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.