In Part I, I responded to John Derbyshire's points about ID and peer-review. Part II will rebut some of the false claims on the TalkOrigins webpage cited by Mr. Derbyshire. I will finish this post with Part III later this week.

Firstly, the TalkOrigins webpage claims there should be more pro-ID peer-reviewed papers "especially considering the long history and generous funding of the movement." This statement is highly ironic! The money available for ID research is dwarfed by evolution-funding. Tens of millions of dollars in grants are given to evolution research each year. Because Darwinists hold the purse-strings, design theorists have little-to-no chance of obtaining an NSF grant to explicitly investigate ID. Indeed, the NCSE got over $450,000 from the NSF just to design a pro-evolution-science/theology website! The comparison cited by Mr. Derbyshire is completely backwards.

Moreover, the comparison falsely portrays ID proponents as if they do not do research. The Research Fellowship Program has been by far the single largest program expense of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. From 1996-2005, total expenditures of Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture were approximately $9.8 million. Direct expenditures on research fellowships accounted for approximately $3.7 million (or 38%) of this figure. Important note: The $3.7 million amount does not include money for staff support or overhead costs (such as accounting) relating to the administration of the fellowship program.

The Talk Origins Bumper Sticker:

The TalkOrigins webpage asserts that some of the publications cited as pro-ID and peer-reviewed don't count because they don't mention ID or do not talk about design. While some of the publications do not say "intelligent design," they're all by proponents of ID who are supporting key arguments under the theory of intelligent design in the statements, citations, and research. This represents a standard high enough to qualify as a "peer-reviewed" pro-evolution paper in the eyes of Judge Jones. After all, Judge Jones cited papers as proof for evolutionary biology claims, even if they didn't contain the phrase for which he cited them.

For example, Judge Jones wrote that "Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes." (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp. 2d 707, 744 (2005)). Miller's discussion relied entirely upon the review article "The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses From the Young and Old" (by Manyuan Long, et al., Nature Reviews Genetics (4):865-875 (Nov., 2003)) and its citations to provide the "more than three dozen" articles. Yet the body text of the article does not even contain the word "information", much less the phrase "new genetic information." The word "information" appears once in the entire Long et al. article--in the title of reference #103.

I'm not saying that Long, et al.'s article cannot be cited to argue that evolution can produce new information. But because it does not say "information," it should fail the TalkOrigins standard of a peer-reviewed article cited to explain "the origin of new genetic information?" By citing both the TalkOrigins page and Judge Jones's decision as valid sources, John Derbyshire promotes a double standard, because TalkOrigins holds "peer-reviewed" pro-ID papers to a higher standard than Judge Jones held "peer-reviewed" pro-evolution papers.

John Derbyshire should not cite to TalkOrigins pages as if they are unadulterated truth. It would be better if he carefully constructed his own arguments and put them on his blog, rather than simply blindly citing to TalkOrigins as if it preaches truth. That way we can know that he has taken the time to research his claims carefully and has done some background checking to verify that they are true.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

As the debate over how to teach evolution continues, two new radio commercials promoting www.standupforscience.com and the online petition to “Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas” will air this weekend across Kansas.

One ad features molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, explaining that “it is imperative to understand both the evidence for and against a scientific theory… as a scientist, I am standing up for science education policies that require students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence that supports Darwin’s theory, as well as the scientific evidence that challenges it.”

The second commercial features Kansas public school science teacher Jill Gonzalez Bravo who was also recently interviewed for the ID The Future Podcast about her support for Kansas' new science standards.

Click here to hear commercial #1.
Click here to hear commercial #2.

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

Having spent a lot of time in the Spanish-speaking world and with those in the Spanish-speaking community in the U.S., I'm very excited to announce an excellent new website, Ciencia-Alternativa.org, which is providing resources on intelligent design in Spanish. Headed by Mr. Mario Lopez, with collaborating scientists from around the world, the site boasts many ID-resources in Spanish. While some aspects of the site are still being developed, they already have extensive resources, including:

Blog

Videos

Foro de discusión (Discussion Forum)

Sitios de Interés (Web Links)

Noticias (News Updates)

Artículos (Articles--with articles in Spanish by scientists and scholars such as Michael Behe, William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells, Paul Chien, and David Berlinski)

Recursos (Resources)

Galería de Sistemas de Complejidad Irreducible (Gallery of Irreducibly Complex Systems)

Preguntas Frecuentes (Frequently Asked Questions)

Here's a blurb about the site, from their website:

Ciencia Alternativa es una organización nueva en la que los científicos introducen un paradigma alternativo a los presupuestos materialistas de la teoría de la evolución. La alternativa que proponemos no es una ciencia nueva, sino simplemente revolucionaria. En el corazón de cada ciencia siempre hay implicaciones filosóficas y, siendo este el caso, la ciencia del diseño inteligente (D.I.) provoca una resistencia filosófica y no científica. No hay científico que no admita reconocer el obvio diseño en la naturaleza.

And here's the translation in English:

Alternative science is a new organization in which scientists are introducing an alternative paradigm to the materialistic presuppositions of the theory of evolution. The alternative that we propose is not a new type of science, but simply revolutionary. There are always philosophical implications at the heart of each scientific theory, and this being the case, the science of intelligent design provokes a philosophical resistance, not necessarily a scientific one. There are no scientists who do not admit to recognize the obvious design in nature.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I appreciate that John Rennie has posted a response to my response to his original post about Kansas on the Scientific American blog. (And I happily forgive the accidental misspelling of my name.)

A common tactic in debate is to condescendingly say, "Thanks for proving my point," when your debate opponent actually refuted all of your points. Other tactics include name-calling, changing the issue at stake, making false accusations, and appealing to authorities as if they are correct simply because they are "authorities." John Rennie used all of these tactics in his response. Once again, there will be a major difference between my response to Mr. Rennie and his response to me: I will continue to cite scientific literature without calling names or being mean-spirited; he will cite to bold statements of scientific authorities and call lots of names. Here is my response to his response to my response to his original post:

Kansas and the Supernatural: Conspiracy-Theory Answers from Mr. Rennie
I asked Mr. Rennie why the Kansas Science Standards say science must be testable when he claims they might permit teaching about the supernatural. His response requires two conspiracy theories:

The I.D. neo-creationists don't mind including references to testable hypotheses in the standards because they know it would be too obvious an omission to leave out. Including it doesn't hurt their cause, however, because the I.D. movement is much less interested in advancing an actual theory of I.D. (since that could be disproved) than it is maintaining a whispering campaign of criticizing evolution and hinting that the only alternative must be I.D. (that is, gussied-up creationism).

Mr. Rennie postulates a conspiracy theory: the Kansas Science Standards have to include "testable hypotheses" in the definition of science because it would be "too obvious an omission to leave out." In his view, evolution-critics don't really believe science must be testable, but must include this phrase because it has to be included. This is conspiracy-theory-nonsense. Nearly everyone agrees testability is a hallmark of science (even the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)).

Mr. Rennie alleges another conspiracy theory: ID proponents don't want ID mandated in schools "since ... [it] ... could be disproved." That is not why Discovery Institute opposes mandating ID in schools. At Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy page, we explain why we believe ID should not be mandated:

Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

But Mr. Rennie's answer implies we think ID should never be discussed because we're afraid it "could be disproved." Again, this is contradicted by our long-standing education policy, "Although Discovery Institute does not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it does believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom." Thus we feel that individual teachers who understand ID and will present it in an objective fashion (regardless of their individual beliefs) should have the academic freedom rights to do so, if they choose. We don't think that ID should be censored from schools, but we do believe it should not be mandated. Mr. Rennie's conspiracy theory is falsified because we do think that teachers should not be prohibited from discussing it if they choose, but it should not be mandated (as the Kansas Science Standards state).

Mr. Rennie's response to my question involved multiple conspiracy theories, but the correct answer to my question is that the Kansas Science Standards state that science must include "testable hypotheses" because they do not try to sanction bringing the supernatural into science because claims about the supernatural are not testable. Mr. Rennie's conspiracy-theory answer is simply not credible.

Finally, Mr. Rennie falsely claims that I tried to "paint methodological naturalism as some kind of fringy, radical movement" in my post. Nothing I said in my post validates his false accusation. All I said was that the old 2001 standards "hard-code[d] methodological naturalism" into the standards. I made no value judgments about methodological naturalism. My main point is quite simple: by enacting their current science standards, Kansas simply reset their definition of science back to how it existed prior to 2001. An extensive report exists at "Kansas Definition of Science Consistent With All Other States Contrary to Media Claims", which demonstrates that the 2005 Kansas Science Standards simply brought Kansas's definition of science back into line with how every other state defines science.

I now submit a new question to Mr. Rennie: On what basis can you criticize the Kansas Science Standards' definition of science while not criticizing the science standards of every other state in the U.S.?

False Accusations of Misquotes
Next, Mr. Rennie falsely accuses me of inventing the claim that his post said that the current Kansas Science Standards "imply that evolution conflicts with belief in God." Mr. Rennie needs to go back and re-read his original post. He upholds the Kansas Citizens for Science newsletter, which makes that statement, in his original post:

"The not-for-profit group Kansas Citizens for Science has summarized the key facts about what is at stake; here are some excerpts: ... 'Q. How have the standards changed? ... Change the definition of evolution to imply that evolution conflicts with belief in God.'" (emphasis added)

While Mr. Rennie did not say the emboldened words directly, he did quote the newsletter which says those words. While I could have been more precise, Mr. Rennie makes it appear as if I invented the claim, when clearly he endorsed those words in his post. I was quoting the newsletter quoted by Mr. Rennie in his original post. Mr. Rennie has not responded to my rebuttal on this point, and Mr. Rennie has falsely accused me of inventing a quotation.

(Update: After posting this, I see that Mr. Rennie realized his error and retracted his false accusation. I appreciate Mr. Rennie's honesty and I now thus retract now my claim that he made a false accusation.)

False Accusation of Misquotes and Distorting the Issue at Hand--the origins of life and the fossil record
Mr. Rennie again falsely accuses me of inventing that he said that "the material in the KSS are not simply from 'creationist' literature" (my words). In fact, his original post makes precisely this claim via quoting and upholding the KCFS newsletter. He wrote:

"The not-for-profit group Kansas Citizens for Science has summarized the key facts about what is at stake; here are some excerpts ... 'Add solidly refuted criticisms of evolution that are only part of the creationist literature'"

Just as above, I clearly did not misrepresent Mr. Rennie's words, and Mr. Rennie has again falsely accused me of inventing a claim.

Finally, Mr. Rennie misrepresents and vastly overstates my position so as to call it "sl[y]" and me a "neo-creationis[t]." He alleges that I insinuated that "the scientific community [is] turning away from chemical origin of life hypotheses in some form." I never stated or implied that. But I did state that there were "criticisms" of various leading hypotheses, which is absolutely the case.

The standards state there is "a lack of empirical evidence for a 'primordial soup' or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere" and a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code". I cited three mainstream scientific sources criticizing various hypotheses about the origin of life in the same vein that the Kansas Science Standards make students aware of the evidence. I'm not going to repeat my sources presently because they are already listed here. But they make it clear that there are many problems with current models for pre-biotic synthesis and that the origin of the genetic code is presently a mystery. That's precisely what is stated by the Kansas Science Standards, and the claims did not come from "creationist literature" (which is what his original post states). Mr. Rennie has not responded to my point.

Mr. Rennie responds to my section on the fossil record saying, "This involves a selective misreading of the fossil record and a deliberate misinterpretation of the arguments that biologists have about various possible mechanisms for biological evolution, not a challenge to biological evolution itself." What is Mr. Rennie talking about? I'll go over this argument against just in case Mr. Rennie missed it or got lost the first time through:

The issue at stake here is whether the content standards of the Kansas Science Standards only derive their claims from "creationist literature," which is what he originally claimed. Regarding the fossil record, the Kansas Science Standards state "in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution". I quoted two mainstream scientific sources (see here if you want to re-read them) agreeing with that statement. My point was made. I was not saying anything about the large-scale debates over biological evolution in general, which would require a discussion of various models for evolution, such as punc eq, etc. My only point was that what the Kansas Science Standards say is validated in mainstream scientific literature. Mr. Rennie distorts the issue to make false accusations.

Finally, regarding the chemical origin of life, it seems that Kansas has simply accepted a former senior writer at Scientific American's invitation to talk about criticisms of the field. As John Horgan wrote:

"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution-which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology."

(John Horgan [Former Senior Writer, Scientific American], The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age (Little, Brown & Co: London, 1997), pg. 138)

What's so dangerous about what Kansas is doing that Mr. Rennie implies that weaknesses of various chemical origin-of-life hypotheses must be censored from students?

(Update: After posting this, I see that Mr. Rennie realized his error and retracted his false accusation. I appreciate Mr. Rennie's honesty and I now retract now my claim that he made a false accusation.)

The Molecular Data
Regarding the molecular data, Mr. Rennie disputes whether challenges to common ancestry are legitimate inferences from the molecular data. I provided multiple quotes from mainstream scientific sources which legitimately allow people to question common descent. If this is the "specific phylogenetic reconstruction" of the tree/bush/tangled-thicket of life under the molecular data, then has common descent broken down? I'll let readers decide for themselves:

To my eyes, this looks much more like a tangled thicket and a bush than a tree–which means common ancestry has a challenge here. But regardless, look at this prediction made by Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling in 1965 about regarding how molecular data would confirm macroevolution and common descent:

"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."

("Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101. (1965))

So they predicted that similarities in predicted trees between organismal taxonomy and DNA sequences would be the ultimate "proof" of macroevolution. Has history borne out their hypothesis? Let's consider what more recent authorities have said since we unlocked the sequences of the genetic code:

"As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology" (Patterson et al., "Congruence between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies", Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol 24, pg. 179)

"New genome sequences are mystifying evolutionary biologists .. . on one front the study of evolution-the information pouring out in the genome sequences has so far proved more confusing than enlightening. Indeed, it threatens to overturn what researchers though they already knew about how microbes evolved and gave rise to higher organisms"
(Science V. 280, May 1, 1998 pg. 672)

"[M]olecular systematics has not yet produced phylogenetic trees of broad phylum relationships more robust than those based on morphology."
(Rudolf A. Raff, Charles R. Marshall, James M. Turbeville, “Using DNA Sequences to Unravel the Cambrian Radiation of the Animal Phyla,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, Vol. 25, pgs. 351-375 (1994).)

"That molecular evidence typically squares with morphological patterns is a view held by many biologists, but interestingly, by relatively few systematists. Most of the latter know that the two lines of evidence may often be incongruent."
(Masami Hasegawa, Jun Adachi, Michel C. Milinkovitch, "Novel Phylogeny of Whales Supported by Total Molecular Evidence," Journal of Molecular Evolution 44 (Supplement 1, 1997): S117-S120)

"the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows."
(De Jong, W. W. Molecules remodel the mammalian tree. Tree Vol 13, No 7, pg. 270-274 (July 7, 1998))

“When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. (“Bones, Molecules or Both” by Trisha Gura in Nature vol 406, 230 - 233 (2000).)

"[O]ur ability to reconstruct accurately the tree of life may not have improved significantly over the last 100 years"
"Despite increasing methodological sophistication, phylogenies derived from morphology, and those inferred from molecules, are not always converging on a consensus.”
(Wills, M. A., "The tree of life and the rock of ages: are we getting better at estimating phylogeny" in BioEssays 24:203-207 (2002) reporting on the findings of Benton, M. J., "Finding the tree of life: mapping phylogenetic trees to the fossil record through the 20th century" in Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 268:2123-2130 (2001).)

Clearly there are large discrepancies between molecular data and morphological data, and between various molecule-based trees. These discrepancies contradict the expectation that Pauling and Zuckerkandl said would provide "best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution." Clearly the citations above demonstrate much support from mainstream scientific literature for the indicator in the Kansas Science Standards which states that "Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins)" challenge the view that "living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor"; the KSS's claim was not derived from "I.D. neo-creationist" literature.

Microevolution, Macroevolution, and Irreducible Complexity
First, Mr. Rennie states, “The only ones who find the linkage of microevolutionary changes to macroevolution controversial are the I.D. neo-creationists." This is better, for he is at least trying to address the issue at hand: whether the claims in the Kansas Science Standards are only from what he labels "I.D. neo-creationist" literature. Yet he makes this assertion despite the fact that I had just previously cited mainstream scientific authorities making the claim Mr. Rennie says they don't make. Mr. Rennie did not refute my argument, but rather makes an assertion which is refuted by the authorities I cited.

Mr. Rennie then concedes my point that irreducible complexity need not be an argument for I.D., saying, "Yes,” after quoting me saying, "Thus the KSS make it clear that irreducible complexity is framed only as a challenge to evolution and not as an argument for intelligent design." Mr. Rennie then descends to name-calling, saying

the I.D. movement doesn't have the intellectual honesty or sincerity to posit an actual theory of intelligent design. The I.D. movement counts itself as winning any time it can simply cast doubt on evolutionary arguments, because as I.D. writers have often suggested, the only alternative to evolution must be some kind of design.

Mr. Rennie suggests that ID is simply a negative argument against evolution. This is not true. As I explain at The Positive Case for Design, ID proponents construct a positive theory of ID which is not simply a negative argument against evolution, as Mr. Rennie suggests. As Stephen Meyer explains in his peer-reviewed article, ID helps us to understand the origin of biological information, based upon our positive understanding of how intelligent agents work:

Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.

("Intelligent Design: The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," by Stephen C. Meyer, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004))

Meyer explains in another paper that with our understanding of the causal powers of intelligent agency, we can infer intelligent design for the origin of irreducibly complex structures:

Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. Given that neither standard neo-Darwinism, nor co-option has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest, one might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. ... Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms.

(Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004) (internal citations omitted))

Thus, there is a theory of ID, and, put simply, it goes like this: (1) study intelligent agents to understand the types of information they produce when they act; (2) study natural objects to see if they have the types of information which in our experience is only caused by intelligence. This is a positive, empirically based theory of intelligent design, which does not simply rely upon evidence against evolution as evidence for ID. [edited for type-o after publication--CRL] Mr. Rennie is misrepresenting intelligent design.

An Example of How ID's Positive Methodology Can Advance Science
Finally, using this scientific methodology, intelligent design can yield fruitful insights into biology. Pro-ID biologist Jonathan Wells has suggested in a peer-reviewed ID journal that intelligent design can help us to understand function of Junk-DNA:

Since non-coding regions do not produce proteins, Darwinian biologists have been dismissing them for decades as random evolutionary noise or ‘junk DNA.’ From an ID perspective, however, it is extremely unlikely that an organism would expend its resources on preserving and transmitting so much ‘junk.’”

(Jonathan Wells, “Using Intelligent Design Theory to Guide Scientific Research,” Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design, Vol 3.1, Nov., 2004.)

Wells's approach might have helped us to avoid pitfalls stemming from Neo-Darwinian thought. For example, a widely used college textbook on molecular biology leads students to believe that, under Neo-Darwinian thinking, introns are merely genetic junk:

Unlike the sequence of an exon, the exact nucleotide sequence of an intron seems to be unimportant. Thus introns have accumulated mutations rapidly during evolution, and it is often possible to alter most of an intron’s nucleotide sequence without greatly affecting gene function. This has led to the suggestion that intron sequences have no function at all and are largely genetic “junk”… (Molecular biology of the Cell, 3rd Ed. (1994) by Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Julian Lewis, Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, and James D. Watson)

That Darwinist statement was written in 1994. In 2003, Scientific American reported the functionality of so-called "junk-DNA," and called our failure to recognize these allegedly "junk" introns as functional within the cell as "one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology":

Yet the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, “were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.”

[...]

About two thirds of the conserved sequences lie in introns, and the rest are scattered among the intergenic “junk” DNA. “I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”

(The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk by Wayt T. Gibbs, Scientific American (November, 2003), emphasis added)

Ultimately this debate over ID is immaterial to the Kansas Science Standards because they clearly state that "these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about [ID]." Nonetheless, ID provides a model for understanding biology in light of the types of complexity made when intelligent agents operate. It is not merely a negative argument against evolution. Thus the theory of intelligent design leads us to the testable expectation that designers make things for a reason–and thus ID leads us to expect that structures in biology probably have some function. Had scientists considered ID in their approach, the mistake Mattick so passionately identifies could have been avoided. The positive argument for ID could yield great benefits. Unfortunately, Mr. Rennie badly misconstrues ID as if it is merely a negative argument against evolution. But that doesn't mean Mr. Rennie is right.

There's much more that could be said, but that's enough for now, and I've exhausted my time available for this discussion. Thanks for reading.

Casey Luskin
cluskin@discovery.org

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Talk Origins Bumper Sticker:

Regarding peer-review, Derbyshire claims that "Judge Jones has way the better of the argument." Let's see exactly what Judge Jones says regarding ID and peer-review:

"It has not generated peer-reviewed publications" (Kitzmiller v. Dover, 400 F.Supp. 707, 735 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

"A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory." (Id. at 744)

"The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications." (Id. at 745)

"In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals..." (Id. at 745)

"It has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals" (Id. at 745)

Thus in no fewer than five locations, Judge Jones claims that ID has published zero peer-reviewed publications. That is an easy claim to verify. The question of "complete absence of peer-reviewed publications" is a simple black and white, binary question: either ID has published peer-reviewed publications, or it hasn't. This is a difficult question to miss, yet Judge Jones missed it. Any of the following publications (published before the release of the Kitzmiller ruling) refute Judge Jones's statements:

(1) W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

(2) S.C. Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

(3) 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.

(4) W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

(5) D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766-775.

(6) Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119. In Dynamical Genetics by V. Parisi, V. de Fonzo & F. Aluffi-Pentini, eds.,(Research Signpost, 2004)

If Judge Jones can miss so simple a question as "have ID proponents published any papers," then how can we trust his findings on more complicated issues?

The TalkOrigins Page
(Note: I forgot to originally put in the link to the TalkOrigins page when I first posted this response. If readers are interested, the TalkOrigins page cited by Mr. Derbyshire is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html.)

John Derbyshire points to TalkOrigins as a refutation of all of these papers. He quotes the website saying, "[t]he point which discredits ID is not that it has few peer-reviewed papers, but why there are so few." Ignoring that the rest of the quote is false, TalkOrigins thus concedes that ID has a "few" peer-reviewed papers. "Few" is more than zero, which means that Derbyshire's TalkOrigins URL concedes that every single one of Judge Jones statements above is false.

That's our point: if Judge Jones can miss a simple question like "have ID proponents published any peer-reviewed papers?", then how can we trust his answers to questions which do not have "black-and-white" answers?

Derbyshire thus exhibits typical Darwinist-goalpost-moving over the issue of peer-review. Darwinists used to argue that ID-proponents have published no peer-reviewed papers. Then a bunch got published. Now they concede that some papers have been published, but argue that this fact doesn't matter because "there are so few." They're sliding down a slippery slope and will continue to slide down it as ID-proponents continue to publish more and more research.

The TalkOrigins webpage cited by Derbyshire concludes that "ID proponents appear to have no interest in conducting original research that would be appropriate for peer-reviewed journals." To see some examples refuting that accusation, leading pro-ID scientists such as Jonathan Wells, Michael Behe, Scott Minnich, William Dembski, and many others have all done laboratory, computational, theoretical, and mathematical research as well as literature-reviews of current data, all relevant to the scientific evidence supporting ID. The reputation TalkOrigins recommends for ID is completely unwarranted. John Derbyshire should check his sources, and be more skeptical of the myths that TalkOrigins wants its believers to accept and promote.

(Note: I forgot to originally put in the link to the TalkOrigins page when I first posted this response. If readers are interested, the TalkOrigins page cited by Mr. Derbyshire is at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI001_4.html.)

More problems with the TalkOrigins page will be explained soon in Part II of this post.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On the Scientific American Blog, John Rennie has perpetuated various myths about the Kansas Science Standards (KSS) promoted by "Kansas Citizens for Science." Mr. Rennie upholds a recent KCFS news post which says the following:

Q. How have the standards changed? The KBOE (Kansas Board of Education) Standards: -- Change the definition of science so that it can include supernatural causes. -- Change the definition of evolution to imply that evolution conflicts with belief in God. -- Add solidly refuted criticisms of evolution that are only part of the creationist literature.

It's difficult to call these anything but plain old fabricated lies. Before delving in, please note that there will be a major difference between my post and Mr. Rennie's post: my post will include citations to textbooks, scientific authorities, and most importantly, the Kansas Science Standards themselves for documentation. In contrast, Rennie's post includes only citations to assertions from false political ads by a group called Kansas Citizens for Science.

The Supernatural?
Firstly, the KSS clearly do not include the supernatural. As I explained here, there is no way one can argue that the Kansas Science Standards include the supernatural:

The new 2005 Kansas science standards simply reset Kansas' definition of science back to how approximately every other state in the country defines science, essentially the way Kansas had defined it until 2001. This definition is given below:

Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observations, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory-building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena. Science does so while maintaining strict empirical standards and healthy skepticism. Scientific explanations are built on observations, hypotheses, and theories. A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate observations, inferences, and tested hypotheses. Scientific explanations must meet certain criteria. Scientific explanations are consistent with experimental and/or observational data and testable by scientists through additional experimentation and/or observation.

(2005 Kansas Science Standards, pg. 10, emphasis added)

Where are the references to the supernatural? The truth is that when Darwinists took over the Board of Education in 2001 and defined science as "seeking natural explanations," Kansas became the only state in the United States to explicitly advocate for hard-code methodological naturalism into its state science standards. Thus, the new 2005 Kansas standards, by removing such language, moves closer to the norm for U.S. science standards.

Here's a question I submit to Mr. Rennie and all proponents of the false conspiracy theory that Kansas now teaches the supernatural in science classes: if Kansas incorporated the supernatural into its definition of science, then how do you explain the fact that its science standards emphatically require that all science be “testable as a scientific hypothesis”? Rennie is perpetuating a flatly false claim.

Redefining evolution?
Secondly, Rennie claims that the KSS change the definition of evolution "to imply that evolution conflicts with belief in God." This badly misrepresents what the standards state. As I already explained here, the Kansas Science Standards simply define evolution precisely how it has been characterized by many biology textbooks:

The Kansas Science Standards state: “Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal” (pg. 75). Contrary to Nick Matzke's misrepresentation, the standards do not state "Evolution, if true, means life is purposeless." This misrepresents the standards. The actual phrasing of the KSS reflects what is actually taught in many prominent biology textbooks. The popular college text Evolutionary Biology states that evolution couples "undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection” (Futuyma, 1998), and another textbook says that “evolution is not directed towards a final goal” (Purves, 2001). Even 38 Nobel Laureates wrote the Kansas State Board of Education in September 2005, explaining that “evolution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection.”

(Kansas 102: Do the Kansas Science Standards Contain Claims Made Only by Intelligent Design Proponents?)

Only Including Creationist Material?
Finally, as I explained here, the material in the KSS are not simply from "creationist" literature. Rather, much of the claims find support in mainstream scientific literature:

The Standards state that criticisms of chemical origin of life hypotheses include “a lack of empirical evidence for a ‘primordial soup’ or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere" and a "lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code" (pg. 77). These points are also validated by mainstream scientific literature. So drastic is the evidence against the primordial soup hypothesis that the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council in 1990 recommended to scientists a "reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth.” Regarding the pre-biotic atmosphere, a paper in Earth and Planetary Science Letters explained that “reduced [atmospheric] components are not supported by results of this and many other studies, which imply a scenario of Archean mantle redox not unlike that of today.” The paper concluded that “[l]ife may have found its origins in other environments or by other mechanisms” (Canile, 2002). Regarding the origin of the genetic code, prominent biologists John Maynard Smith and Eros Szathmary explain that “[t]he origin of the code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology” (Smith & Szathmary, 1995). A paper in Cell Biology International reviewed this issue in 2004 and concluded:

Random sequences are the antithesis of prescribed genetic information. There is no empirical or rational justification for theorizing that the random shuffling of nucleotides could generate instructions for a metabolic network. Progress has been made, however, on the evolution of already existing genetic instructions ... [various citations] ... But none of these papers provide mechanisms whereby stochastic ensembles in prebiotic environments acquire algorithmic programming prowess. (Trevors & Abel, 2004)

Clearly the standards derive their claims from mainstream scientific writings regarding the state of origin of life.

The Standards also state “in many cases the fossil record is not consistent with gradual, unbroken sequences postulated by biological evolution" (pg. 75). Again, Nick Matzke misrepresents this claim to say that the Standards assert there are "no transitional fossils." Yet many paleontologists have corroborated what the standards actually say. Paleontologist Robert Carroll writes, "Paleontologists in particular have found it difficult to accept that the slow, continuous, and progressive changes postulated by Darwin can adequately explain the major reorganizations that have occurred between dominant groups of plants and animals.” (Carroll, 1997.) Similarly, evolutionist paleontologist Niles Eldredge writes, “...we have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not" (Eldredge, 1985). The KSS's statement quoted here can be completely derived from mainstream scientific writings.

The Standards state that common ancestry has been challenged by "[d]iscrepancies in the molecular evidence" (pg. 76). Nick objects that this is "wrong," but this claim has been supported in peer-reviewed literature. W. F. Doolittle writes, "[m]olecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree" (Doolittle, 1999). Similarly, Carl Woese wrote, "[p]hylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves" (Woese, 1998). While these authors are evolutionists who retain their belief in common descent, the Kansas Science Standards find support in mainstream scientific literature that "[d]iscrepancies in the molecular evidence" do exist.

Finally, the Kansas Science Standards explain that “[w]hether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial” (pg. 76). Excepting the segment on irreducible complexity, this indicator resembles a statement by Robert Carroll, who asked, "[c]an changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms?" (Carroll, 1997). Questions about the sufficiency of microevolution to explain macroevolution have been raised in mainstream scientific literature (e.g. see Simons, 2002; Carroll, 1997), as has support for the notion of irreducible complexity (e.g. see Lönnig & Saedler, 2002). In fact, over 600 doctoral scientists from around the world have signed a statement explaining they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” They state that “[c]areful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” This may not constitute a majority position, but it certainly validates consideration by students in Kansas.

(Kansas 102: Do the Kansas Science Standards Contain Claims Made Only by Intelligent Design Proponents?)

The KSS and Intelligent Design
Finally, Rennie quotes the KCFS political ad as follows:

Q. The KBOE claims that Intelligent Design isn't in the standards. But it is! -- The standards define Intelligent Design (ID) as "the scientific disagreement with the claim that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion." -- The standards say that students need to learn "scientific criticisms of the theory" of evolution, which would obviously include Intelligent Design as defined. -- The standards include Intelligent Design terminology (such as "irreducible complexity"), as well as many Intelligent Design arguments against evolution.

It is dishonest to leave off mention of the important statement in the standards that "We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design" and "these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement." I explain elsewhere that the argument that the KSS require the teaching of ID requires a conspiracy theory including all teachers in the state:

Mr. Krebs' argument also ignores how courts would interpret the unambigously clear statement of legislative intent regarding the KSS. I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

"We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design."

This isn't a conspiracy where every teacher in the state somehow "knows" that the KSS don't mean what they unambigously say. Mr. Krebs' argument requires the greatest conspiracy in education ever known, and baseless claims that "teaching the controversy" is equivalent to teaching intelligent design. Mr. Krebs' argument is based upon conspiracy theories and baseless claims that "teaching the controversy" is equivalent to teaching intelligent design. This argument should not sway informed people.

(Black and White: There's no ID under the Kansas Science Standards)

Moreover, the statement about the standards including "Intelligent Design terminology" is irrelevant because "irreducible complexity" need not be an argument for ID, and is not framed as such in the KSS:

Nick thus uses the genetic fallacy to argue that talking about irreducible complexity (IC) must always mean arguing for intelligent design simply because Michael Behe is the best-known popularizer of IC, and Behe also argues for intelligent design. This is not a valid form of logical argumentation because Nick's argument only works if he logically proves that arguing for irreducible complexity necessarily entails arguing for the conclusion of intelligent design. But this same Nick Matzke advised the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, where Ken Miller testified that irreducible complexity is NOT an argument for intelligent design:

Q ... is Dr. Behe's argument for irreducible complexity, is that an argument directly for design?

A. That's a good point. The answer is, no, it's not. It really is an argument that says why such systems are not produceable by evolution. So it's a negative argument against evolution.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover Trial transcript of Ken Miller, pg. 15, day 1 PM session)

Nick can't have it both ways: either IC must always logically mandate intelligent design, or it doesn't. The truth is that Miller is actually half-right: irreducible complexity can be simply a negative argument against evolution. (However, for different reasons, i.e. because intelligent agents are the sole-known cause of irreducibly complex structures, IC can also be an argument for intelligent design, making Miller's statement a misrepresentation.) But in the Kansas Science Standards, irreducible complexity is only discussed in the context of how irreducible complexity is an empirical argument against evolution. Here is what the standards state:

Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial.

(Kansas Science Standards, pg. 76)

In the Kansas Science Standards, irreducible complexity is not meant to be discussed in the context of it being a positive argument for intelligent design, but merely as a challenge to evolution. Arguing for intelligent design using irreducible complexity requires also talking about some positive content, where one explains how intelligent agents are the primary cause of irreducibly complex machines. But the KSS don't do that, for they only discuss IC in the context of it being a challenge to evolution. As Ken Miller concedes above, this is quite possible to do because in his own words, one can argue for the unevolvability of a structure, based upon irreducible complexity, and not conclude intelligent design. That's how the Kansas Science Standards operate.

(Kansas 101: Why the Kansas Science Standards Do NOT Cover Intelligent Design)

Thus the KSS make it clear that irreducible complexity is framed only as a challenge to evolution and not as an argument for intelligent design.

John Rennie has unfortunately relied upon a source containing much misinformation. The actual Kansas Science Standards, mainstream biology textbooks, and the mainstream scientific literature support none of the claims made in the Kansas Citizens for Science political ad.

Special thanks to Joseph C. Campana at ResearchID.org for alerting me to the fallacious information being promoted by Scientific American in John Rennie's blog post.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Standing in stark contrast to contemporary claims that the world is meaningless, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature reveals a cosmos charged with both meaning and purpose. Written by Dr. Benjamin Wiker and Dr. Jonathan Witt of the Center for Science & Culture, the groundbreaking new book shows that nature offers all of the challenges and surprises and all of the mystery and elegance we associate with design and with artistic genius.

"A Meaningful World is simply the best book I've seen on the purposeful design of nature. In sparkling prose Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt teach us how to recognize genius, first in Shakespeare's plays and then in nature. From principles of geometry to details of the periodic table, the authors portray the depth, elegance, clarity and pure cleverness of a universe designed to nurture the intelligent life that one day would discover that design. A Meaningful World recovers lost purpose not only for science, but for all scholarly disciplines." —Michael J. Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box

"A Meaningful World is a wise and witty romp through the fallacies of reductionism. It is illustrated by charming examples that show how literature and science both teach us that we live in a world full of meaning, not the spiritually dead world in which the materialists would confine us." —Phillip Johnson, author of Reason in the Balance
Click here to download the prologue to the book.

Discovery Institute will host a release party for A Meaningful World on Tuesday, August 22 at 4:30pm. Please join us as Wiker and Witt take us through the evidence for purpose and meaning in the world around us. Their arguments begin in Shakespeare and range through the fine-tuning of the laws of physics, the Periodic Table of Elements, the artistry of ordinary substances like carbon and water, the intricacy of biological organisms, and the drama of scientific exploration itself.

Through these intriguing examples, Wiker and Witt have created what noted author and scholar Phillip Johnson calls “a wise and witty romp through the fallacies of reductionism.” With its sparkling prose, A Meaningful World fashions a robust argument from evidence in nature, one that rests neither on religious presuppositions nor on a simplistic view of nature as the best of all possible worlds.

The event will be held at Discovery Institute, located at 1511 Third Avenue, Suite 808, on Tuesday, August 22nd, from 4:30 - 6pm. There will be a reception, copies of the book will be available for purchase, and the authors will be available to sign books at the end of the program. To register, contact Annelise Davis at adavis@discovery.org or call (206) 292-0401, ext. 153.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well you knew it had to happen sooner or later. The song is "Dance Like a Monkey" a catchy pop-punk bit from the legendary New York Dolls -- their first new recording in nearly 30 years. It has a clever animated video to go along with it. Expect to hear a lot more about this as the song is going into rotation on the radio and the band was recently on Conan O'Brien.

The New York Times put it this way:

"The new record’s best song, “Dance Like a Monkey,” is a rock ’n’ roll answer to a timely theological question. Trying to woo a “pretty creationist,” the singer invites her onto the dance floor. “Evolution is so obsolete,” Mr. Johnansen shouts like a leering old bluesman. “Got to stomp your hands and clap your feet.”

(if the video doesn't load properly view it here at Youtube.com)

The jury is still out on what it all means about their views on evolution and ID.

Mr. Johansen, who laughingly described himself as “a Catholic Taoist,” isn’t exactly born again. But his perspective has clearly broadened over the years. “I don’t know if it’s more spiritual,” he said of the new Dolls record. “But it’s more worldcentric, y’know what I mean? It’s not as colloquial as when we first came out. We were really just entertaining the neighborhood at that point. We were the band of the East Village that everybody danced to.”
...
“I mean, I have my ideas about music and rock ’n’ roll and all that kind of stuff,” he added. “I don’t know if it’s actually necessary for the species, but it sure makes life fun. It sure made my life fun. And I like to show other people that.”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Some Darwinists have sometimes argued that if ID were taught in schools, then that would risk opening the science classroom to a floodgate of religious ideas about origins, wreaking havoc upon the classroom and turning it into a platform for religious proseltyzation. (For an older example of this objection, see Robert Pennock's Tower of Babel, pg. xviii.) David Brin repeats this red herring in "The Other Intelligent Design Theories: Intelligent Design is only one of many 'alternatives' to Darwinian evolution," which is the cover story of the current Skeptic Magazine. Brin suggests that if ID is taught, the science classroom will be opened to an onslaught of other "'alternatives' to Darwinian evolution" (which he thinks would might offend the sensibilities of the average ID proponent, whom he unskeptically assumes are all orthodox Christians).

Here's a one-sentence response to Mr. Brin's article and the large number of other critics who claim that teaching ID would open the door to a flood of other "creation theories," thus wasting time and student understanding of science:

Only science belongs in the science classroom, and most of the non-ID "alternative[s] to Darwinian evolution" described by Mr. Brin in his parade of horribles (i.e. "Guided Evolution," "Intelligent Design of Intelligent Designers," "Cycles of Creation") are clearly religious alternatives, so there's no reason to suspect that teaching the scientific theory of ID would invite a flood of those non-scientific religious viewpoints into the science classroom.

It's really uncomplicated: Evolution is science; it can be taught in the science classroom. Theories of self-organization are science; they can be taught in the science classroom. Intelligent design is science; it could be taught in the science classroom. And if panspermia and Lee Smolin's theory of reproducing universe can be formulated in scientific terms (which they probably can), then they too can be taught in the science classroom. But religious doctrines involving Vishnu, the Deity of Mormonism, or God-Guided Evolution are not science, but religion, and cannot be taught in a science classroom. The objection that teaching the scientific theory of ID will lead to an "invasion of creation theories," many of which are religious, is false.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After I moved to college, my mom turned my bedroom into her quilting room. Though mom now makes very nice quilts, I am sadly stuck with a long-standing grudge against quilters (who are usually very nice people). Because of my personal history, I found it particularly amusing when I read in "The art of quilting" that a woman named Barbara West (picture, left) won the National Award of Excellence for Innovative Quilts from the Canadian Quilters Association for her quilt, entitled "Myths of our Time: Intelligent Design."

The anti-ID quilt parodies the old story where the famous atheist / agnostic philosopher Bertrand Russell was told that the earth rested on the back of a turtle. Russell then challenged his objector, "What is the tortoise standing on?" He was met with the witty reply, "It’s turtles all the way down!" (See here for the account.)

It's not clear exactly what objection to ID Ms. West intends to raise through the quilt, but here is the description from the article:

"Eight colourful giant Galapagos island tortoises sit one on top of the other, balanced by a cane on either side. At the top, the earth sits precariously balanced on the back of an orange-shelled turtle. At almost seven feet tall, the piece is not done in a traditional artistic medium; it is a quilt."

(The art of quilting)

Intelligent design and ultimate causes
Intelligent design does not deal with ultimate causes. Rather, it deals with efficient causes, such as "how did object x come into its present form?" As William Dembski notes, "The who-designed-the-designer objection is best interpreted as a metaphysical rather than a scientific question. As such, it is a call for ultimate rather than proximal explanations" (William Dembski, The Design Revolution, pg. 199). Michael Behe explains, "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). Dembski explains that, since we cannot directly study the designer, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not try to address questions about the origin of the designer. As far as science goes, all we can study are objects we observe in nature. Fortunately, we can study them to determine if they were designed. (See Chapter 27 of The Design Revolution for an excellent discussion of the "Who-designed-the-designer" objection.)

If one wants to get into metaphysics, the infinite regress argument cuts all ways, regardless of whether you're an atheist-evolutionist, theistic-evolutionist, atheist-ID-proponent, or theistic-ID proponent. I prefer to take a scientific approach, and thus I find it incredible that evolutionists of all stripes believe the claim that a random and undirected process produced anything with high complexity, let alone turtles. I guess I'll have to ask my mom to get started on a reply-quilt for Ms. West. Maybe it could be titled, "The Myths of Evolution: Random Mutations and Undirected Selection, All the Way Down."

While my mom gets to work on that, let's remember that this is all in good fun. Ms. West is entitled to her opinion, so congratulations to her. It's just too bad she doesn't look very happy about winning the award.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Wesley J. Smith (seen here with White House press secretary Tony Snow) was invited to the West Wing yesterday to witness the President’s veto of the embryonic stem cell bill.

Smith, a Discovery senior fellow on bioethics issues, writes frequently for various magazines and newspapers, including The Weekly Standard and National Review Online, is promoting the theme of the unique importance of human life—of “human exceptionalism”. People are not like other animals spiritually, morally or even physically.

Smith’s blog, linked by Discovery (see here), today carries the news of breakthroughs in adult stem cell medicine. The mainstream media have been wantonly obtuse about the the fact that the opponents of providing new federal funds and embryonic stem cells for research are in favor of other stem cell research, that, in fact, is far more promising anyhow.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 3:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington DC Examiner today published a full-page interview with John West and Casey Luskin, two of the authors of Traipsing Into Evolution. After seeing West and Luskin make a presentation about the book in Washington DC Recently, the Examiner decided to interview the authors "to get a better understanding of their arguments against Kitzmiller." You can read the full interview online, and you can download a PDF of the actual page here. You can purchase the book online at Amazon.com, or order copies by calling 1-800-643-4102.

Q Is your main disagreement with Kitzmiller v. Dover over its ultimate rejection of intelligent design (ID)? Or for the way the case exemplified, in your eyes, judicial overreach?

A John West: The issues are related. Judge Jones’ rejection of intelligent design sprang from his willingness to go beyond the facts of the case and attempt to decide an important scientific debate by judicial decree. Unfortunately, in his zeal to decide the validity of intelligent design for everyone else, Judge Jones ended up attacking a straw man. As we document in our book, his opinion is filled with distortions and basic errors of fact. For example, he asserts that intelligent design scientists don’t published peer-reviewed scholarship, which is patently false.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:36 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last week I explained how Nick Matzke was wrong to argue that the Kansas Science Standards' (KSS) mention of irreducible complexity implies that it requires teaching intelligent design (ID). Most of the rest of Mr. Matzke's post concentrates on the false claim that the Kansas Science Standards' section on evolution makes claims that come only from ID literature. This argument is only furthering a conspiracy theory which believes that, when the standards read "do not include Intelligent Design," they really mean, “do include intelligent design.” Under Mr. Matzke’s reasoning, every science teacher in the state of Kansas is supposed to be in on this conspiracy, which would be the only reason for them to know they are supposed to disregard the plain language of the standards.

While it is true that ID proponents agree with many of the criticisms of evolution in the Kansas Science Standards, these criticisms are also found in mainstream scientific literature. Even if there are other viewpoints that dispute the Kansas Science Standards, there are legitimate sources from mainstream scientific literature which support the claims in the KSS. For example:

Senator John McCain personally believes in evolution, but he takes a classically liberal view which says that ideas should not be hidden from students--even controversial ideas like intelligent design. Consider this excerpt from a news article on McCain's take on intelligent design:

Mr. McCain, who delivered his prepared remarks in an even, almost perfunctory manner, was at his best in the question and answer session that followed. Responding to a question about a report that he thinks "intelligent design" should be taught in schools, the senator mocked the idea that American young people were so delicate and impressionable that they needed to be sheltered from the concept, which says God had a hand in creation and which has been challenged by Darwinists as unscientific.

"Shhh, you shouldn't tell them," he said, mimicking those who would shield children from the fact that some people believe in intelligent design. The former prisoner of war said he also disagreed with Cold War-era efforts to prevent Marxist-Leninism from being taught in schools, saying it was better for Americans to understand their enemy. He noted that he didn't say that intelligent design needed to be taught in "science class," leaving unclear exactly what class he thought it should be taught in. He said he believed local school boards, not the federal government, should determine curricula.

"From a personal standpoint, I believe in evolution," Mr. McCain said. At the same time, he said, "When I stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon and I see the sun going down, I believe the hand of God was there."

("McCain Does Manhattan, By the Issues," by Ira Stoll, New York Sun, July 18, 2006)

I would prefer that Senator McCain explain what he means by "evolution"--mere "change through time," or the full-blown Neo-Darwinian claim that all of the complexity of life arose via random mutations coupled with blind natural selection. But what Senator McCain personally thinks about ID is much less important than what he would do as a government official. Senator McCain takes a classically liberal view on education, and the freedom of students to learn. He points out that students should not be sheltered from ideas just because they are controversial. While the article inappropriately claims that intelligent design claims that "God had a hand in creation," it's refreshing to hear that classical liberals like McCain still exist.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A recent article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch notes that a Virginia Commonwealth University biology professor Jim Sparks complained that a biology textbook by Sylvia Mader, "Essentials of Biology (McGraw Hill, 2007) "had leanings toward creationism and short-changed evolution." Another article described Sparks’ view as claiming the Mader textbook was “biased toward creationism and intelligent design.” But how accurate was Dr. Sparks' description of the textbook? Consider what the textbook actually says about intelligent design:

No wonder most scientists in our country are dismayed when state legislatures or school boards rule that teachers must put forward a variety or “theories” on the origin of life, including one that runs contrary to the mass of data that supports the theory of evolution. An organization in California called the Institute for Creation Research advocates that students be taught an “intelligent-design theory,” which says that DNA could never have arisen without the involvement of an “intelligent agent,” and that gaps in the fossil record mean that species arose fully developed with no antecedents.

Since no purely religious ideas can be taught in the schools, the advocates for an intelligent-design theory are careful not to mention the Bible or any strictly religious ideas. Still, teachers who have a solid scientific background are not comfortable teaching intelligent-design theory because it does not meet the test of a scientific theory. Science is based on hypotheses that have been tested by observation and/or experimentation. A scientific theory has stood the test of time—that is, no hypotheses have been supported by observation and/or experimentation that run contrary to the theory. On the contrary, the Theory of Evolution is supported by data collected in such wide-ranging fields as development, anatomy, geology, and biochemistry.

Sylvia Mader's Essentials of Biology (McGraw Hill, 2007)

So where is the bias towards ID? Mader's textbook claims ID is just religion, and that teachers with a “solid scientific background” don’t teach ID because it isn’t science. It also claims the only theory which should be taught is evolution. Unless we are living in Orwell’s 1984 where love is hate, it sounds like Jim Sparks was inventing a conspiracy to teach ID when there wasn’t one.

Posted by Keith Pennock at 2:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Discovery Institute gets a lot of nasty e-mail from name-calling Darwinists. But since the launch of StandUpForScience.com, the amount of nasty e-mailage has gone up about five-fold--something I barely thought possible (this resembles the post-Dover barrage of Darwinist hate-mail). In the past couple weeks I've had e-mails from Kansas tell me things like "Patton knew how to handle you fascist bastards," "Your agenda is clear -- secular schools cannot be tolerated, just as your spiritual leader Adolf Hitler said," and "Religously speaking -- GO TO HELL!" (all direct quotes from e-mails I've recently received from Kansas). Very interesting!

In any case, I have no ill-will whatsoever towards these people, but one recent less-inflammatory but nonetheless name-calling e-mail came from a Kansas Darwinist named Dr. Robert Bowden. (To be clear, Dr. Bowden was not the sender of the above-quoted e-mails.) Dr. Bowden is adjunct faculty in plant pathology at Kansas State University, and a signer of the anti-KS science standards position paper from Kansas Citizens for Science. Last year Dr. Bowden was quoted in an Associated Press article engaging in ad hominem attacks against the various scientists who participated in the Kansas Science Standard hearings:

“They’re creationists first and scientists second,” Robert Bowden, a plant pathologist at Kansas State University, said after Friday’s hearing.

(Associated Press, "Critics say creationism is true agenda," May 7, 2005, as found at MSNBC.com)

A couple of days ago, Dr. Bowden wrote us recently to state to us that we are "anti-intellectual":

Your article on testability is wrong because Behe's Irreducible Complexity concept is not a necessary prediction of ID. If IRC of the flagellum were soundly rejected, it would not convince most IDers. You would move the goal posts to another supposedly better IRC system. Or maybe you would abandon IRC altogether. But if IRC were to fall, it still would not disprove ID. Behe admitted he could accept common descent it in his book. ID can accommodate any and all things, including macroevolution.

THAT is what is meant by ID not being testable. You admit as much in your own words, "The flagellum might still be designed, but Behe’s means of detecting such design would have been falsified." Therefore your title is wrong too. Intelligent Design is not empirically testable.

By the way, a possible Darwinian pathway for the bacterial flagellum HAS been described. How much money are you spending trying to flesh it out? If you were real scientists, that is what you would be doing.

My only question is whether you are consciously or unconsciously being anti-intellectual?

Dr. Robert Bowden

Manhattan, Kansas

We get called names like "anti-intellectual" all the time. But at least this name-calling Darwinist refreshingly also posed a legitimate question that deserves a response.

When responding to these kinds of e-mails, I recommend taking an intellectually and morally high-road approach: (1) be nice (i.e. see the Google motto); (2) acknowledge their good points and try to address them in a friendly manner; and (3) generally ignore the name-calling and don't name-call back. (More advice like this to come in the next couple weeks). In any case, here's my reply to Dr. Bowden's e-mail:

Dear Dr. Bowden,

Greetings and thanks for your e-mail. I appreciate your thoughtful question but unfortunately I believe you may have some misunderstandings about intelligent design (ID). Please allow me to do my best to explain.

Science can infer intelligent design for the origin of a biological structure using irreducible complexity based upon the observation that intelligent agents are in our experience the sole producer of irreducibly complex systems. Thus when we find irreducibly complex systems, we are justified in inferring design. This is explained by Stephen Meyer and Scott Minnich:

“In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. Given that neither standard neo-Darwinism, nor co-option has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest, one might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. That we have encountered systems that tax our own capacities as design engineers, justifiably lead us to question whether these systems are the product of undirected, un-purposed, chance and necessity. Indeed, in any other context we would immediately recognize such systems as the product of very intelligent engineering. Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation [21, 22], given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes.”

(Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, “Genetic analysis of coordinate flagellar and type III regulatory circuits in pathogenic bacteria,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).)

Thus, if irreducible complexity is refuted for a particular system, then that might simply imply that system is not best explained by intelligent design. The fact that some systems are not best explained by design does not imply that therefore no systems are best explained by design. Like any explanantory cause in historical sciences, intelligent design is to be applied on a case-by-case basis. In some cases evolutionary mechanisms might be the best explanation. In other cases, intelligent design. The point is that intelligent design is assessed on a case-by-case basis—there is no “moving of the goal posts,” as you speak, by simply moving to another system.

Also, the fact that irreducible complexity is falsifiable implies that one method of detecting design has been falsified. There are other possible ways to detect design, such as searching for high levels of specified complexity. That’s probably what was meant in the URL you cited. But intelligent design is ultimately falsifiable. The ultimate falsifier of intelligent design for a given system would be to find that a biological structure has no function whatsoever.

As noted, intelligent design is inferred based upon our understanding of what intelligent agents do when they act, and trying to find objects in nature which match patterns reliable known to come from intelligent agents. But we know from observations that intelligent agents make things for a reason. So if something has truly no function, then we can rule out design for the origin of that non-functionality. For example, if supposed “junk-DNA” is really non-functional, then we can rule out the possibility that it arrived at that non-functional state via design. Intelligent design is falsifiable (and therefore testable).

Finally, you made various inappropriate namecalling attacks against Discovery Institute based upon the incorrect assertion that Discovery Institute is not funding laboratory research. In fact Discovery Institute does fund such research. Moreover, the very paper cited above by Minnich and Meyer is proof that ID proponents are doing experimental work on the evolvability of the flagellum, something you incorrectly asserted (in order to again call names) is not happening. The laboratory research reported in that paper implies that the type three secretory system is woefully insufficient to account for the evolution of the flagellum. In fact the experimental work reported in that paper indicate that the type three secretory system could not have been an evolutionary precursor to the flagellum.

If you would like more information, I recommend reading the paper. It’s available freely online from Discovery’s website at:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=389

Finally, you asserted "a possible Darwinian pathway for the bacterial flagellum HAS been described." I'm always interested in learning about new scientific discoveries that can challenge intelligent design, because falsification and testing is a major way that scientific knowledge progresses. Thus I'd like to know more and request that you please provide the reference for that claim. I'd love to check it out and verify if what you are saying is accurate, but it is difficult to do so without any sort of reference.

Thanks and I hope that clarifies.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

What are the Kansas science standards really about? Kansans will now be able to learn for themselves as three experts will explain why the revised standards were necessary at a series of free symposiums across Kansas. The efforts to mislead Kansas citizens about the state's new science standards will hopefully be curbed by these symposiums.

“Practically everything opponents have said about these changes is either flat wrong or highly misleading,” said John Calvert, a spokesman for the eight scientist and educators who proposed the changes, and organizer of the symposiums. “Critics falsely claim that ‘the changes remove evolution.’ Wrong! They actually seek to increase the content so that students will be equipped to actually understand the theory.”

Speakers:

• Angus Menuge, PhD, Philosopher of Science
  Dr. Menuge is a philosopher of science and expert on scientific materialism. Read his testimony to the KSBOE here.
  
• William Harris, Ph.D. Research Biochemist & Professor of Medicine
  Dr. Harris is an internationally known biochemist who led the team of scientists and educators who proposed the bulk of the critical changes. He will explain how the changes were developed, proposed and then analyzed during a year-long process that involved the public and scientists and educators from all over the world. Read his testimony to the KSBOE here.
  
• John H. Calvert, JD, Attorney; Managing Director of Intelligent Design Network, Inc.
  Dr. Calvert presented 22 expert witnesses at the KSBOE science hearings in May 2005. Read their testimony to the KSBOE here.

Dates Times and Locations:

• Kansas City: July 26, 6:30 - 9:30 PM Olathe Bible Church, 13700 W. 151st St, Olathe, KS 660062 913-764-8280
  
• Emporia: July 27, 6:30 - 9:30 PM; Victory Fellowship, The Foursquare Church, 693 Road 190, Emporia, KS 66801; 620-342-3676
  
• Hutchinson: July 28, 6:30 - 9:30 PM TBA

• Dodge City: July 29, 8:30 - 11:30 AM, Dodge City Church of the Nazarene, 1700 W. Ross Blvd, Dodge City, KS 67801
  
• Hays: July 29, 6:30 - 9:30 PM; Thomas Moore Prep School; 1701 Hall, Hays, KS 67601; 785-625-6577

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Post-Darwinist, journalist Denyse O'Leary points out another type of misinformation. In this instance it's a complete misrepresentation of the views of Cardinal Schönborn about evolution, as well as that of the Catholic church.

Briefly, the Catholic Church has come out swinging in recent years AGAINST Darwinism, which is precisely the "evolution" that Rosengarten is talking about.

Here's what the Pope now distributes on prayer cards hawked all over Rome:

We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.

So all over the world, people will remind themselves of anti-Darwinism every day.

In an e-mail O'Leary added:

"Any claim that the Catholic Church "supports evolution" that OMITS the fact that the Catholic Church DOES NOT support Darwinian evolution - which is precisely the controversial type taught in many American textbooks and school systems - is misleading. That is like saying that the Catholic Church "supports abortion" because it sanctions a doctor acting to save the life of a pregnant mother in the rare case where both mother and child are doomed, but mother may be saved by actions that increase risk for the doomed child. No reasonable person would say that the Catholic Church "supports abortion" in the normal way we use the English language, on account of this very unusual exception. Similarly, no reasonable person should say that the Catholic Church "supports evolution" without making clear that it specifically does not support Darwinism, as it is taught, nay often preached, and learned in North American education systems today. "

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I usually ignore Panda's Thumb because it is a blog site where bloggers have near-unlimited license to namecall and say mean-spirited things which contribute nothing to the scientific debate over evolution. However, because Nick Matzke recently defended me there (sort of), I'll dignify Nick's latest post on Kansas with a response here. This is despite the fact that Nick's Kansas post perpetuates the old conspiracy theory that the Kansas Science Standards (KSS) are all about teaching ID, and does so while making numerous snide and irrelevant ad hominem-type comments. This post will be the first in a two-part series.

Nick opens by complaining about Discovery Institute's current activities in Kansas. Talk about irony! Recently, his employer, the Oakland, California-based National Center for Science Education (NCSE), appeared on stage in Lawrence, Kansas with the Pennsylvania-based attorneys who represented the national ACLU in the Kitzmiller case, alongside representatives from Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS). The next time someone from Kansas gets bothered about individuals or groups from outside of Kansas supporting their current, excellent science standards, remind them of this picture. It's worth a thousand words:

Photo from Lawrence, KS includes: Eugenie Scott (NCSE, Oakland, CA ), Eric Rothschild (Pepper - Hamilton / ACLU, Philadelphia, PA), Steve Harvey (Pepper - Hamilton / ACLU, Philadelphia, PA), and Jack Krebs (KCFS, Kansas).

Original Caption reads: "Legal talk. Lawyers for the Dover, Pennsylvania, plaintiffs joined Kansas Citizens for Science in Lawrence last week in attacking the state’s new science standards." (Science, Vol 311:588 February 3, 2006)

But my primary point here is to demonstrate the bankruptcy of Nick's arguments that the KSS teach intelligent design. The emptiness of Nick's claim is best illustrated by looking at the case of irreducible complexity. Nick, referring to the Kansas Science Standards, states:

“Irreducible complexity” is a problem for evolution. Hello? I thought the standards “do not include Intelligent Design.” Even if you want to argue that all of the standard bogus creationist objections to evolution are critical analysis and not “intelligent design”, there is no way that “irreducible complexity” can be associated with anyone other than Michael Behe, leading ID advocate and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow.

(Nick Matzke in "No one here but us Critical Analysis-ists…")

Nick thus uses the genetic fallacy to argue that talking about irreducible complexity (IC) must always mean arguing for intelligent design simply because Michael Behe is the best-known popularizer of IC, and Behe also argues for intelligent design. This is not a valid form of logical argumentation because Nick's argument only works if he logically proves that arguing for irreducible complexity necessarily entails arguing for the conclusion of intelligent design. But this same Nick Matzke advised the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, where Ken Miller testified that irreducible complexity is NOT an argument for intelligent design:

Q ... is Dr. Behe's argument for irreducible complexity, is that an argument directly for design?

A. That's a good point. The answer is, no, it's not. It really is an argument that says why such systems are not produceable by evolution. So it's a negative argument against evolution.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover Trial transcript of Ken Miller, pg. 15, day 1 PM session)

Nick can't have it both ways: either IC must always logically mandate intelligent design, or it doesn't. The truth is that Miller is actually half-right: irreducible complexity can be simply a negative argument against evolution. (However, for different reasons, i.e. because intelligent agents are the sole-known cause of irreducibly complex structures, IC can also be an argument for intelligent design, making Miller's statement a misrepresentation.) But in the Kansas Science Standards, irreducible complexity is only discussed in the context of how irreducible complexity is an empirical argument against evolution. Here is what the standards state:

Whether microevolution (change within a species) can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary changes (such as new complex organs or body plans and new biochemical systems which appear irreducibly complex) is controversial.

(Kansas Science Standards, pg. 76)

In the Kansas Science Standards, irreducible complexity is not meant to be discussed in the context of it being a positive argument for intelligent design, but merely as a challenge to evolution. Arguing for intelligent design using irreducible complexity requires also talking about some positive content, where one explains how intelligent agents are the primary cause of irreducibly complex machines. But the KSS don't do that, for they only discuss IC in the context of it being a challenge to evolution. As Ken Miller concedes above, this is quite possible to do because in his own words, one can argue for the unevolvability of a structure, based upon irreducible complexity, and not conclude intelligent design. That's how the Kansas Science Standards operate. The true nature of irreducible complexity is discussed in our Traipsing Into Evolution, which states:

Had Judge Jones paid more attention to the arguments actually made by ID proponents, it would have been clear to him why irreducible complexity can be an argument for design as well as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. This is a genuine dualism due to the fact that neo-Darwinism and intelligent design make competing and opposite predictions about irreducible complexity.

(Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision, pg. 40)

To summarize, historical sciences operate by studying present-day causes and applying them to the historical record to determine which causes best explain the observed historical data. Studying the Darwinian mechanism reveals that it is a cause incapable of producing irreducibly complex structures. (Behe, 1996) Thus we can argue against Neo-Darwinism by finding irreducibly complex structures. We can also study the origin of irreducibly complex structures to reveal that intelligence is the primary known cause of such structures. (Minnich & Meyer, 2004) Thus we can use irreducible complexity to infer design. But evidence for one theory does not in-and-of-itself constitute evidence for another theory. When we discover irreducible complexity, we can discuss it solely in the context of it being a challenge to Neo-Darwinism. Although it can imply design, our discussion can easily stop right there if we want, especially if our goal is to only require talking about empirical challenges evolution under a policy that explicitly states that teachers need "not include Intelligent Design" (Kansas Science Standards, pg. ii).

The Kansas Science Standards explicitly do NOT require discussing alternative explanations like intelligent design for the origin of irreducibly complex structures, and they only mention irreducible complexity as a stumbling block to evolutionary mechanisms.

Nick Matzke continues to construct various conspiracy theories as to why the mention of irreducible complexity implies you're talking about intelligent design–yet prominent scientists from Nick's own camp acknowledge that arguing for irreducible complexity does not mandate arguing for intelligent design. It seems obvious that the Kansas Science Standards imply mere critique of evolution by mentioning irreducible complexity rather than going further to discuss intelligent design. Nick Matzke does not have the right to argue that irreducible complexity necessarily mandates arguing for design when the plaintiffs at the Kitzmiller trial, under Nick's own counsel, argued otherwise.

Stay tuned for part two of this series entitled "Kansas 102" in the coming days!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As recently highlighted here, mathematics is an academic locale where scientific skepticism of Neo-Darwinism can survive the current political climate! Discovery Institute recently received an e-mail from someone commenting on the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List where over 600 Ph.D. scientists from various fields agree that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life." This skeptic of evolutionary-skepticism e-mailer wrote "I'm a mathematician and certainly am NOT qualified to support such a statement. Only evolutionary biologists are qualified to respond here." While the Dissent from Darwinism list does contain individuals trained in evolutionary biology, the question remains "Is the objection valid?"

The truth is that mathematics has a strong tradition of giving cogent critique of evolutionary biology. After all, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is fundamentally based upon an algorithm which uses a mathematically describable trial and error process to attempt to produce complexity. Population genetics is rife with mathematics. In fact, one criticism of the alleged transitional fossil sequences for whales is that they represent evolutionary change on too rapid a timescale to be mathematically feasible. It seems that there is no good reason why those trained in mathematics cannot comment on the ability of the Neo-Darwinian mutation-selection process to generate the complexity of life.

One of the best known mathematical forays into evolution was the 1966 Wistar Symposium, held in Philadelphia, where mathematicians and other scientists from related fields congregated to assess whether Neo-Darwinism is mathematically feasible. The conference was chaired by Nobel Laureate Sir Peter Medawar. The general consensus of many meeting participants was that Neo-Darwinism was simply not mathematically tenable.

The proceedings of that conference, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), reports various challenges to evolution presented by respected mathematicians and similar scholars at the conference. For example, the conference chair Sir Peter Medawar stated at the outset:

"[T]he immediate cause of this conference is a pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian Theory. ... There are objections made by fellow scientists who feel that, in the current theory, something is missing ... These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held among biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of them. The very fact that we are having this conference is evidence that we are not making light of them."

(Sir Peter Medawar, "Remarks by the Chairman," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. xi, emphasis in original)

Various scientists, including some mathematicians, proceeded to comment about problems with Neo-Darwinism:

"[A]n opposite way to look at the genotype is as a generative algorithm and not as a blue-print; a sort of carefully spelled out and foolproof recipe for producing a living organism of the right kind if the environment in which it develops is a proper one. Assuming this to be so, the algorithm must be written in some abstract language. Molecular biology may well have provided us with the alphabet of this language, but it is a long step from the alphabet to understanding a language. Nevertheless a language has to have rules, and these are the strongest constraints on the set of possible messages. No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is almost invariably destroyed. Any changes must be syntactically lawful ones. I would conjecture that what one might call "genetic grammaticality" has a deterministic explanation and does not owe its stability to selection pressure acting on random variation."

(Murray Eden, "Inadequacies as a Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 11)

"[I]t seems to require many thousands, perhaps millions, of successive mutations to produce even the easiest complexity we see in life now. It appears, naively at least, that no matter how large the probability of a single mutation is, should it be even as great as one-half, you would get this probability raised to a millionth power, which is so very close to zero that the chances of such a chain seem to be practically non-existent."

(Stanislaw M. Ulam, "How to Formulate Mathematically Problems of Rate of Evolution," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 21)

"We do not know any general principle which would explain how to match blueprints viewed as typographic objects and the things they are supposed to control. The only example we have of such a situation (apart from the evolution of life itself) is the attempt to build self-adapting programs by workers in the field of artificial intelligence. Their experience is quite conclusive to most of the observers: without some built-in matching, nothing interesting can occur. Thus, to conclude, we believe that there is a considerable gap in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, and we believe this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology."

(Marcel Schutzenberger, "Algorithms and Neo-Darwinian Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1966, No. 5), pg. 75)

These are potent arguments from academics qualified to assess the mathematical ability of a random / selective process to produce complexity. While evolutionary biologists and other types of biologists can yield many insights into evolutionary biology, scientists other than biologists, such as mathematicians, are most certainly qualified to comment on the feasibility of Neo-Darwinian evolution.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 4:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Discovery Institute's "Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas" education campaign is intended to defend the excellent science standards adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education and to counter the campaign of misinformation by groups like Kansas Citizens for Science (KCFS), which are wildly distorting what the Kansas science standards actually say and do.

Most importantly, the "Stand up for Science, Stand up for Kansas" campaign seeks to correct three big falsehoods being spread by opponents of the Kansas science standards:

Falsehood #1: The Kansas science standards include intelligent design.

Contrary to claims by opponents, the Kansas science standards do not include intelligent design. In spreading this falsehood, opponents of the standards ignore the following clear statement by the Kansas Board of Education in the standards: "We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design...." (emphasis added) Which part of "do not include Intelligent Design" can't opponents of the standards understand?

Falsehood #2: The Kansas board redefined science to include the supernatural.

In reality, the Kansas board of education simply restored the traditional definition of science used by virtually every other state science standard. Documentation of this fact can be found here. The only way opponents of the science standards can raise this phony issue is by failing to quote the full definition of science in the Kansas science standards.

"Should public schools censor scientific evidence just because it challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution?” asks Robert Crowther, director of communications for Discovery Institute a non-partisan public policy center. “Of course not. Teachers should present all the scientific evidence, including both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, and this is exactly what the Kansas state science standards call for.”

---

Sign the Petition and Stand Up for Science at www.standupforscience.com

---

In 2005 the Kansas State Board of Education revised the state’s science standards to require students to learn the full range of scientific evidence for and against biological and chemical evolution, after hearing testimony from 23 scientists and scholars about how such evidence should be presented in the classroom.

“There is now a concerted and organized effort to undermine those standards, and ultimately to repeal them and replace them with dogmatic, Darwin-only science standards,” said Crowther.

According to the Institute, polls consistently show that an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that when biology teachers present the scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution, they should also teach the scientific evidence against it.

In their rationale for adopting the standards the Kansas State Board of Education stated: “Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.”

“There are some in Kansas, and around the country, now using their voices to try to tear down Kansas’ science standards and stifle discussion of the scientific evidence they don’t like,” added Crowther. “We think that the Kansas science standards are the best in the nation and so we’re committed to helping preserve them, which is why we started the standupforscience.com website.”

According to Crowther, Kansas’s approach to teaching evolution will better inform students about the facts of the scientific evidence in biology, and also require them to critically analyze the evidence so they will gain the critical thinking skills necessary to become good scientists. Four other states –Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and South Carolina– have standards requiring students to learn about critical analysis of evolution already in place.

Scientists continue to raise questions about evolutionary theory, and in recent years a growing number of scientists have raised significant issues challenging various aspects of biological and chemical evolution. Students deserve to learn about the views of these dissenting scientists, both so they can better understand the scientific evidence, and also so they can formulate the critical thinking skills needed to be good scientists.

Discovery Institute is a non-profit, public policy center that studies issues from transportation to technology to science. In science education, it supports a "teach the controversy" approach to Darwinian evolution and believes that students should have the opportunity to study both the strengths and the weaknesses of Darwinian evolution as a scientific theory. At the same time, the Institute opposes any attempt to mandate the teaching of alternative theories such as intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. For more information visit the Institute’s website at www.discovery.org.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

There is a concerted effort underway in Kansas to censor science and undermine the strong science standards adopted there last year. In 2005 the Kansas state board of education (KSBOE) courageously voted to adopt science standards that require students to learn all about evolution, including both the scientific evidence and for and against the theory. That's it. The Board didn't require any alternative theories be taught, just the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution.

However there are a number of groups both inside and outside of Kansas that are seeking to stifle discussion in Kansas classrooms of anything critical of Darwinian evolution. Chief among them is "Kansas Citizens for Science" (KCFS). Not content with simply complaining about the Kansas science standards, KCFS is now belligerently telling schools and teachers to disobey the state-sanctioned standards. Officials of KCFS are waging a campaign of misinformation and scare tactics in an effort to make sure that Kansas students never hear about any of the serious scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution.

Here are a few of the phony reasons why KCFS encourages local school districts to adopt its own recommended standards rather than the official state-approved standards:

• Kansas students should be taught science that corresponds to the consensus view of the community of scientists. They should not be taught assertions from the creationist anti-evolutionists that are held by the scientific community to be incorrect.

• Kansas schools should not be used to promote one particular view of religion. Presenting religious arguments in the guise of science does harm not only to our students, but also to religious communities.

• Kansas science teachers are already under pressure to teach bad science or to omit "controversial" science. School districts need to send their teachers a clear message that they support the teaching of mainstream science.

• Districts using the state standards may leave themselves open to costly lawsuits, such as the one in Dover, Pennsylvania. The lawsuit over their Intelligent Design-inspired standards cost the Dover district over a million dollars. Should such a lawsuit occur in Kansas, it is not the state that will be sued – it is the local district that will be sued.

It's time for people to stand up for science, stand up to Darwinist censors and bullies, and defend good science standards such as those in Kansas.

Fortunately, Kansas is not alone. Just last month South Carolina followed Kansas' lead and adopted similar standards that require students to learn the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. New Mexico, Minnesota and Pennsylvania also have such standards already in place. So, there are other states besides Kansas that are standing up for "full disclosure" when it comes to teaching Darwin's theory.

For a clear and succinct summary of what the Kansas state science standards do and do not call for download this FAQ.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday, Cornelius Hunter critiqued at IDtheFuture some of Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller's theologically-charged arguments for evolution during the Kitzmiller trial. Miller is a widely promoted theistic evolutionist, and thus served as the plaintiffs leadoff expert witness for biology, evolution, and theistic evolutionism during the Kitzmiller trial. Judge Jones apparently found Miller's existence so compelling that the Judge ruled that evolution and "belief in the existence of a supreme being" are compatible, and ruled that any belief otherwise is "utterly false."

Yet significant portions of Miller's testimony about the anti-religious descriptions of evolution contained in his textbooks were factually challenged (i.e. wrong). On the second day of the Kitzmiller trial, Miller was confronted about theologically charged statements about evolution in one of his biology textbooks, which stated that "[e]volution is random and undirected." Miller defended himself by claiming that the theological language about evolution in his textbook was a "mistake," and was added by his co-author, and that the statement "[e]volution is random and undirected" appears only in the 3rd edition of his "elephant textbook," Biology. Miller said, "that statement was not in the first edition the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition." Yet contrary to Miller's testimony, Miller has produced numerous textbooks which apparently contain anti-theistic language describing evolution. What's going on here?

The facts are very different from Miller's testimony. All of the first four editions of his "elephant" Biology textbook contain the phrase "[e]volution is random and undirected." Moreover, other versions of Miller & Levine textbooks, unmentioned during the testimony, contain language which is even more hostile towards religion than that in the elephant Biology textbook. Two editions of his Biology: Discovering Life state, "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism." This contradicts Miller's testimony that only one of his eleven textbook editions contained anti-religious language. In reality, six of them contain anti-religious language.

Miller's "Get Out of Theological Statements Free Card"
On day two of the trial, Ken Miller was asked about his characterizations of evolution in old versions of his textbooks during cross examination:

Q. Sir, is evolution random and undirected?

A. I don’t think that is an appropriate scientific question. First of all, evolution most definitely is not random. There are elements of evolutionary change that are unpredictable, but the principal force driving evolution, which is natural selection is most definitely a non-random force, and then the second part of your question, undirected, that requires a conclusion about meaning and purpose that I think is beyond the realm of science. So my answer for different reasons to both parts of your question is no. Or excuse me, perhaps more aptly put, science, science cannot answer the second part of the question. I think that’s a more accurate way to put it.

(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)

Miller had already given himself a "Get Out of Theological Statements Free Card" during his direct testimony by noting that "everything that a scientist writes or says is not necessarily a scientific statement or a scientific publication." (Transcript of Testimony of Ken Miller, Day 1 of Kitzmiller Trial [Sept. 26, 2005], pg. 56.) (I actually think that's a very fair statement on the part of Ken Miller, and I only wish that Judge Jones had afforded the same courtesy to ID proponents by not conflating the personal religious beliefs of Michael Behe with the claims of ID theory.)

Miller on Trial
Miller was then confronted with the fact that the phrase "Evolution is random and undirected" appears in the 1995 edition of his textbook:

Q. Sir, in your 1995 edition of Biology, I believe it’s the Elephant Book?

A. That’s correct. It’s generally known by that name.

Q. Did it not state in that book, “It is important to keep this concept in mind. Evolution is random and undirected, and the part “evolution is random and undirected” was in bold print?

[…]

A. … So yes, sir, it does say that.

(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)

What's most interesting is Miller's explanation for the presence of that statement. Here it is:

Q. Now, you testified previously that that’s not a scientific concept, correct?

A. I did indeed, sir.

Q. Why was it in your book?

A. It was in my book because as I’m sure you’ve also looked at, that statement was not in the first edition the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition, it was not in the fifth edition. It was not ---

Q. My question is why is it in this edition?

A. I’m trying to set the context so I can give a full and complete answer to your question. So the interesting thing is that this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement, and the reason for that quite simply is that I work with a co-author whose name is Joseph Levine, and Joe and I work together on many of the chapters in the book, but many of them we write separately and individually, and this was a statement as I was going through Joe’s chapters, and I feel very badly about that. When this was first pointed out to me, the third edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement, I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of the book, and that’s why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent editions. So what you’re looking at, sir, is a mistake.

(Transcript of Testimony of Kenneth Miller, Day 2 of Kitzmiller Trial (Sept. 27, 2005), pgs. 4-8.)

An Elaboration of Problems with the Testimony
There may be no reason to doubt that Miller thought he was telling the truth and that the whole phrase "evolution is random and undirected" was indeed his co-author Joseph Levine's fault. Nonetheless, Miller's recollection of the facts appears starkly incorrect on a number of points.

Firstly, Miller claims "that statement was not in the first edition the book, it was not in the second edition, it was not in the fourth edition." Miller is correct that the 1995 version is the third edition of that textbook. But he's wrong to say it only appears in the third edition because the statement "Evolution is random and undirected" (emphasis in original) appears in all of the first four versions of this textbook! The 1991, 1993, 1995, and 1998 editions all state on page 658 that "Evolution is random and undirected" (emphasis in original), and they also all state on that same page, "evolution works without either plan or purpose."

Miller's account thus cannot be completely accurate. Miller told the Judge:

"When this was first pointed out to me, the third edition of this book was in print, I immediately went to Joe, I said Joe, I think this is a bad idea, I said I think this is a non-scientific statement, I think it will mislead students. Joe agreed. We immediately took it out of the book, and that’s why I emphasized that it did not appear in subsequent editions."

The statement "evolution is random and undirected" does appear after the third edition; it is found in the fourth edition (1998). What really happened?

Secondly, Miller claims that only one edition of his textbooks had problematic language, stating "this is the only edition of any of the books that we have published, and probably eleven different editions, that contains that statement". This is also a false statement. If Miller has indeed published eleven versions of his textbooks, as he says, then there are materialistic descriptions of evolution in six of them:

(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991); emphasis in original)

(2)“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (2nd edition, Prentice Hall, 1993); emphasis in original)

(3)“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (3rd edition, Prentice Hall, 1995); emphasis in original)

(4)“[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
(Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (4th edition, Prentice Hall, 1998); emphasis in original)

Additionally, Miller's textbook, Biology: Discovering Life contains language which is even more anti-religious than that of his elephant textbook, Biology. Consider the 5th and 6th instances below:

(5) "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us." (Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; emphasis in original)

(6) "Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us."
(Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (2nd edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphasis in original)

To Miller's credit, the latest editions of his textbook do not seem to contain such anti-theological language. But if Ken Miller has published 11 textbook versions, then it remains the case that more than half (6 / 11) of his textbooks have contained theologically charged language like evolution is "purposeless," "heartless," "required believing in philophical materialism," "random," "undirected," or "works without either plan or purpose" because it is implied there is "no divine plan."

Why did Miller claim that only one version of his textbook made such statements? I'll let the reader decide, but perhaps he already explained it to us: "what you’re looking at, sir, is a mistake." There sure have been a lot of mistakes.

Note: I own each textbook quoted above and can provide documentation of these quotes upon request. My e-mail is cluskin@discovery.org.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Pete Chadwell, a graphic artist in Bend, Oregon understands what so many Darwinists don't: students are being short changed in their science education when they learn only half the story about evolution. Teaching students both the scientific strengths and weaknesses is good education, good science, and good for students.

Darwin himself would support this approach to teaching evolution. As Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species,

"A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

And as science teacher John Scopes said some 80 or so years ago,

"If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. ... I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory."

So, now we have Pete Chadwell who has an excellent article in today's Bend Bulletin. Here's what Pete says:

If one believes we should continue to conceal the evidence against evolution, one must answer some very tough questions: What good can possibly come from withholding scientific evidence against ANY scientific theory? How does that not undermine the integrity of science itself? Isn't scientific experimentation and discovery supposed to be transparent? How is it fair to our children to withhold this evidence?

If, on the other hand, one believes our students SHOULD be taught about the evidences against evolution, then another set of interesting questions is raised: Why has it taken so long for just five states to adopt standards which require nothing more than an objective presentation of evolutionary theory in the classroom? What are evolutionists protecting? What is the rationale for having withheld this evidence and deceived so many students for so many years?

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)