What may be dawning on people--though not the major media yet--is that we have always been clear about our position that we do NOT want to mandate the teaching of ID and that the key thing, instead, is for students to know the scientific evidence for and against Darwin's theory, period. Not only is there no interest here in sneaking religion into the science classroom, there is no desire to impose ID at any level. Since some structuralists apparently are completely prepared to chuck Darwin's theory (natural selection working on mutations) as an explanation for evolution, and others are prepared to demolish at least some of the Darwinian icons, we would seem to be--to that point--and however odd and uncomfortable that may make some feel--somewhat in agreement.

There is another issue of possible accord, and that is the matter of free speech. No fair minded individual can ignore the reality that attacks on academic freedom are being organized by Darwinists to punish scientists who will not follow the Darwinist party line. Professors who teach about ID or do research on it or even merely provide arguments against Darwin's theory have lost their university positions in what looks like a national campaign, and others are in peril as this is written. (Soon after the attacks go public on a given campus, Eugenie Scott of the NCSE just happens to show up on campus for a speech.)

Now it turns out that some structuralists also are afraid to speak out in criticism of Darwin's theory. The stephenjgould.org site notes with sincere concern the plight of Richard Sternberg (with two doctorates in evolutionary biology) at the Smithsonian, and even praises the Meyer paper that got Sternberg in trouble when he published it. (The site doesn't say so, but the NCSE was involved in that hit job, too.)

So, what don't we agree on? Actually, we don't know. It is possible that anti-Darwinians who are pro-ID or pro-structuralism or neither are really quite different in many ways. Or maybe there are some points of intersection. A little more research and maybe some interaction may be in order. As a start, it might be helpful to commit to a policy of academic civility, something that the militant Darwinists do not embrace. Let's call it the spirit of science.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 3:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

And the Miller Told His Tale: Ken Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion

Dr. Kenneth Miller was the leadoff hitter for Plaintiffs in the trial over ID in Dover. Amidst other things, Miller's testimony was aimed at making a case that the Neo-Darwinian hypothesis is as well-supported as gravitational theory.

It was my understanding that this trial was about whether or not Dover had violated the First Amendment by mentioning to students that some book in the library advocated intelligent design. So I was a little confused as to why it was relevant for Miller to give us all a lesson in evolutionary biology.

Nonetheless, I like Ken Miller on a personal level and, relevant or not, I very much enjoyed Dr. Miller's testimony. Though I disagree with Ken on many things, I think Dr. Miller genuinely cares about students. His testimony has also given me a week's worth of things to think about. Here's one thought I'd like to share.

What does Neo-Darwinism Predict with regards to Chromosomal History in Humans and Apes?
Under Neo-Darwinism, humans and extant apes obviously share a common ancestor. But how many chromosomes did that alleged ancestor have? Miller made his prediction that there was a fusion event simply by counting chromosomes in apes and humans—not by analyzing the chromosomes themselves.

Miller started off his "prediction" by simply observing that humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and apes have 24 pairs; therefore two ape chromosomes were fused into one human chromosome. Miller claims that this simple chromosome-counting requires a fusion event if common ancestry is true. But is that really the case?

Why couldn't it be the case that the common ancestor had 23 distinct chromosomes, and one chromosome underwent duplication in the line that led to apes? Or maybe the common ancestor had 20 distinct chromosomes and there have been 4 duplications events in the ape line, and 3 in the human line?; or maybe the ancestor had 30 distinct chromosomes and there have been 6 fusion events for ape-line but 7 fusion events for the human-line.

Do you see my point? Simple chromosome-counting or comparisons of numbers of chromosomes does not lead common ancestry to make any hard predictions about how many chromosomes our alleged ape-human common ancestor had. So, under Miller's logic, there is no reason why a chromosomal fusion event is a necessary prediction of common ancestry for all upper primates.

In fact, if we find evidence that humans have two distinct chromosomes that have evidence of fusion (i.e., let's say human chromosome #2 has fusion evidence, and then, hypothetically, we also find evidence for fusion on human chromosome #9), then under Miller's logic, if apes lack any evidence for a fused chromosome, then this should count against common ancestry. Thus, at the present time, absent a full analysis of fusion evidence in our chromosomes, we cannot necessarily say that the presence of one fused chromosome in humans is a prediction of common ancestry. Much more research still needs to be done.

If Miller's Cold (Chromosomal) Fusion Tale is True, What does it mean for Common Ancestry?
But let's take Miller's word for a second, and assume, ad arguendo (for the sake of argument), that there MUST have been a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. What does this mean for common descent?

Miller then testified how human chromosome #2 has two centromeres, which are the central - attachment points used for pulling a chromosome to one end of a cell during mitosis. Chromosomes normally only have one centromere, but human chromosome # 2 looks like two chromosomes were fused together, because it has two centromeres (or at least, it has one normal centromere, and another region that looks a lot like a centromere). Futhermore, Miller noted how chromosome #2 has a section where there are two telomeres, structures normally at the tips of chromosomes, which are found in the middle of chromosome #2. Essentially, these two telomeres are oriented in a way that it looks, genetically speaking, like the ends of two chromosomes were fused together.

So I am more than willing to acknowledge and affirm that Miller did provide some very good direct empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event which created human chromosome #2. But I'm more interested in two other questions: if we accept Miller's chromosomal fusion evidence as accurate, then (1) is his chromosome fusion story good evidence for Neo-Darwinian common ancestry between humans and apes? Or (2) does it perhaps pose great problems for a Neo-Darwinian account?

The answer to question (1) is "NO" and the answer to question (2) is "YES!"

Evidence for Fusion in a Human Chromosome Tells you NOTHING about Alleged Common Ancestry with Apes
All Miller has done is documented direct empirical evidence of a chromosomal fusion event in humans. But evidence for a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence for when that event took place, nor is it evidence for the ancestry prior to that event.

The fusion-evidence implies that some of our ancestors likely had 48 chromosomes. But Miller has not provided any evidence that the individual with 48 chromosomes was historically related to modern apes. (I grant that our chromosome #2 has banding patterns similar to two ape chromosomes, but given that our chromosome structure is generally similar to that of apes anyways, it is not a stretch to assume that any 48 chromosome ancestor of you and me had a chromosome structure similar to apes, regardless of whether or not that individual was related to apes. Claiming that banding pattern similarities is evidence of common ancestry with apes simply invokes the “similarity = ancestry” argument, and thus begs the question.) It is entirely possible that our genus Homo underwent a chromosomal fusion event within its own separate history.

Under Neo-Darwinism, the common ancestor of humans and apes is thought to have lived about six million years ago. But under Miller's account, it is entirely possible that this chromosomal fusion event happened only 50,000 years ago. In such a case, this chromosomal fusion event thus needs not have anything to do with making us human-like as opposed to ape-like. Clearly this chromosomal fusion event could be extremely far removed from any alleged ancestry with apes.

In essence, we don't know that this chromosomal fusion event happened on a line which leads back to some alleged common ancestor of apes and humans. All we know is that this fusion event happened in the line that led to you and me. Whether that line has common ancestry with apes is a separate question which cannot be answered by this fusion evidence.

All that evolutionists have claimed is that this fusion event occurred after the split that led to humans, so it occurs only in the human lineage. Evidence of a chromosomal fusion event is not evidence that our line leads all the way back to apes.

Given that we had a 48-chromosome ancestor, we don't know if our 48-chromosome ancestor was an ape or not. For all we know, our 48-chromosome ancestor was a part of a separately designed species, as fully human as anyone you meet on the street today. There is no good reason to think that going from a 46-chromosome individual to a 48-chromosome individual would make our species more ape-like.

Common descent could not have been falsified if there was no evidence for a fusion event, but common descent certainly is not refuted by the presence of a fusion event. The question now stands, does this fusion event provide any evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes? The answer to that question is no.

This is explained in figure 1 below:

Figure 1. This animated gif shows how even if the empirical genetic evidence mandates a chromosomal fusion event, this doesn't tell you anything about whether or not humans share ancestry with apes. The "Separate Ancestry" slide shows that the chromosomal fusion event may have simply taken place in a separately-designed basic type which, initially, had 48 chromosomes. The "Common Ancestry" slide shows how the chromosomal fusion event may have also taken place in a line which led back to a hypothetical common ancestor of humans and modern apes. The point is that all we have is evidence for a fusion event, but that fusion event is equally compatible with either separate ancestry from apes, or common ancestry with apes. The fusion event itself does not provide any independent evidence for common ancestry with apes. To argue that it is evidence for common ancestry requires special pleading.

Miller's "prediction" of Neo-Darwinian evolution turns out to not be a hard prediction at all: if common ancestry is true, Miller predicts (albeit wrongly) that there must have been a fusion event. But the converse is not true. The presence of this fusion event in no way requires that common ancestry is true.

It only gets worse for Neo-Darwinism
Under Neo-Darwinism, genetic mutation events (including chromosomal aberrations) are generally assumed to be random and unguided. Miller's Cold-Fusion tale becomes more suspicious when one starts to ask harder questions like "how could a natural, unguided chromosomal fusion event get fixed into a population, much less how could it result in viable offspring?" Miller's account must overcome two potential obstacles:

(1) In most of our experience, individuals with the randomly-fused chromosome can be normal, but it is very likely that their offspring will ultimately have a genetic disease. A classic example of such is a cause of Down syndrome.

(2) One way around the problem in (1) is to find a mate that also had an identical chromosomal fusion event. But Valentine and Erwin imply that such events would be highly unlikely:

"[T]he chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event."

(Erwin, D..H., and Valentine, J.W. "'Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation", Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 81:5482-5483, Sept 1984)

In other words, Miller has to explain why a random chromosomal fusion event which, in our experience ultimately results in offspring with genetic diseases, didn’t result in a genetic disease and was thus advantageous enough to get fixed into the entire population of our ancestors. Given the lack of empirical evidence that random chromosomal fusion events are not disadvantageous, perhaps the presence of a chromosomal fusion event is not good evidence for a Neo-Darwinian history for humans.

Miller may have found good empirical evidence for a chromosomal fusion event. But all of our experience with mammalian genetics tells us that such a chromosomal aberration should have resulted in a non-viable mutant, or non-viable offspring. Thus, Neo-Darwinism has a hard time explaining why such a random fusion event was somehow advantageous.

If it were to turn out that the fusion of two chromosomes can only result in a viable individual if the fusion event takes place in a highly unlikely and highly specified manner, then we may actually be looking at a case for a non-Darwinian intelligent design event in the history of the human genus.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Jodi Wilgoren's wry account of her two successive boat trips down the Colorado River through the Grand Canyon last summer-first with a group of creationists, then with Eugenie Scott's Darwinists--must qualify as one of the more inventive and evocative ways to convey differences on origins issues, as well as a reason to nominate the writer for some kind of federal fitness award. I'm sure I was not the only one amused by the delicious contrast in styles in the two passenger manifests, though each congregation came off as religious in its own ways. A creationist wore a Jesus fish symbol, a Darwinist the Darwin amphibian symbol that mocks the Jesus fish. The creationists were earnest, the Darwinistas ironic. The creationists sang hymns, the Darwinists a ditty for evolution.

For my part, I was grateful that Ms Wilgoren took the trouble to point out in her article that intelligent design proponents do not share the creationist belief that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. And, accordingly, the river rafting was just not our trip. We don't go on pilgrimages to the Galapagos, either. But, I have to admit that such outings do sound like fun.

In an exchange a few weeks ago Jodi Wilgoren upbraided me for observing in this space that she had seemed "biased" when she began her profile article on Discovery Institute. I went on to say that her professionalism had overcome that bias, but she wasn't taking that as a compliment at all and was not mollified.

All right, I take back the bias charge, assuming that one interprets bias as a malign and intentional disregard of the truth.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 8:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If you'll give me the Mic, I won't Rob much of your time while Penning this short Ruse.

In the Dover trial, Robert Pennock is the Plaintiffs' expert on the philosophy of science, and Pennock pushed hard for a definition of science which is essentially "methodological naturalism."

This is eerily similar to the 1982 case, McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (E.D. Ark) over the teaching of young earth creationism, where Darwinist Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse testified that science was defined as follows:

(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) It is falsifiable.

Ruse's definition incorporates the precise methodological naturalism advocated by Pennock in Ruse's requirements (1) and (2). Ruse’s definition was also subsequently accepted by Judge Overton and etched into Eastern Arkansas law.

But we all know what happened to Michael Ruse.

In the wake of McLean, Ruse edited a volume entitled "But is it Science?" which philosopher of science Larry Laudan explained that "The victory in the Arkansas case was hollow, for it achieved only at the expense at perpetuating and canonizing false stereotype of what science is and how it works.” (Laudan, in But is it Science?, pg. 355)

Laudan explained that “It simply will not do for the defenders of science to invoke philosophy of science when it suits them . . . and to dismiss it as ‘arcane’ and ‘remote’ when it does not.” (ibid., pg. 355)

Similarly, Philip Quinn called Ruse's testimony “fallacious” and not representative of “settled consensus of opinion in the relevant community of scholars”. (But is it Science, pg. 384). Quinn warned that: "One bad precedent, particularly one so extensively publicized and so apt to arouse passionate feelings, is already one too many." (ibid., pg. 384) Laudan concurred that "bad philosophy makes for bad law" (ibid., pg. 355).

Laudan has elsewhere explained the problem with Ruse's form of demarcation arguments:

“From Plato to Popper, philosophers have sought to identify those epistemic features which mark off science from other sorts of beliefs and activity. Nonetheless, it seems pretty clear that philosophy has largely failed to deliver the relevant goods. Whatever the specific strengths and deficiencies of the numerous well-known efforts at demarcation . . . it is probably fair to say that there is no demarcation line between science and non-science, or between science and pseudo-science, which would win assent from a majority of philosophers.”

(Larry Laudan, Beyond Positivism and Relativism (Westview Press, 1996), pg 210)

Ruse's definition has thus undergone much criticism from philosophers of science. But as time has passed, Ruse has proven to have an honest and pure heart. Thus, Ruse eventually conceded that his definition had implicit metaphysical underpinnings which were, essentially religious, and didn't help you distinguish "religion" from "science":

"But those of us who are academics, or for other reasons pulling back and trying to think about these things, I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which -- it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law -- but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things."

(Transcript: Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, Saturday, February 13, 1993, 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium "The New Antievolutionism", at "http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm")

And Ruse also admitted:

"[F]or many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion ... And it seems to me very clear that at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely, that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things come what may." (Transcript: Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, Saturday, February 13, 1993, 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium "The New Antievolutionism", at "http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm")

Finally, Ruse went as far as to essentially retract all of his original testimony:

"I as a philosopher of science am worried about what I think were fairly crude neo-positivistic attitudes that I had about science, even as much as ten years ago, when I was fighting in Arkansas."

(Transcript: Speech by Professor Michael Ruse, Saturday, February 13, 1993, 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the symposium "The New Antievolutionism", at "http://www.arn.org/docs/orpages/or151/mr93tran.htm")

It took a lot of guts for Ruse to make these statements, and concede that some of the most famous testimony about science in the history of American courts canonized a bad definition of science which involves assumptions that are indistinguishable from an outright religious position.

David Dewolf, Stephen Meyer, and Mark DeForrest characterize Ruse's retraction:

"Michael Ruse himself repudiated his previous support for the demarcation principle by admitting that Darwinism (like creationism) 'depends upon certain unprovable metaphysical assumptions.'"

(in Teaching the Origins Controversy: Science, Or Religion, Or Speech?, 2000 Utah L. Rev. 39, citing to "Speech by Michael Ruse to the Annual Meeting of the American Assoc. for the Advancement of Science (Feb. 13, 1993) http://www.leaderv-.com/orgs/am/orpages/or151/mr93tran.html")

It should be recognized that Michael Ruse states his support for Darwinism to this day. But Ruse deserves much credit for his honesty.

Will Robert Pennock become the next Michael Ruse? This is dependant upon whether or not Pennock ultimately proves to be as honest and introspective as Michael Ruse.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 8:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

AP reporter John Miller broke the story of University of Idaho President Timothy White's edict banning “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula" as inappropriate for the university. (see our original post here)

Nowhere does the statement say what a differing view on evolution might be. And differing from what exactly? Darwinism? Intelligent design? Structuralism? Self-organization? What is appropriate for UI science classes? Can a professor present research critical of any of these theories or only critical of some? What about evidence that supports these theories can that be discussed with students?

There's a disturbing pattern emerging. Universities that have public and prominent proponents of intelligent design are seeing a rise in viewpoint discrimination. UI's banning of discussion of differing views on evolution comes on the heals of Iowa State University's faculty petition declaring ID as non-scientific and therefore verbotten from their science curriculum. Is this going to be the new trend wherever a scientist publicly expresses interest or support in non-Darwinian views on evolution? It seems quite coincidental that in each of these cases there is such a professor.

At UI you have noted microbiologist, Scott Minnich, who is a well respected scientist whose research on the plague earned him a place on an elite team deployed to Iraq to protect our troops from biological warfare. Minncih is widely published in technical journals including Journal of Bacteriology, Molecular Microbiology, Journal of Molecular Biology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Journal of Microbiological Method.

Meanwhile at ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has also been targeted by Darwinists with an effor to curtail his academic freedom. Gonzalez is a world class expert on the astrophysical requirements for habitability and on habitable zones and a co-founder of the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) concept. Astronomers and astrobiologists around the world are pursuing research based on his work on extrasolar planets host stars, the GHZ, and several discoveries pertaining to stellar abundances. In the past he has received grants from NASA. And he is the co-author of "Observational Astronomy" by Birney, Gonzalez, and Oesper an advanced colleged astronomy textbook.

Are such scientists not free to discuss their own views and research related to biological evolution? Or intelligent design? Is not this the role of universities to provide for the free exchange of ideas and information on all issues, even controversial ones? These sorts of attacks on academic freedom are the exact opposite of the discourse appropriate on university campuses. Universities should be vigorously and openly debating the contentious issues of our day, especially in the sciences.

Instead, you have what appears to be paranoia about opposing views to Darwinism coming to the UI campus. The Moscow Daily News reports:

"The discussion arose after a situation arose at UI about a year ago when a student lodged a complaint about a teacher who stepped in as a substitute. Hartzell said the student reported this person might have mentioned intelligent design in the classroom. She specified that the person wasn't Minnich and it wasn't somebody on UI's faculty.

As for Minnich, she said "he doesn't introduce that into the classroom. He hasn't crossed that line. He doesn't proselytize in the classroom. He doesn't use the academic setting to advance his own ideas, but he is willing to talk about these ideas."

"As far as I am concerned, he is free to do whatever he wants on his own time," Hartzell said."

And note what is considered praise of Minnich: "He doesn't use the academic setting to advance his own ideas." Imagine that! A professor isn't supposed to advance his own ideas! So much for academic freedom. I guess professors are just like herd animals, and all they are supposed to do is parrot the party line.

Minnich's colleagues are more supportive than Gonzalez' according to the Daily News:

"He also conducts research in areas of the bacterial flagellum and yersinia and directs the biology program for the Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana and Idaho Medical Education Program, which makes medical education more accessible through collaboration and shared resources.

"He has done a lot of important work in the area of bacterial pathogens," said Hartzell, who said she finds Minnich to be a wonderful colleague and very professional."

But apparently this information is just to dangerous for UI students to be exposed to. Maybe they're afraid it's contagious? Imagine the tragedy if such ideas spread?

The NCSE certainly seems to think so. It's no surprise that NCSE director Eugenie Scott's 2005 tour is coming to both UI and ISU in the very near future. The University of Idaho maintains that the edict censoring science wasn't focused at Minnich, but it seems that even Scott found that hard to believe.

"White wrote that national media attention on the issue prompted the letter. Meanwhile, evolution disputes are unfolding in at least 19 states.

His letter also came just a week before Eugenie C. Scott, an activist who has fought to segregate creationism and intelligent design from science classes, is due to speak at the University of Idaho on Oct. 12. Her presentation will begin at 7 p.m. in the UI Administration Building Auditorium and is open to the public.

Scott said the school's science faculty, who invited her, haven't explicitly mentioned Minnich as motivation for bringing her for a lecture titled "Why Scientists Reject Intelligent Design." Still, "the elephant in the living room is: there is a proponent of intelligent design on the faculty of the University of Idaho," said Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education." (emphasis mine)

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight.

1. The Background

• In 1996 Discovery Institute established the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Its main purposes were (1) to support research by scientists and other scholars who were critical of neo-Darwinism and by those who were developing the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design; and (2) to explore, in various ways, the multiple connections between science and culture.
• To raise financial support for the Center, Discovery Institute prepared a fundraising proposal that explained the overall rationale for the Center and why a think tank like Discovery would want to start such an entity in the first place. Like most fundraising proposals, this one included a multi-year budget and a list of goals to be achieved.

• In 1999 a copy of this fundraising proposal was posted by someone on the internet. The document soon spread across the world wide web, gaining almost mythic status among some Darwinists.
• That’s when members of the Darwinist fringe began saying rather loopy things. For example, one group claimed that the document supplied evidence of a frightening twenty-year master plan “to have religion control not only science, but also everyday life, laws, and education”!
• Barbara Forrest, a Louisiana professor on the board of a group called the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, similarly championed the document as proof positive of a sinister conspiracy to abolish civil liberties and unify church and state. Forrest insisted that the document was “crucially important,” and she played up its supposed secrecy, claiming at one point that its “authenticity…has been neither affirmed nor denied by the Discovery Institute.” Poor Prof. Forrest—if she really wanted to know whether the document was authentic, all she had to do was ask. (She didn’t.)
• There were lots of ironies as this urban legend began to grow, but Darwinist true-believers didn’t seem capable of appreciating them:
  --Discovery Institute, the supposed mastermind of this “religious” conspiracy, is in fact a secular organization that sponsored programs on a wide array of issues, including mass transit, technology policy, the environment, and national defense.
  --At the time the “Wedge Document” was being used by Darwinists to stoke fears about Christian theocracy, the Chairman of Discovery’s Board was Jewish, its President was an Episcopalian, and its various Fellows represented an eclectic range of religious views ranging from Roman Catholic to agnostic. It would have been news to them that they were all part of a fundamentalist cabal.
  --Far from promoting a union between church and state, Discovery Institute sponsored for several years a seminar for college students that advocated religious liberty and the separation between church and state.

• The best way to dispel the paranoia of the conspiracy-mongers is to actually look at the document in question. It simply doesn’t advocate the views they attribute to it.
  First and foremost, and contrary to the hysterical claims of some Darwinists, this document does not attack “science” or the “scientific method.” In fact, it is pro-science.
• What the document critiques is “scientific materialism,” which is the abuse of genuine science by those who claim that science supports the unscientific philosophy of materialism.
• Second, the document does not propose replacing “science” or the “scientific method” with “God” or “religion.” Instead, it supports a science that is “consonant” (i.e., harmonious) with theism, rather than hostile to it. To support a science that is “consonant” with religion is not to claim that religion and science are the same thing. They clearly aren’t. But it is to deny the claim of scientific materialists that science is somehow anti-religious.

1. “The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is 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.” As a historical matter, this statement happens to be true. The idea that humans are created in the image of God has had powerful positive cultural consequences. Only a member of a group with a name like the “New Orleans Secular Humanist Association” could find anything objectionable here. (By the way, isn’t it strange that a group supposedly promoting “theocracy” would praise “representative democracy” and “human rights”?)
2. “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 throughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment.” This statement highlights one of the animating concerns of Discovery Institute as a public policy think tank. Leading nineteenth century intellectuals tried to hijack science to promote their own anti-religious agenda. This attempt to enlist science to support an anti-religious agenda continues to this day with Darwinists like Oxford’s Richard Dawkins, who boldly insists that Darwinism supports atheism. We continue to think that such claims are an abuse of genuine science, and that this abuse of real science has led to pernicious social consequences (such as the eugenics crusade pushed by Darwinist biologists early in the twentieth century).
3. "Discovery Institute’s Center... seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies.” It wants to “reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." We admit it: We want to end the abuse of science by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson who try to use science to debunk religion, and we want to provide support for scientists and philosophers who think that real science is actually “consonant with… theistic convictions.” Please note, however: “Consonant with” means “in harmony with.” It does not mean “same as.” Recent developments in physics, cosmology, biochemistry, and related sciences may lead to a new harmony between science and religion. But that doesn’t mean we think religion and science are the same thing. We don’t.
4. “Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade.” It is precisely because we are interested in encouraging intellectual exploration that the “Wedge Document” identified the “essential” component of its program as the support of scholarly “research, writing and publication.” The document makes clear that the primary goal of Discovery Institute’s program in this area is to support scholars so they can engage in research and publication Scholarship comes first. Accordingly, by far the largest program in the Center’s budget has been the awarding of research fellowships to biologists, philosophers of science, and other scholars to engage in research and writing.
5. “The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized.” It’s shocking but true—Discovery Institute actually promised to publicize the work of its scholars in the broader culture! What’s more, it wanted to engage Darwinists in academic debates at colleges and universities! We are happy to say that we still believe in vigorous and open discussion of our ideas, and we still do whatever we can to publicize the work of those we support. So much for the “secret” part of our supposed “conspiracy.”

Read the Wedge document for yourself, along with a more detailed point by point response and clarification of falacious allegations.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:40 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“I hope that the media will critically analyze Forrest’s testimony and get our response to her allegations,” said John West. “I would warn them to take what she says not with just a grain of salt, but with a shaker-full.”

Today, Southeastern Louisiana University philosophy professor Barbara Forrest testified in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial that it is her opinion that intelligent design and creationism are essentially one in the same.

“The ACLU’s entire case is built on misrepresenting what intelligent design is, and mischaracterizing it as creationism so we’re not surprised they called Forrest as a witness,” West added.

According to West, creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory attempts to empirically detect whether the apparent design in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws.

“The effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at colleges and universities around the world,” said West. “Scientists engaged in design research include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University and microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, both of whom will testify for the defense, and astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez at Iowa State University.”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Michael Balter is a Paris-based correspondent for the AAAS and the journal Science. In an opinion piece titled "Let 'intelligent design' and science rumble" in last Sunday's LA Times, Balter argued that public acceptance of evolution was suffering because of the Darwinian monopoly on public education. Balter is not the first Darwinist to suggest that free and open debate on Darwinism and intelligent design is healthy for science and for science education. (See our list of articles endorsing our teach the controversy approach).

There's a lively debate about the article (with some atheists and Darwinists agreeing with Balter even, including responses from Balter, at this blog. So, maybe there's hope for academic freedom after all.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

SEATTLE – "Every educator should be alarmed when an institution’s administrator issues an order preventing faculty from teaching `differing views’ about the subject they teach.” said David DeWolf, professor at Gonzaga University Law School. “Yet that is precisely what the President of the University of Idaho did when he issued a letter informing faculty, staff and students that it was “inappropriate” for anyone to teach “views that differ from evolution” in any “life, earth, and physical science courses or curricula."

"This is viewpoint discrimination in its most naked form, and should not be tolerated if academic freedom means anything," continued DeWolf, also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute, the nation's leading research organization supporting the academic freedom of scientists who challenge neo-Darwinism.

"The University of Idaho's statement does not simply ban discussions of evolution that are unrelated to the subjects of courses being taught,” explained DeWolf. “Nor does it merely forbid religious-based views of evolution from being taught in science classes. The statement offers a blanket prohibition on any 'views that differ from evolution,' no matter how scientific, and no matter how related to the courses under study."

"Censorship and thought-control are apparently alive and well at the University of Idaho," added Dr. John West, Associate Director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. "This is an assault on academic freedom, and a barefaced violation of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech."

West added that the statement violates the University's own guarantees in its Faculty Handbook, which declare that "academic freedom is essential for the protection of the rights of faculty members in teaching and of students in learning" and that "teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects" so long as they don't introduce irrelevant material.

"Despite the existence of legitimate scientific debates involving Darwinian theory, the right of teachers and professors to teach about these debates is often in question," added DeWolf. "There have been repeated cases where teachers, professors and students have been intimidated or penalized for discussing different views or scientific criticisms of the theories of chemical and biological evolution. Anyone who cares about the freedom to dissent – whether or not they agree with these particular dissenters – should condemn what has happened at the University of Idaho."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:38 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Larry Caldwell is a parent in Sacramento who has fought to improve the teaching of biology in his children's high school. We've reported on his efforts (here, here, and here) and their consequences (here, here, and here) in the past.

Now the Sacramento Bee has a very good profile on Caldwell. It opens with an excellent summary of Caldwell's approach to the debate over teachng evolution."

Ask Larry Caldwell why he decided to take on Darwin, and he'll tell you his motivation stems from science, not religion.

It was two years ago now that Caldwell first approached trustees in the Roseville Joint Union High School District about revamping the science curriculum to highlight what he says are flaws in the theory of evolution. His aim, he says, was not to bring God into the classroom but to present the work of researchers who challenge the widely held theory, citing what they see as gaps in evidence.

To the Granite Bay resident, the effort isn't anti-science, it's an extension of the academic process.

"His critics in the Roseville district have speculated he gets financial support from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank devoted to intelligent-design research. John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture, said his group has provided Caldwell with materials such as videos but not financial assistance."

Check out Caldwell's organization, Quality Science Education for All at http://www.qsea.org/.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One of the most rhetorically effective portions of evolutionist Kenneth Miller's testimony in the Dover trial was his PowerPoint discussion of pseudogenes. As Ted Davis describes it here, "For evolution, he gave several such examples, esp. the recent discovery of pseudogenes in identical locations for humans and some other primates--a "fact" that favors the "theory" of evolution over a theory of a common design plan, since the genes have no known functions and thus a designer would have no reason to give them to all of these organisms."

But how strong is this argument for common descent by the Darwinian mechanism? In an open letter to Nature, design theorist and biochemist Michael Behe discussed the pseudogene argument:

The modern molecular example of poor design is pseudogenes. Why litter a genome with useless, broken copies of functional genes? It looks just like the aftermath of a blind, wasteful process. No designer would have done it that way.(2) Yet Hirotsune et al (3) show that at least one pseudogene has a function. If at least some pseudogenes have unsuspected functions, however, might not other biological features that strike us as odd also have functions we have not yet discovered? Might even the backwards wiring of the vertebrate eye serve some useful purpose? [Go here for the answer.]

The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results. The contention that unintelligent processes can account for complex biological functions should, to the extent possible, be supported by positive results, rather than by intuitions of what no designer would do. Hirotsune et al’s (3) work has forcefully shown that our intuitions about what is functionless in biology are not to be trusted.

The letter to Nature touches on another point relevant to the Dover trial. The ACLU is trying to ban the mere mention of intelligent design from the public school science class room. Nature is also eager to shut down two-way debate about intelligent design in its pages. As the note points out before Behe's letter, "Nature declined to publish this correspondence, citing lack of space. Nonetheless the journal found space in the next issue to publish a 468 word letter warning of the dangers of intelligent design in Germany. Behe's letter is 350 words."

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 12:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial has generated much talk on the internet about Darwinism and the theory of intelligent design, some of it trenchant, much of it stimulating. The American Scientific Affiliation is discussing it here.

One ASA member, Ted Davis, a friendly critic of intelligent design interested in more open debate on the question of origins, provides a favorable review of evolutionist Kenneth Miller's expert testimony, describing it as "superb testimony ... on all counts." He also provides intriguing if less flattering analysis of Friday's expert testimony here:

I went to court yesterday and heard the entire testimony (all done in one afternoon) of Jack Haught, the Georgetown theologian who appeared as a witness for the plaintiffs. This had three important aspects, as follows.

(1) In the direct (ie, pro-plaintiff) portion of his testimony, Jack played the "Langdon Gilkey" role. That is, he pretty much did what the late Prof Gilkey did in the Arkansas creation trial some 20 years ago: he used the strong "contrast" card from his deck, pointing out differences between theology and science in the neo-orthodox style that was Gilkey's trademark. (Jack of course is not really neo-orthodox, but he knows the position and pushed it hard.) In the course of this part, he also painted ID as pretty
much being creationism--not exactly, but close enough for the purposes of the trial.

(2) In the first part of the cross-examination, however, two things happened that proved highly interesting. First, defense attorney Richard Thompson read parts of one of Haught's books, in which Haught clearly dissented from Robert Pennock and Barbara Forrest's view that ID is just another form of creationism. (Pennock testified earlier this week, though I missed that day, and Forrest is scheduled to testify for the plaintiffs next week.) Thompson is obviously, and fairly and appropriately in my view, starting to drive a "wedge" (if I may call it that) between these 3 plaintiff witnesses on this crucial point of the trial. ID is not garden variety creationism, as Pennock andForrest want people to think, and Haught was right in what he wrote about that. In response to Mr Thompson's questions, he kept saying that "for the purposes of this trial" he was pretty much in agreement with Pennock and Forrest. I was not convinced.

Mr Thompson also asked Haught about the Strong Anthropic Principle (which, amusingly, Thompson was pronouncing "anthropotropic" or something like that until Jack corrected him). Doesn't this indicate that scientists themselves are talking about design, Thompson asked--and yes, it does indicate this, IMO, so I found this line of inquiry most interesting. Jack quickly pointed out that, when scientists are doing this, they are not doing science, that is they are not behaving qua scientists. Thus the a priori neo-orthodox distinction was defended on this point.
[]
At some point the questioning got into the multiverse hypothesis, and my sense was (I'd want to review the transcript to have more confidence in my comments here) that Jack thinks that is more genuinely "scientific" b/c it's naturalistic, even though as he admitted it is just "speculation." It would be very interesting indeed, if someone like Stan Jaki were brought in to talk in more detail about this type of naturalistic speculation, vis-a-vis what he called "rumors of transcendence" in cosmology a couple of decades back, when some cosmologists were trying to argue that the universe sprang from "nothing", er, from a grand wave function of some sort. Anything to get past transcendence, it seems, for some folks.

(3) Then it got really, really interesting. Mr thompson asked Jack whether he is a Roman Catholic theologian, and Jack affirmed that he is. Did he have the official whatever-it-is-called-sort-of-license to be a Catholic theologian? No, Jack said, the local authority responsible for that is pretty understanding (my words to give my impression of what he said, I don't have notes with his words) about this. Mr Thompson then produced a copy of the Catholic catechism, and asked Jack point blank about whether or not he believes in the virgin birth, the resurrection, and an historical Adam and Eve. What is your position on these points, he wanted to know.
[]
Jack then did the Bultmann thing, relative to the virgin birth and the resurrection--no, he stated, if there were a videocamera in the room when Jesus appeared to the disciples, that camera would not have recorded anything, since it takes faith to see the resurrected Jesus (and presumably, the camera would have lacked faith). From private conversation with Jack a few years ago, I was pretty sure this is what he would say--Jack questioned my conviction that the bodily resurrection is vital to Christian belief--but I have never talked about this conversation publicly b/c I did not think it was appropriate to do so. Now however it is fair to mention it.

Jack also denied on the stand that he is a "process theologian," I can't fathom just why he did so. He's seen as a process theologian by everyone I know, and I still consider him a process theologian. Perhaps I'll get a chance at some point to ask him to clarify his own position, relative to process theology. But you could've fooled me, and I don't think I'm easily fooled on this type of thing. Perhaps he didn't want to be pigeonholed for the purposes of further questioning, in which case I would understand his answer.

Finally, I'll add some commentary about "Scopes One" vs what people are calling "Scopes Three," with Arkansas apparently being "Scopes Two." In some important ways this ain't "Scopes Three." For example, with all due respect to the attorneys, they aren't the public figures that Darrow and Bryan were--and no one anywhere near Harrisburg is the trial lawyer Darrow was. Nor is anyone bringing the public atheist posture that Darrow brought to Dayton, and there isn't anyone outside with a chimpanzee and there aren't large crowds trying to get in (I had no problem getting one of 40 seats for the general public either day). In many ways, "Scopes Three" is just another one of the many court cases in recent years about religion, public education, and the First Amendment.
[]
And, the first scientist to testify, Ken Miller, is probably quite a bit more conservative theologically (I know many people think he's a flaming liberal, but I don't think he's nearly as liberal as Haught) than the scientists who lined up to testify in Dayton (only one of them, Maynard Metcalf of Johns Hopkins, was actually allowed to testify before the jury, though the others were allowed to have their testimony entered into the court record). Kirtley Mather, e.g., did not have a clear belief in an afterlife and did not believe that God can interact at all with nature (those two beliefs are self-consistent, incidentally, as I will be discussing in my book about the religious beliefs of early 20th century scientists). But Haught is as liberal as anyone around Dayton, as far as I can tell.
[]
The overall science/religion landscape is far more diverse today than it was in the 1920s (when there was no readily visible group of people who accept both evolution *and* the virgin birth & resurrection), but you won't know that from Haught's testimony--it was pretty much the old modernism in contemporary form, save for the injection of a strong dose of neo-orthodoxy....

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 11:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

85 Scientists Join Together in Urging Court to Protect Academic Freedom and Not Limit Research into Intelligent Design Theory

Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”

The signers of the brief, identified as “Amici curiae” include such notable scientists as Dr. Philip Skell of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Lyle H. Jensen a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Dr. Russell W. Carlson Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Executive Technical Director, Complex Carbohydrate Research Center at the University of Georgia.

“The advance of scientific knowledge depends on uninhibited, robust investigation seeking the best explanation,” said Gonzaga University law professor David DeWolf, a senior fellow at Discovery Institute. “Doubts as to whether a theory adequately explains the evidence should be resolved in the laboratory not in the court room. Scientists are concerned that a Court ruling limiting the nature of science would have far-reaching detrimental effects beyond the schoolhouse doors and into the laboratories and careers of many legitimate scientists.”

The brief reads in part:

Amici curiae are scientists who oppose any attempt to define the nature of science in a way that would limit their ability to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Since the identification of intelligent causes is a well established scientific practice in fields such as forensic science, archaeology, and exobiology, Amici urge this Court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that the application of intelligent design to biology is unscientific. Any ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science, or which attempts to define the boundaries of science, could hinder scientific progress.

Amici are professional scientists who support academic freedom for scientific research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Some Amici are scientists whose research directly addresses design in biology, physics, or astronomy. Other Amici are scientists whose research does not bear directly upon the intelligent design hypothesis, but feel it is a viable conclusion from the empirical data. Finally, some Amici are skeptics of intelligent design who believe that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge. All Amici agree that courts should decline to rule on the scientific validity of theories which are the subject of vigorous scientific debate.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Design theorist William Dembski reports that "last spring The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) hired me as an expert witness in the Dover area school district case regarding ID (Kitzmiller v. Dover)" and that "because the focus of that case and trial is a book titled Of Pandas and People and because I am the academic editor for the publisher of that book (i.e., The Foundation for Thought and Ethics [FTE]), when FTE tried to intervene in the case, TMLC decided to drop me as an expert witness, citing a conflict of interest." Before that occurred, however, Dembski prepared "an expert witness report as well as a rebuttal of the opposing expert witness reports."

Those reports are now available online here and here.

In the first, Dembski takes on a variety of issues. At one point, he clarifies the distinction between intelligent design and creationism:

Aristotle, who held to an eternal uncreated world and to a purposiveness built into the world, would today hold to intelligent design but not to creationism. The same is true for Antony Flew, who until recently was the English speaking world's most prominent atheist. He now repudiates atheism because he sees intelligent design as necessary to explain the origin of life. Yet, in embracing an intelligence behind biological complexity, he does not hold to creationism.

His discussion of philosopher Barbara Forrest's testimony is particularly pointed:

Most philosophy programs at the college level offer a course in critical thinking. Although Barbara Forrest is a professional philosopher, much of her expert witness report consists in committing what such courses refer to as the genetic fallacy. According to one standard text on critical thinking,

[The genetic fallacy is] a type of argument in which an attempt is made to prove a conclusion false by condemning its source or genesis. Such arguments are fallacious because how an idea originated is irrelevant to its viability.

Every variant of the genetic fallacy that Forrest employs against intelligent design can be employed against evolution....

Dembski also prognosticates on Life after Dover here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 3:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As I noted in a previous post, this week philosopher of science Dr. Robert Pennock testified at the Dover trial that scientists must assume that there are no influences other than those which exist in the material world then they practice science. Pennock called this methodological naturalism (MN), and emphatically told the Court that this is the way science has worked, does work, and ever will work, at least since we became enlightened during the enlightenment.

The reality is that the consensus among philosophers of science is that there is no consensus among philosophers of science on the definition of science. The one exception seems to be Darwinist philosophers of science recommending MN as a definition for science when they are engaged in legal battles to stifle the teaching of intelligent design.

For a moment, for the sake of argument, let's make the questionable assumption that MN is the necessary guiding light behind scientific inquiry. So, let's engage in a brief thought experiment assuming that MN is the one fixed star in the controversial constellation of philosophical definitions of science. If we adopt MN, would that exclude ID from science?

Proponents of ID clearly state that the scientific theory of ID cannot determine if the designer was natural or supernatural. This statement alone would seem not to violate MN's public enemy #1: invoking supernatural causes. But of course the possibility still remains under ID that the designer was indeed supernatural (even if the scientific theory itself is incapable of telling you if the designer was supernatural). Is MN still chasing ID out of science? Let's look at the rationale behind MN.

Biologist John A. Moore echoes the argument that science must only invoke natural claims:

"Science is a way of knowing by accumulating data from observations and experiments, seeking relationships of the data with other natural phenomena, and excluding supernatural explanations and personal wishes."

(John A. Moore, Science as a Way of Knowing, Harvard University Press, 1993, pg. 503)

Moore also provides a well-reasoned rationale for why science must exclude supernatural explanations:

"[T]he relationship of the natural and the supernatural are unpredictable … [if] the cause of a natural event is the whim of a deity, the event is neither predictable nor fully understandable."

(John A. Moore, Science as a Way of Knowing, pg. 502)

This reasoning seems valid, for science requires a reliable understanding of cause-and-effect relationships, and anything without a predictable, comprehendible mechanism would thus defy scientific investigation. The if ID is invoking an predictable and understandable mechanism, then it should not violate the reasoning behind the MN rule.

ID is grounded in an empirical understanding of the predictable effects of intelligent agency generally. ID begins with observations about how intelligent agents operate. It then proceeds to convert those observations into predictions of what we should find if intelligent design was involved in the origin of a given natural object.

An underlying assumption of ID is that intelligence is a property which we can generally understand through our observations of intelligent agents in the natural world. An agent with the property of intelligence could have at least some predictable modes of designing because it has the property of intelligence, regardless of whether or not it was "natural" or "supernatural." Thus, intelligent design operates under the assumption that there are certain fixed properties of intelligence which will be constant regardless of whether or not that intelligent agent is acting in the natural world, or from some other “supernatural” realm.

For this very reason, Moore’s “supernatural/natural” distinction is irrelevant to ID theory because an underlying assumption of ID is that we understand how intelligent agency works regardless of whether or not the intelligent agent is natural or “supernatural.”

This whole discussion doesn't mean that the scientific theory of ID requires a supernatural creator. It just means that ID, as it is currently formulated, it is based upon our assumption that intelligent agents in all possible cases would work in ways similar to how we observe them regularly designing things in the natural world.

If ID were trying to claim the designer is supernatural then perhaps Moore's arguments would count against ID. But ID isn't trying to detect whether the designer is supernatural. In fact, pro-ID textbooks make it clear that if the designer is supernatural, it couldn't be detected by the scientific theory of ID:

"[T]he intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science."

(Of Pandas and People, page 126-127)

The main point of this section is that fundamental to ID theory is the observation that any agent with intelligence will solve problems in similar ways in all cases when designing physical objects. Be they natural or supernatural, intelligent agents are capable of thinking with the end in mind to select a complex arrangement of parts that conforms to a specific pattern to fulfill some function.

This kind of reasoning does not violate Moore's reason for why we should adhere to MN. Pennock can draw lines however he wants. But it isn't clear that the reasoning behind the line drawn by MN excludes ID from science.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)