The recent Guardian story that the Pope may be about to endorse intelligent design as a scientific theory is way off the mark, I believe. There clearly is more media interest in this weekend’s meeting than the annual reunion of the pope’s former theology students ordinarily would warrant, even given this year’s special topic. But there will be a lively discussion. Various opinions will be heard. And I suppose you can expect a lot of uninformed spin afterwards. But don’t expect some definitive new Vatican declaration on science questions. (Granted, I COULD BE SURPRISED!)

Rather, what seems most significant is that this meeting represents the expansion of a line of inquiry for the Vatican. For one thing, the pope apparently has long wanted a larger discussion on evolution. He says as much in his 2003 book, Truth and Tolerance, where as Cardinal Ratzinger, he says a real and full dialogue has not taken place yet.

“There is at any rate no getting around the dispute about the extent of the claims of the doctrine of evolution as a fundamental philosophy and about the exclusive validity of the positive method as the sole indicator of systematic knowledge and of rationality. This dispute has therefore to be approached objectively and with a willingness to listen, by both sides—something that has hitherto been undertaken only to a limited extent.” Page 179, 2004 paperback edition, Ignatius Press.

Dr. Dominique Tassot, director of the Centre d’Etude et de sur le Science (Center for Studies and Prospectives on Science), a group of scientists in France (mostly Catholic) and a strong critic of Darwinism, reminds us in an article for the National Catholic Register that Pope Pius XII suggested in Humani Generis in 1950 that a debate within the Catholic Church on evolution should be conducted. “But it has never happened,” as Tassot says. Now there are more scientists who question Darwinism—certainly more than in 1950—and a two-sided discussion will be more robust.

Of course, the Vatican understandably would rather not opine on specific science questions at all and it doesn’t need to. On the other hand, the ideological aspect of Darwinism (or “evolutionism”, in Cardinal Schoenborn’s phrase) is seen as part of the problem of a secularized Western society, especially in Europe. That the Vatican cannot ignore.

The theologians this weekend are sure to discuss, but probably not resolve, the extent to which the materialist ideology of Darwinism actually preceded the creation of Darwin’s theory and is an inevitable part of the theory’s fabric. The Church can live with evolution if it merely means change over time or micro-evolution, change within species. So can nearly all critics of Darwinism, including us, for that matter. But Darwinism is about macro-evolution. And as Cardinal Ratzinger again wrote in his 2003 book, ”Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro- to macro-evolution...” (Page180.)

There also may be a way to accept Darwinism as part of a larger process where meaning somehow does inhere. But Darwin’s theory, according to its leading advocates and spokesmen, does not allow for such meaning in nature, per se. Therefore, to the extent evolution is “evolutionism” and is applied to many related subjects in science and sociology, and to the extent the scientific theory itself is shot through with materialist ideology (as scientists connected with Discovery Institute hold that it is), the Church is going to have a problem with it. (See “A Meaningful World,” the new book, by Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt.)

In terms of holding dialogues in the Church or anywhere, the very vocabulary of the discussion is confused, unfortunately. People mean different things by such terms as “evolution,” “creation” and “intelligent design,” so they wind up talking past one another. In addition, at Castel Gandolfo you will hear a lot of words that borrow from philosophy, particularly the natural philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. That will confuse even many of the scientists.

For an example of media confusion: It is correct that the Church doesn’t support what is normally considered creationism—a literalist reading of Genesis, creation in six 24 hour days 6500 years ago. Neither do ID scientists. But even knowing this, Darwinist critics of intelligent design say that ID is creationism “in disguise”.

But when they say that they are shifting to a different definition. To a die-hard Darwinist, ANY account of the development of life that does not commit to a materialist (unguided, unplanned) explanation can be stigmatized as “creationism.” The confusion by Darwinists in this case is intentional. And the media, alas, tend to follow the definitions of the Darwinists (even for ID), not the definitions offered by ID scientists. This is very frustrating for the ID scientists, and to say the least, impedes serious dialogue.

Simply put, neither the Catholic Church nor ID scientists are “creationists”. But if you were to apply to the Church the same meaning of “creationism” that Darwinists try to fix on intelligent design scientists, you would have a church that denies its own foundational teaching and would be making a kind of going-out-of-business announcement! The Church plainly isn’t doing that.

But if the media are going to accept the definition of the word creationism that the Catholic Church uses (as do most people) , they logically have to acknowledge that, in the same sense, ID scientists are “not creationists” either—”in disguise” or otherwise. In fact, ID, as science, makes no statement about God, whereas the Church does. ID is theism-friendly just as Darwin’s theory is atheism-friendly, but ID scientists don’t operate from a religious premise, while the Church does.

This background shows why we are pleased that Pope Benedict is taking up this subject. It will force many people to look more closely into issues that challenge their worldview. We see it as one more indication that various kinds of scholars and ordinary citizens alike are taking a fresh look at evolution and design issues. You are going to see a great many more meetings and conferences of various kinds on the topic. Slowly the confusion of definitions will lift.

As pope, Benedict XVI already has made several public statements critical of Darwinism as ideology and has referred favorably, if indirectly, to ID (“this intelligent design of the cosmos” in one translation, “intelligent project” in another). More tangibly, there is a little “holy card” with Pope Benedict XVI’s picture on it that is for sale around Vatican City kiosks these days. Its message is taken from the Pope’s first homily in his new role and includes the statement that “We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution.”

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 4:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Uncommon Descent, William Dembski has highlighted a video we've been watching and talking about here in the Discovery offices for a while now -- Pearl Jam's 1998 "Do The Evolution." Technically, it's a brilliant video, animated by award winning artist Todd McFarlane. It takes the viewer through the history of mankind, starting from the origin of the first life.

It is an intense video and the imagery is both compelling and disturbing, not unlike Pink Floyd's The Wall. I don't see how you can think this anything other than a slam at wholesale Darwinism, as it clearly outlines what you will get when humans are dumbed down to nothing more than an accidental accumulation of matter. CSC bioethicist Wesley J. Smith was quoted this year on a Starbuck's cup:

"The morality of the 21st century will depend on how we respond to this simple but profound question: Does ever human life have equal moral value because it is human? Answer yes, and we have a chance of achieving universal human rights. Answer no, and it means that we are merely another animal in the forest."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In a recent book review in Nature, Jerry Coyne had unkind words for a questioner who raised his hand after Coyne gave a talk against intelligent design at the Alaska Bar Association. Coyne wrote:

After lecturing this spring to the Alaska Bar Association on the debate over intelligent design and evolution, I was approached at the podium by a young lawyer. The tight-lipped smile, close-cropped hair and maniacal gleam in his eyes told me that he was probably a creationist out for blood. I was not wrong.

(Jerry Coyne, "Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?," reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, Vol 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006), emphasis added.)

The take-home message here seems to be Don't ask hard questions about evolution of leading Darwinists, or you will get called mean-spirited names in major scientific journals.

Ignoring the fact that Coyne acknowledges a “debate over intelligent design and evolution," I have some simple questions myself:

David Berlinski submitted the following letter to Science regarding "Public Acceptance of Evolution" (by Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott, and Shinji Okamoto, in Science, Vol 313: 765-766, 08-11-06). It appears Science chose not to publish it:

Alarmed by the fact that “one in three American adults firmly rejects the concept of evolution,” Jon D. Miller, Eugenie C. Scott and Shinji Okamoto have suggested that the source of their disbelief may be found in their religious convictions.

But when the authors pass from the concept of evolution to a specific evolutionary claim, those religiously-based objections seem to reflect nothing more than skeptical good sense.

“Human beings, as we know them,” Miller, Scott and Okamoto write, “developed from earlier species of animals.” Those who reject this statement are for this reason denied creedal access to the concept of evolution itself. But how could anyone regard this claim without the most serious reservations? We know hardly anything about human beings. The major aspects of the human mind and the culture to which it gives rise are an enigma, and so, too, the origins of the anatomical structures required to express them. If the phrase “developed from earlier species of animals” implies that human beings had ancestors, there is no reason to think it interesting; if it implies that human beings became human by means of random variation and natural selection, there is no reason to think it true.

Statistical investigations into the origins of belief are in any case pointless. What would it avail us to know that there is a strong statistical correlation between membership in the NCSE and an eagerness to promote Charles Darwin to beatific status and for this reason carefully to cultivate his relics?

In commenting on the study to which he contributed, Jon Miller of Michigan State University, observed that “American Protestantism is more fundamentalist than anybody except perhaps the Islamic fundamentalists.” Considering the fact that American Protestants are not notably interested in waging jihad, this is a little like arguing that oranges are more flat than anything else, except perhaps for paper.

Miller’s additional idea that the United States and Turkey are closely allied in virtue of their fundamentalist commitments is richly conceived.

It has apparently escaped Professor Miller’s notice that Turkey is a secular state and has been since 1922, and that by following his reasoning, one could conclude that the diplomatic services of the United States would look favorably on a revival of the Taliban in Afghanistan or the triumph of radical Islam in Iraq.

Such an excess of stupidity is rarely to be found in nature.

David Berlinski

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editors Note: If you're looking for a link mentioned in Nota Bene to Peer Reviewed Articles on Intelligent Design please click here.]

Barbara Forrest is a philosopher and was an expert witness against intelligent design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Since she has recently posted her take on the Kitzmiller trial here, I have had the pleasure of responding by constructing a ten-part response. The pleasure is mine because of the interesting comments from Forrest, including affirmatively calling ID-proponents labels such as "creationists," "legal mincemeat," "jaw-droppingly stupid," “evangelical scholars,” "part of the Religious Right," and "mean-spirited." Forrest says they have "contempt for the judicial system," promote "warmed-over creationism," have "cocksure confidence," and use "nastiness" and "long-discredited pro-ID arguments" because "they make things up and/or slander their opposition." She claims that ID supporters are reduced to "peddling ID" and "riding the coattails of conservative pundit Ann Coulter," while arguing using "standard creationist canards," which "highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry." I'd like to briefly highlight a couple of these expanded quotes, which further show her argumentation style:

(1) A harsh attack by Dr. Forrest upon ID-proponents:

These tactics by DeWolf and Dembski highlight the bankruptcy of ID and the blustering cowardice of its leaders, who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry.

(2) Some Self-Praising by Dr. Forrest:

It probably wasn’t difficult for DI and TMLC to figure out that, armed with my work and that of the other witnesses for the plaintiffs, halfway decent attorneys would make legal mincemeat of them. (emphasis added)

Her piece is going to be an entertaining read at the very least, one that deserves a response, which I will present over the course of of a series of 10 posts.

In the first series of 4 posts, I will assess the arguments she describes, which she made in the courtroom.

Part 2: I will assess Forrest's usage of quotations from ID proponents supposedly talking about intelligent design in religious terms;

Part 3: I will assess Forrest's usage of quotations from ID proponents describing their own Christian or creationist religious beliefs;

Part 4: I will discuss Forrest's allegations of religious motives of ID proponents as stated in the “wedge document”;

Part 5: I will analyze Forrest's history of ID that involves Phillip Johnson and the usage of creationist language in pre-publication drafts of Of Pandas and People.

Then I will assess Forrest’s style of argumentation:

Part 6: I will assess Forrest’s three contradictory conspiracy theories about why some ID proponents didn’t testify;

Part 7: I will discuss the logical fallacy of Forrest’s ubiquitous "correlation implies causation" argumentation style;

Part 8: I will assess important facts left out of Forrest’s article, especially regarding research and testing of ID;

In Part 9, I will respond to Forrest’s discussion of the Kitzmiller decision’s treatment of issues of intelligent design and peer reviewed publications.

In Part 10, I discuss Forrest's misplaced praise of Judge Jones.

Stay tuned for the rest of the series!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If you want to watch John West and I speaking about the Kitzmiller decision on C-SPAN-2's Book-TV, it is now online in Real Player format, here. Unfortunately, the video is pretty low-resolution, but the audio comes through very well.

John West makes an interesting point that since the Kitzmiller decision, Judge Jones has engaged in a number of speaking engagements, including one where he stated that as a judge, he is guided by the belief that "true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible.” Here's the whole statement as recorded in the transcript of the commencement address:

The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. At bottom then, this core set of beliefs led the Founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state. As I hope that you can see, these precepts and beliefs, grounded in my liberal arts education, guide me each day as a federal trial judge.

(Judge John E. Jones III, Dickinson College Commencement Address, May 19-21, 2006) (emphasis added))

Judge Jones's publicly stated opinion about "true religion" squares nicely with his statement in Kitzmiller that it is "utterly false" to believe that "evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being," because he accepted the plaintiffs testimony that "the theory of evolution ... in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator." Here's the full statement from the ruling:

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

(Kitzmiller v. Dover Ruling, online version, pg. 136)

These are inappropriate words for any court to make under our First Amendment. And you should agree with me regardless of whether you believe that religion can be compatible with evolution:

Rule #1 of American First Amendment law is that the government never passes judgment on an issue in the context of whether that claim falsifies a person's religious belief. Many people have the religious view that evolution "is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being." Yet Judge Jones promoted pro-evolution-only-theology by writing that this particular religious view is "utterly false."

There’s a famous quote from an old case where the Supreme Court gives clear reasoning why judicial statements like that of Judge Jones are so dangerous to religious freedom:

The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect. ... Freedom of thought, which includes freedom of religious belief, is basic in a society of free men. It embraces the right to maintain theories of life and of death and of the hereafter which are rank heresy to followers of the orthodox faiths. Heresy trials are foreign to our Constitution. Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. “Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others. Yet the fact that they may be beyond the ken of mortals does not mean that they can be made suspect before the law. ... The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position.

(U.S. v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, at 86–7 (1944) (internal citations omitted))

For more details, watch the Traipsing Into Evolution Book Event on C-SPAN 2's Book TV!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:55 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Seth Cooper and Leonard Brown have published an article entitled, "A Textbook Case of Judicial Activism: How a Pro-ID Publisher Was Denied its Day in Court," which describes how the publisher of the textbook Of Pandas and People, Foundation for Thought and Ethics (FTE), was denied the right to become a party to the Kitzmiller trial despite the fact that its intellectual property rights were implicated in the lawsuit.

As background, the right of a party to "intervene" in a lawsuit is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (a):

(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: (1) when a statute of the United States confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.

The Kitzmiller complaint alleged that Of Pandas and People promoted an unconstitutional viewpoint which is "inherently religious," and that it was published by FTE, a "Christian think-tank." FTE, its textbook, and its textbook authors were all implicated in the complaint--and it seems "the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest." Judge Jones felt that Dover would adequately represent FTE's interests, but did they, and how did the decision impact the rights of FTE? To learn more, read Cooper and Brown's entire article entitled, "A Textbook Case of Judicial Activism: How a Pro-ID Publisher Was Denied its Day in Court."

(And stay tuned for the ID The Future Podcast interview with Seth Cooper discussing the article!)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

For those with cable or satellite TV reception, the documentary “Darwin’s Deadly Legacy”, airing on various stations across the country this Saturday and Sunday, has kicked up a fuss that should spark public interest and viewership.

We have no idea whether the program is well done or not, but we do notice—like “Joy” at TelicThoughts—that Darwinists are displaying an unseemly interest in hiding from the historically undeniable connections that link the eugenics movement that Darwin’s supporters—including family members--organized in the 19th century (followed eagerly by Ernst Haeckel in Germany) to the US eugenics laws of the past century, then Hitler’s murder of handicapped people and “inferior” races, and then the new eugenics movement of our time.

CSC Fellow Richard Weikart’s excellent book, From Darwin to Hitler (2004), is a careful and nuanced account. It does not try to blame or point fingers. Darwin didn’t “cause”, let alone will Hitler. But Weikart (interviewed for the program), a professor at California State, Stanislaus, does tell the true history and any serious critic should start by recognizing the facts he marshals.

As for the TV documentary, we’ll see.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 1:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, The Daily of the University of Washington ran two pieces concerning ID. The first was a surprisingly straightforward and neutral news article about UW scientists who had signed the Dissent from Darwin list, while the second was a knee-jerk reaction more typical of an alternative weekly than an award-winning college paper.

In the objective article, news reporter Zack Barnett-Howell did a decent job of presenting different sides of an argument, including differing levels of support for ID from the signatory scientists to the dissent list. (The Dissent from Darwin list is for those skeptical of Darwin's theory and is not about ID.) This is the most refreshing aspect of Barnett-Howell’s piece, that any reporter in Seattle, student or not, would have the objectivity to allow ID proponents to speak for themselves.

The Daily's editorial staff must not have read Barnett-Howell’s article, because in that same issue they lambaste a local politician for claiming to be a moderate while “defaulting to the ‘teaching the controversy’ view.”

Interestingly, the editorial argues that public opinion has no credence, while consensus views by the scientific elite should go unchallenged.

Science isn’t determined by a public vote, so scientifically speaking, “the controversy” is irrelevant.

Even if 99 percent of Americans refused to believe in evolution, it would still be the dominant theory on a scientific basis.

While it may be said that the belief of the public does not make something true, the rule should apply to science as well. The fact that the Darwinian account is a majority viewpoint does not make it true. Truth needs to be perceived from the evidence.

What the editorial staff doesn’t understand (and the news department might be open to) is that the truly moderate position is to teach the controversy.

Posted by Anika Smith at 4:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Discovery Institute's book party for A Meaningful World was yesterday, where Benjamin Wiker and I spoke to an overflow crowd (albeit in a small conference room) about the evidence for meaning and purpose in the world. The new website for the book is here.

This morning a colleague from Grand Rapids, Jay Richards, forwarded a link to a song that we can use for the book's theme song when they finally make it into a Hollywood blockbuster starring Jimmy Stewart: Five for Fighting's "Reason for the World."

The song's meaning is couched in metaphor, but the point is clear: we're a small part of a vast universe, but the arts (Dylan) and the sciences (eclipses) strongly suggest that we're here for a reason. That's the same case Wiker and I make in the 257 pages of A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature. The book is currently back ordered at Amazon, but more are on the way. You can also order it immediately from IVP.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 11:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Saturday, August 26th at 7pm EST C-SPAN's BookTV will air "Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision", featuring two of the book's authors, John West and Casey Luskin. The program will air again Sunday, August 27th at 6:30am EST and Monday, August 28 at 12:00am EST.

The featured event was held at Discovery Institute's office in Washington D.C. for Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision, the first book-length critique of Judge John E. Jones's ruling in the Kitzmiller case, the first court case to assess the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design. The event, held at Discovery Institute's office in Washington, D.C., was full, (as was a similar one in Seattle at Discovery's headquarters). Attendees learned about problems with the ruling in Kitzmiller.

Below is a description of the event from the Book-TV website describing the presentation by John West and "Mr. Casey."

Description: John West and Casey Luskin respond to Judge John Jones's written decision in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. The case was a challenge to the Dover, Pennsylvania school board's decision to make students aware of the theory of intelligent design. Judge Jones ruled that the board's policy violated the Constitution because intelligent design amounts to little more than a religious theory. Mr. West and Mr. Casey review the case and argue that the theory of intelligent design is based on science not religion, and that proponents of intelligent design want to challenge the teaching of evolution on scientific grounds not religious ones. This event was hosted by the Discovery Institute in Washington, DC.

(West Presentation)	(West Presentation)	(Luskin Presentation)
(Panel Discussion)	(Panel Discussion)	(Luskin presentation)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:47 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last December I addressed the point that "Darwinists" are wrong to allege that ID-proponents invented terms such as "Darwinist" or "Darwinism." (See Busting Another Darwinist Myth: We’d love to take credit for "Darwinism," but we can't.) This post was prompted after E.O. Wilson said in Newsweek that "[s]cientists ... don’t call it Darwinism," implying that if you use the term "Darwinism" then you aren't a scientist. But on Sunday, Denyse O'Leary posted an excellent article documenting multiple usages of the term "Darwinist" or "Darwinism" by, well, leading Darwinist scientists like Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, and H. Allen Orr. See Darwinism/Darwinist: Now a term of reproach? at Post-Darwinist blog for the full article!

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwinismdarwinist-now-term-of.html

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Pope Benedict XVI has replaced an evangelizing Darwinist, Dr. George Coyne, as director the Vatican Observatory, according to Zenit News. A Jesuit with a doctorate in astronomy, Dr. Coyne in recent years made himself the public scourge of Darwin critics and scientific proponents of intelligent design. Increasingly his theology resembled that of "process theologians" who believe that God is still learning and could not have known what his world was becoming.

While media tended to avoid the pro-design statements of the pope over the past year (see "Is the Pope Catholic?"), they frequently sited the hostile remarks of Dr. Coyne, sitting at his office at the University of Arizona, as supposedly representing those of "the Vatican." That could not have been well-received at the Vatican in Rome. Rumors that Coyne might be replaced have circulated for months.

In the past year since he criticized the pro-design essay of Austrian Cardinal Schoenborn in the NY Times, Dr. Coyne has been feted at a number of unlikely gatherings where his job was to express Church support for Darwinism. At a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Coyne pronounced in favor of a "fertile universe" where "chance and destiny embrace." The notes handed out for a talk given by Coyne by that title state:

If we take the results of modern science seriously, it is difficult to believe that God is omnipotent and omniscient in the sense of the scholastic philosophers. Science tells us of a god who must be very different from God as seen by the medieval philosophers and theologians. Let us ask the hard question. Could, for instance, God after a billion years in a fourteen billion year old universe have predicted that human life would come to be? Let us suppose that God possessed the theory of everything, knew all the laws of physics, all the fundamental forces. Even then could God know with certainty that human life would come to be? If we truly accept the scientific view that, in addition to necessary processes and the immense opportunities offered by the universe, there are also chance processes, then it would appear that not even God could know the outcome with certainty. God cannot know what is not knowable.

(The Dance of the Fertile Universe by George V. Coyne, S.J.)

However, what even Fr. Coyne himself apparently could not know is that the Catholic Church, while endlessly tolerant of theological deviations these days, can't really have someone whose views contradict those of the Church representing himself around the world as "the Vatican."

The new director of the Vatican Observatory is Dr. Jose Gabriel Funes, also an astronomer and a Jesuit--an Argentine rather than an Arizonan like Fr. Coyne.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 7:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Discovery Institute has been producing the ID The Future Podcast for a few months, and already iTunes listeners are giving it rave reviews. What follows is a brief highlight of the reviews and some brief commentary to thank the reviewers:

Comment by SeanG:

"A timely and well needed podcast that will foster dialogue and knowledge of what a large portion of the American public believe. I have many political, philosophical and scientific "blurbs" on my I-Pod, and this new addition to the scientific/philosophical debate by the many fine doctorate holding professors and research scientists at the Discovery Institute will do nothing but add clarity to an issue that demands such. Many of the issues found herein are merely current ruminations of a chain of thought going all the way back to Plato and others. This is rarely addressed by the critics."

Response: Thanks, Sean, for the kind words about the podcast! Sean is absolutely right that the whole ID-debate goes back to the Greek and Roman philosophers–not just to Aquinas and Paley, as in the Kitzmiller version of history. He's also right that the podcast has interviews with scientists and other scholars who are Discovery Fellows.

Comment by Anonymous:

"These podcasts are to-the-point, informative, and well-made...Exactly what I'm looking for. I hear they might start posting longer podcasts, for those who have the time and want more in-depth info on intelligent design."

Response: Thanks to the anonymous commenter for the kind words – we'll try to make them longer, but we're very busy with many projects and it takes a lot of work just to synthesize what's already there.

Comment by neutrin...

"Interesting how the Discovery Institute hasn't yet done a show about its infamous 'wedge document.'''

Response: That's a great idea – stay tuned, and maybe we'll cover it! In truth, we’ve responded to the conspiracy claims already – see The "Wedge Document": So What?.

Comment by ShaneP:

"interesting discussion but where is the real peer-reviewed science applied ... This podcast is just discussion based on opinion and beliefs, not reality."

Response: Well, there is plenty of peer-reviewed literature that supports ID-claims (see here for some examples). This postmodern critique of our podcast could easily apply to any viewpoint held by anyone. But regardless of what ShaneP thinks of our "opinions" on the subject, the facts speak for themselves. The cell still contains billions of bits of specified and complex information, something which, in our experience, only comes from intelligence. If you need to pierce through the hype and learn about intelligent design, then check out the ID the Future Podcast. The Podcast is just the sort of tool independent-thinking people rely on to judge the truth for themselves.

Comment by Nate123:

"Intelligent Design (creationism) is NOT science, it is a Christian fundamentalist religion"

Response: I wonder what Antony Flew would think about that statement? Such comments make it appropriate to end with an interesting comment titled "Heresy" by someone going by the name of "bohemianlikeyou":

"Pay no attention to the negative reviews - most haven't listened to the podcasts. This is a great podcast by those committed to the scientific principles of observation and going where the evidence leads...Current, scientifically solid, and fascinating. Detractors would love to dismiss I.D. as "Creationism" because they have no credible replies to challenges of I.D. ... Those who ignore the message of I.D. and choose instead to insult the messengers will have about the same success as those who initially labeled rock and roll nothing but a "Negro fad."

And don't forget to check out the ID The Future Podcast!

[edited for clarity and grammatical mistakes immediately after posting.]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Maybe the most fascinating part of Derbyshire’s article is the candor with which he evaluates the strength of Gilder’s arguments. Derbyshire states clearly that “[Gilder’s metaphysic] refutes evolution, which has high-information-bearing substrates arising out of low-information-bearing ones… [and] As metaphysics go, [Gilder’s is] a pretty good schema... a good metaphysic for our age…” Thus it seems that Derbyshire affirms one of Gilder's central points!

In an attempt to not sell the entire farm, Derbyshire assures his fellow naturalists that we are “getting along just fine… discovering new things about the world, pushing the wheel of knowledge forward a few inches every year.” But Darwinist biologist Franklin M. Harold wrote that while “[w]e should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution for intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity” we “must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” (from The Way of the Cell, pg. 205 (2001)) It sounds like Derbyshire’s team is still stuck behind the 20 yard line, and they reject ID a priori on philosophical grounds. The main difference between Derbyshire and Franklin Harold is that Harold honestly acknowledges the reality of the long distance his team has to go.

But what does philosophy say? Have developments in philosophy reinforced the foundations of naturalism? Unfortunately for Derbyshire, the facts seem to be saying just the opposite. As Quentin Smith points out, “the vast majority of naturalist philosophers have come to hold (since the late 1960s) an unjustified belief in naturalism. Their justifications have been defeated by arguments developed by theistic philosophers, and now naturalist philosophers, for the most part, live in darkness about the justification of naturalism.” (Smith, "The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism”)

Derbyshire's Taunts
Derbyshire taunts George Gilder with some questions. First Derbyshire asks, “If, five years from now, one of these innumerable teams of researchers develops a really good computer simulation of protein synthesis, will George discard that metaphysic of his, that told him it couldn't be done?”

Yet a retired Microsoft software architect we consulted wrote us the following on this point:

The factual data is on George's side. There are two fundamental problems that made it very unlikely we'll ever successfully model protein folding and interaction (which Derbyshire somewhat misleadingly calls "protein synthesis"): First, the shear amount of data is overwhelming. You need to capture the physical state, including charge, location, etc., of every atom to properly model the protein. Even a simulation that captures molecule data still has its work cut out for it. Then you must factor into the model the properties of the surrounding material - these things don't live in a vacuum. We know that our computers are reaching their computational limits of sorts - sure we'll get faster and we'll solve ever larger problems through "farms" of machines (much like Google) - but the attributes of folding and interaction may not (do not?) fit well on those systems. It will be, at least, quite a while before we can hope to model this. Second, I suspect the system is chaotic; meaning that truly predicting behavior will require precisely knowing the state of all the variables (and here physics has something to say about how well we can know things) and then running it exactly. Why? Chaotic systems are inherently unpredictable because even small variations in the assumed initial conditions can have a dramatic effect on the final result - we might have models, but they'll likely be quite wrong.

Lastly, George's argument is not about what present computer science can model, it's about the origin of information. Even if we successfully model protein folding and interaction, how does that explain the information system producing the proteins? This is no haphazard system. It's ordered, contains distributed (meaning not present in just the DNA) error correction and construction, it includes system- level feedback and control systems; we're not talking about a bunch of Lego blocks. This is serious stuff. More serious than any program I've seen to date.

Derbyshire taunts Gilder with another challenge, saying, "'Go back to your Institute, hire some bright new researchers, teach them your metaphysics and your new methodology, buy them some computers and lab equipment, and let them loose to do some science. When they've got testable theories and reproducible results, I'll pay attention. Until then, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my own lab.' What would you say to this guy, George?"

Derbyshire may taunt Gilder, but what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander: If a really good simulation could dispel George's ideas, then what kind of simulation might disprove Derbyshire's assertions? If a simulation could clearly demonstrate the inability for evolution to create new information, would Derbyshire give? Perhaps time will tell.

No Political Magazine Can Serve Two Masters
Finally, there is irony in how Derbyshire laud’s Judge Jones’s opinion about intelligent design. Derbyshire writes that “Kitzmiller case demonstrated, to courtroom standards of evidence, that I.D. is a species of Creationism. That’s good enough for me.” Since when did National Review, of all magazines, start genuflecting before federal judges?

Surely they criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for deciding large social issues in cases like Roe v. Wade—so why does Derbyshire now cite everything Judge Jones says about intelligent design, the nature of science, and evolutionary theology, as if it is holy writ? Yet Derbyshire is content to cite Judge Jones as the final answer on the philosophy and science of intelligent design: “Judge Jones Said it, I belive it, That Settle’s It.” But there is another side to the story of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case.

Derbyshire's technique seems to be learn a little science, accept only the pro-Darwin viewpoint, and then use all kind of invectives and snide comments against scientific skeptics of evolution to dismiss their viewpoint as religion. Fortunately the reader of National Review knows George Gilder’s scientific experience and reputation in technology well enough that they will recognize Derbyshire’s flustering.

This series of post was co-authored by:

Joe Manzari, research assistant at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.

Casey Luskin, Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs with the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:14 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Understanding Evolution," a website promoting pro-Darwin-only science / theology for usage in schools, has a page entitled "Direct Interference with Teaching and Learning," which lists "[t]actics used to disrupt or interrupt the teaching of evolution in the classroom" (emphasis added). With a title and description like that, I was expecting to read about sinister tactics that I would never support. I would be the last person to endorse interruptive, disruptive, or otherwise rude behavior towards any teacher, regardless of what is being taught or regardless of students' views of the subject matter. So I visited the page, where I found the following "disruptive" and "interruptive" tactics:

(1) "Opting out"

Now I would encourage everyone to learn as much about evolution as they possibly can. In fact, that's what I did in school, which is why I tried to take as many classes at the college level on evolution as I could. I wouldn't encourage people to "opt out" of learning about anything, much less a fascinating subject like evolution. But I would hardly label "opting out" of class time on evolution a "[t]acti[c] used to disrupt or interrupt the teaching of evolution."

The second "tactic" is even more incredible:

(2) "Ten Questions to ask your biology teacher

These are a series of misleading questions based on some of the antievolutionary claims by Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution."

Of course, this "tactic" is referring to the ten questions which Jonathan Wells lists here as questions which students can ask teachers about common inaccurate or incomplete discussions of evolution in biology textbooks. I suppose this Darwinist website feels it is disruptive for inquiring minds to ask questions like these (all taken from Wells's Ten Questions):

Q. "Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry – even though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked?" For example, see:

(Evolutionary Biology by Douglas J. Futuyma, (3rd ed., 1998, Sinauer Associates), pg. 653.)
Click graphic above for enlarged version.

Q. "Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life's building blocks may have formed on the early Earth – when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a mystery?" For example, see:

(Biology by Burton S. Guttman, (1999, McGraw Hill), pg. 653.)
Click graphic above for enlarged version.

Q. "Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds -- even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?" For example, see:

(Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life by Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, (1998, Wadsworth), pg. 278.)
Click graphic above for enlarged version.

(All quotes from Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution)

So now politely asking these hard questions about textbook discussions of evolution apparently is classified as a "disruptive" or "interruptive" "tactic"? And guess where the visitor is led to handle this "disruptive" and "interruptive" "tactic" of students asking hard questions about material in their textbooks? They're sent to Responses to Jonathan Wells's Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher on the NCSE website!

So Darwinists believe that it is "interruptive" or "disruptive" for students to point out that the diagrams of embryo drawings were fraudulent, that the Miller-Urey experiment was irrelevant to the atmospheric chemistry happening on the early earth, or that there is a lot more to the Archaeopteryx story than is told in the textbook? Does this website really help students in their "understanding evolution?"

By labeling "opting out" and asking these hard questions "disruptive" or "interruptive" "tactics," it seems that this website has one goal: require the students to be glued to their chairs with their mouths shut while they hear only pro-evolution science and theology.

...If you have such a dangerously, disruptively inquiring mind, be sure to read Wells's response to the NCSE at Inherit The Spin: Darwinists Answer “Ten Questions” with Evasions and Falsehoods.

[This page, including its title, were edited a within 2 hours after posting for clarification and grammar.]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Joe Manzari and Casey Luskin

John Derbyshire claims that modern biology is built on evolution. He says that “Creationists seem not to be aware of how central evolution is to modern biology. Without it, nothing makes sense… Speciation via evolution underpins all of modern biology, both pure and applied.” However, in 2001, A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, made it clear that “evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.”

Apparently Derbyshire sees things differently from Wilkins, claiming that evolution is vital for "such things as new cures for diseases and genetic defects, new crops." Yet Wilkins' sentiment was re-affirmed in 2005 by Philip Skell, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, who when commenting on Wilkins statement wrote “I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming’s discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin’s theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.”

Keeping the Baby, Throwing Out the Bathwater
But Derbyshire misrepresents the view of ID-proponents, implying that they reject all of evolution, including the useful stuff about how insects can become resistant to pesticides or bacteria resistant to antibiotics. He insinuates that ID proponents "say to biologists: 'Look, I want you to drop all this nonsense about evolution and listen to me,'" and compares their view to "walking into a room full of pilots and aeronautical engineers and telling them that classical aerodynamics is all hogwash." This false comparison misrepresents the views of ID proponents, who accept much of modern evolutionary theory. ID proponents fully recognize that natural selection can produce many small-scale changes but simply question if evidence for such changes can be extrapolated to account for all of life's complexity. Did Derbyshire misrepresent the nature of the ID-argument?

Overblown Claims of Human Origins
Derbyshire makes some grand claims about the alleged evidence for human evolution. Derbyshire writes:

We have known a good deal about human origins for a long time, from researches in archeology and zoology. Darwin himself wrote a book on the topic back in 1871. Now, with the tools of modern genomics at our disposal, we are finding out much, much more. None of this would be possible, none of it would make any sense, if speciation by evolution were not the case.

(John Derbyshire in George Gilder, Metaphysic)

Derbyshire makes great claims. But does the evidence validate his claims? Consider these quotes from scientific reviewers of the state of the fossil evidence for human origins:

"The field of paleoanthropology naturally excites interest because of our own interest in origins. And, because conclusions of emotional significance to many must be drawn from extremely paltry evidence, it is often difficult to separate the personal from the scientific disputes raging in the field.

[...]

The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man's evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages. Conflicts tend to last longer because it is so difficult to find conclusive evidence to send a theory packing."

(Constance Holden, "The Politics of Paleoanthropology," Science, p.737 (August 14, 1981).)

So sparse and difficult to interpret is the data that in the judgment of Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin, it is difficult to identify fossils that can be universally accepted as direct ancestors of the human species:

"When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor...The earliest forms that are recognized as being hominid are the famous fossils, associated with primitive stone tools, that were found by Mary and Louis Leakey in the Olduvai gorge and elsewhere in Africa. These fossil hominids lived more than 1.5 million years ago and had brains half the size of ours. They were certainly not members of our own species, and we have no idea whether they were even in our direct ancestral line or only in a parallel line of descent resembling our direct ancestor."

(Lewontin, Richard C., Human Diversity, Scientific American Library: New York NY, 1995, p.163)

Derbyshire lauds the genomic data, but the reality is that molecular data for primate systematics often conflicts with morphological data. In some cases, genomic data has cloudened our picture of primate “evolutionary relationships:”

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Trisha Gura, "Bones, molecules…or both?," Nature Vol 406:230-233, copyright 2000.

The figure above shows that the morphological tree conflicts with the molecular tree for primates. This is very common in molecular biology, to the extent that one paper in Journal of Molecular Evolution wrote, “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.” Is genomics really giving us a clearer picture of evolution?

Intelligent design and Human Origins
Finally, Derbyshire claims that an ID-based approach to human origins would be a fruitless endeavor. He makes a science-stopping argument, contending that “[a] research program in paleoanthropology premised on the idea that speciation by evolution is not the case, would have nowhere to go, nothing to do, and nothing to tell us.” Derbyshire's statement is a wonderful example of assuming the truth of your own argument.

Derbyshire continues, saying that because his own imagination cannot figure out how science can proceed without Neo-Darwinism, it’s pointless to try to explore human origins under the ID-paradigm: “It is hard to see how any such program would be possible; though if George will tell me, I’ll be glad to broadcast his idea.”

Derbyshire's science-stopping view reveals that he is not familiar with ID-literature. An ID-based research program in paleoanthropology is most certainly possible, and has been suggested. In fact, one can glean such research programs based upon articles one of us has published in the pro-ID journal Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID). One article explains that we can develop models for what we’ll expect to find in the fossil record if the genus Homo was designed:

"Intelligent agents can rapidly infuse large amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, reflected in the fossil record as the abrupt appearance of novel fossil forms without similar precursors. These designed "basic types" may undergo limited genetic change, diversifying into similar species belonging to the same basic type clade. Paleoanthropological studies reveal that early hominids appear suddenly, without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominoids."

(Casey Luskin, "Human Origins and Intelligent Design," PCID, Vol 4.1 (July, 2005))

This paper thus puts forth a model with testable predictions about what we should find in the fossil record if the genus Homo was designed distinctly from other hominoids.

In another article, paleoanthropologist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer has applied such a model to ID and paleoanthropology. She explains that her own research reveals that "[i]t is difficult to accept an evolutionary sequence in which Homo habilis, with apelike limb proporitions and possibly apelike locomotor adaptations, is intermediate between Australopithecus afarensis, with more humanlike porpoirtions and a certain kind of bipedality, and fully bipedal Homo erectus." Rather, she favors the hypothesis that the genus Homo was designed, and that its subspecies H. ergaster/erectus, H. sapiens, and H. neanderthalensis, are best explained by "effects of size variation, climatic stress, genetic derift, and differential expression of genes hidden in the (genetically polyvalent?) ancestral form." (See S. Hartwig-Scherer, "Apes or Ancestors? Interpretations of the Hominid Fossil Record Within Evolutionary & Basic Type Biology," Mere Creation, edited by William A. Dembski, pgs. 212-235 (InterVarsity Press, 1998).)

Derbyshire confidentally asserts that only evolution can yield insights into human origins. Has Derbyshire ever checked out any of these references or was he making incorrect statements about ID and human origins?

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:06 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

LiveScience is one of the premier science news sites on the internet. Thus, I found it funny that its “Evolution” page is largely devoted to discussing (their perception of) intelligent design. The title of the page is “All About Evolution and Intelligent Design.” Since it is "All" about evolution and ID, let's see how the articles break down.

With a quick glance of their "Featured Evolution Stories," here’s the tally: 43 pro-evolution articles, 9 anti-intelligent design articles, 0 pro-ID articles, 0 anti-evolution articles, 2 neutral articles, and 1 that horribly misconstrues ID. Hmmm.... Reminds one of Linda Richman from Saturday Night Live's "Coffee Talk" sketch: Just as Rhode Island is neither a road nor an island, "All About Evolution and Intelligent Design" is neither all about evolution, nor is is it all about intelligent design. I'm a little verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.

Posted by Logan Gage at 1:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Bruce Gordon and David Berlinski asked me to post this second brief response to James Downard. It is regarding James Downard's response to Ann Coulter (Mr. Downard's current 3 responses to Coulter can be found here, here, and here).

Gordon and Berlinski's response is posted here in full. It can also be read as a PDF.

Anticipatory Erudition

Contra James Downard at Talk Reason

A further comment on Downard’s diatribes from Bruce Gordon & David Berlinski

Of James Downard’s recent essays on Talk Reason, one can only paraphrase Dr. Johnson’s comment about Milton’s Paradise Lost: None would wish them longer. David Berlinski has posted one response to Downard’s critique (“The Vampire’s Heart”). In prescient fashion, Jonathan Wells treated Downard’s complaints about homeotic genes long before Downard’s misdiagnosis of their significance. Wells’ anticipatory erudition, most evident in a 1998 essay entitled “Unseating Naturalism: Recent Insights from Developmental Biology” (in W. A. Dembski, ed., Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Downers Grove: IVP, pp. 51-70, see esp. pp. 53-58), empties the air from Downard’s over-inflated balloon rather quickly.

It is worth quoting Wells at length:

As homeotic genes turn out to be more and more universal, the control they exercise in development turns out to be less and less specific…. [T]he universality of homeotic genes is supposed to be due to their presence in a common ancestor, but the preponderance of the evidence suggests that the common ancestor lacked the features that those homeotic genes now supposedly control. From a Darwinian perspective this is a serious problem. According to neo-Darwinism complex gene sequences gradually evolve by conferring selective advantages on the organisms that possess them. But gene sequences confer selective advantages only if they program the development of useful adaptations. If a primitive animal possessed homeotic genes but lacked all of the adaptations now associated with them, then those genes must have originated prior to these adaptations. How then, did homeotic genes evolve?

On recalling to mind what Wells had already said, James Downard will, no doubt, find reason to extend his polemical posturing to lengths rivaling War and Peace.

It is odd that a scientific position so widely claimed to be beyond dispute should not be beyond disputing – one reason, of course, to think that it is not beyond dispute at all.

(PDF)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

(Photo by Barton Grover Howe)

Before you infer intelligent design, keep in mind that grass-cutting shears share an extremely high similarity with scissors which are used to cut paper. Since a paper stencil was apparently used in the origination of the grass-pattern, it’s likely that a pair of scissors was used to cut the stencil. This makes it plausible to assume that the grass-cutting shears were co-opted from scissors, because both are clearly homologous structures based upon their similarity. Moreover, paper is made of plant material, and grass a plant. This could account for the origin of the stencil itself. Finally, Virginia has metal resources which could account for the origin of the original scissors. Don’t use a science-stopping explanation and infer design! We’re “on our way” to figuring this out, so don’t threaten the progress of science, medicine, and all of civilization by saying this was designed! You might as well reject round earth "theory" and the Periodic Table!

...but if you want to know about what really happened, see "Mona Lisa smile" by Barton Grover Howe (Newport News-Times)

(Note: because my parodies on this site have been misconstrued before by critics, I am forced to state what I would hope is obvious: the paragraph beginning with the words "Before you infer design" is a parody.)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 4:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Has a pathway been demonstrated for the evolution of the eye? Today David Berlinski asked me to post his first response to James Downard. It is regarding Mr. Downard's response to Ann Coulter (the first 3 of which are found here, here, and here).

Berlinski's response to Mr. Downard is a fascinating read, and I wholeheartedly agree with Berlinski when he reminds everyone that "evidence, like courtesy, must be displayed if it is to be believed." Be sure to read the full response as well (the full version of The Vampire's Heart has a technical response to Mr. Downard regarding the evolution of the eye).

The Vampire’s Heart

David Berlinski

1) James Downard has recently posted a critique of Ann Coulter’s Godless to Talk Reason. Entitled ‘Secondary Addiction,’ it is an exercise remarkable both in its indignation and the length required fully to express it.

Although it is Ann Coulter’s book that is under discussion, I note that it is my views that from time to time are under attack.

“Berlinski is a special case,” Downard writes (addressing readers of Talk Reason). “I happen to know that he is theoretically aware of much of the information you are about to read. And the reason I know this is because, a few years ago, I sent it to him -- at his specific request. That none of these data filtered through to Coulter suggests two pedagogical possibilities (not mutually exclusive): that Berlinski has no skill at retaining or communicating relevant subject matter, and Coulter is one pretty dull student.”

Now these, I must observe, are uncharitable remarks, the more so since they divulge part of a private correspondence without ever indicating the whole. As it happens, I did read James Downard’s unpublished manuscript, and I thought that if edited it could very easily become a commendable contribution to the literature. I have not in any way changed my opinion. Downard and I worked together toward this end for six months. As an MIT author, I then asked the MIT Press for an expedited reading. The manuscript was turned down, and turned down again at the Princeton University Press. I showed the manuscript to my New York publishers, only to be told – reasonably, I think – that its commercial prospects were negligible. I also asked contributors to Talk Reason for help in placing the manuscript. I received no response.

With these facts in mind, I am minded to observe that James Downard thought rather more of my “skill at retaining or communicating relevant subject matter,” when he believed that he might derive some benefit from my acquaintance than he does now.

2) Having on a number of occasions driven a stake through the heart of Nilsson & Pelger’s well-known essay about the formation of the eye, I have recently been alarmed by twitches in the resulting corpse, most obviously in Downard’s essay.¹

This note will thus serve as a follow-up stake.

The facts: Nilsson & Pelger’s study, which was widely considered a computer simulation, contained no computer simulation whatsoever. It contained, in fact, no computer analysis at all, perhaps because it contained no analysis at all. It was Richard Dawkins who conveyed the widespread impression to the contrary, writing about a computer simulation that did not exist with the excitement of a man persuaded that he had seen a digital vision. As, indeed, he had. Commentators at the time came to Dawkins defense with a gratifyingly prompt display of personal generosity, so that what was, in fact, a complete fabrication took on the aspects of an understandable but trivial error. Any man, after all, might mistake nothing for something.

James Downard is now prepared to accommodate the obvious: “True, a ‘computer’ wasn’t involved in these calculations,” he writes, “so let’s all slap Richie Dawkins for being a bad student.”

Now I yield to no man in my eagerness to see Richard Dawkins slapped, but Downard’s remark, although true in essence, is also both misleading and tasteless.

Misleading because: 1 it suggests by means of scare quotes that the word computer has been given an unusual denotation; and 2 because the issue at hand is not a computer calculation but a computer simulation; and 3 because fabricating data is hardly a schoolboy error, like flubbing the declension of a Latin verb.

And tasteless because: So long as my fingers are hovering over the keyboard, Richard Dawkins is and will remain Richard Dawkins.

In my original essay, I drew attention to the fact that Nilsson & Pelger’s study contained no defense whatsoever of its chief assertion, namely that 1829 steps are required to transform a light-sensitive patch into a functioning eye:

Moreover, Nilsson and Pelger do not calculate the “visual acuity” of any structure, and certainly not over the full 1,829 steps of their sequence. They suggest that various calculations have been made, but they do not show how they were made or tell us where they might be found. At the very best, they have made such calculations for a handful of data points, and then joined those points by a continuous curve.

The calculations to which Nilsson & Pelger appeal are neither in their paper, nor in their footnotes, nor in a technical appendix, nor are they available on their website. In the twelve years since their paper was published, they have never appeared in any public forum.

In responding to my observation – no data, no evidence, no calculations, and thus no reason to assent – James Downard has now managed inadvertently to confirm the alarming currency of Dawkins’ urban legend: “When I wrote Nilsson to check up on these matters, I did ask about his data set, and he readily supplied a neat summary of the ten variables involved in the simulation and the stages of their acquisition,” (emphasis added).

It is a great merit of Nilsson & Pelger’s study that based as it is on a non-existent simulation, it can be defended on that basis as well.

Downard is nonetheless still persuaded that had I pursued the matter more diligently, I might have discovered at least the raw data missing from Nilsson & Pelger’s original paper. “I confirmed with Nilsson that Berlinski had never even bothered to request the original data summary, let alone establish that there was anything biologically unjustifiable about it.”²

This is correct. I never bothered. If James Downard were to claim possession of a flying pig, it is presumably not my responsibility to inquire after the particulars. It is his responsibility to make those particulars plain. By the same token, serious scientists making an historically important claim have an obligation to publish their evidence, or in the age of the Internet, to make it publicly available on-line. This Nilsson and Pelger did not do, and this they have never done.

It is astonishing to me that in a long essay in which he affirms his own partiality to the methods of science, James Downard does not once consider the completely uncontroversial principle that evidence, like courtesy, must be displayed if it is to be believed.

Footnotes:
1. “A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for an Eye to Evolve,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, London B (1994) 256, 53-58, and hereinafter, Nilsson & Pelger. My critique, ‘A Scientific Scandal,’ together with the letters it elicited and my responses, may be found on the Discovery Institute website.

2. The data set that Downard claims to have received from Nilsson is reprinted in my appendix; it was posted originally on Talk Reason. Three obvious comments. Despite Downard’s claim that he is able to discern 1,829 steps in this list, I myself can see only 41, the missing steps swallowed in a grand etcetera. 2 The list describing these steps is incomprehensible. And 3, there is no indication at all as to how these steps were derived, or from what.

(...continued in full, here)

This was only part of Berlinski's response to Mr. Downard. Be sure to read the full complete response, The Vampire's Heart, where Berlinski gives technical analysis of Mr. Downard's claims.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Below is a review of Jonathan Wells's new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design I posted at Amazon.com:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design was a fun, quick read. I should state upfront that I work at the Discovery Institute, where the author Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow. I'm not getting paid extra to write this review--in fact it's late, I'm hungry, and I want to leave the office and go home as I write this. Nonetheless, I feel it's only fair for the sake of disclosure and honesty that I say who I am as a reviewer.

Jonathan Wells will get called a lot of names for writing this book. In fact, look at the other reviews---namecalling and personal attacks have already begun! But as Wells recounts in chapters 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 16, a number of pro-intelligent design faculty have been similarly persecuted because they were sympathetic to intelligent design (ID). So if you're a curious [...]browser wondering why critical reviewers engage in so much personal attack and namecalling against Jonathan Wells, you'll understand these tactics completely after you read the documentation in Well's book.

Wells starts off by defining the debate: the debate isn't about whether evolution (i.e. change through time) has occurred, and it doesn't center around the age of the earth. The debate about design in biology is over whether undirected natural selection acting upon random mutations has produced all of the complexity of life, or whether some aspects of life are best explained by intelligent causation.

So what is intelligent design? Wells explains that it isn't an argument from ignorance, it isn't an argument for God, it isn't an argument for perfection, and it isn't an argument against all forms of evolution. But it is an argument that some aspects of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. As Wells puts it, "[m]ost people who consider themselves ID advocates maintain not only that design is empirically detectable in the cosmos as a whole, but also that some features of the natural world (such as shapes of rocks at the base of a cliff) are not designed in the same sense that other features (such as the information in DNA) are designed." (pg. 9) Why does Marshall Berman therefore say ID "threatens all of science and society?" (pg. 7)

Let's also talk about honesty. Wells has a good discussion of the Cambrian explosion. Wells explains he believes this fossil evidence challenges Neo-Darwinism, while honestly and openly acknowledging that prominent paleontologists like James Valentine believe Neo-Darwinian theory can withstand the fossil evidence. Wells also concedes that claims from an old pro-ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" were overturned when scientists later discovered fossils cited to support the evolution of whales. Would a dishonest Darwin-critic make these concessions?

Wells does find some Darwinists making questionable claims. For example, the book recounts a fascinating incident about the documentary film Flock of Dodos. The film insinuates that Dr. Wells lied to claim that the fraudulent embryo drawings by the 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel still appear in modern biology textbooks. Wells writes that the film "claims Haeckel's embryos haven't appeared in biology textbooks since 1914." (pg. 28) Yet Wells also writes, "Yet [the film's producer, Randy] Olson knows that many recent textbooks do contain Haeckel's faked drawings." This is true, because many modern biology textbooks do contain Haeckel's embryo drawings.

Wells also exposes some false scientific claims by Darwinists. For example, the author of one of the textbooks I showed to Randy Olson also wrote "Molecular phylogenies support many of the relationships that have long been postulated from morphological data." Wells then recounts much data which shows otherwise, letting evolutionists speak for themselves about the contradictory data. A similar incident occurred when Darwinist scientist Gary Hurd told the Kansas State Board of Education that the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" "have no meaning outside of creationist polemics." (pg. 56) What's that again? Wells quotes numerous pro-Darwinian biologists discussing the meanings, and distinctions, between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Hardly "creationist polemics."

Finally Wells turns to intelligent design. Wells explains that ID is based upon positive evidence, because "[w]e observe in the present that intelligent agents can and do generate new information." (pg. 98) The inference to design is not an argument-from-ignorance, but an argument based upon our positive understanding of the information created when intelligent agents act. But is it science? Wells explains Darwinists criticisms "collaps[e] into a contradiction: ID isn't science because it isn't testable, and, besides, it has been tested and proven false." (pg. 140)

But Wells also reports the sad truth that some of these misrepresentations have had an impact upon law and education. One federal court judge in Georgia ruled that a disclaimer encouraging students to question evolution was unconstitutional due to the alleged religious motives of Darwin-critics. Yet Wells notes that a Darwinist educator in Ohio claimed that God guided her to remove "creationism" from the Ohio science standards!

If you're looking for a highly technical book, this isn't it. The "PIG" series is notoriously easy-to-read, and mainstream and so I have to admit that as someone with a science background, I would have loved more detail. If you're anyone seeking a book full of fascinating anecdotes and straight-talk about the debate over Darwinism and intelligent design, written by a credentialed biologist with enjoyable writing skills, this truly is the book for you.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Lawrence Krauss is at it again. His piece in today’s New York Times defends science from the creationists at the gates. How courageous. Krauss berates Steve Abrams, chairman of the Kansas board of education, for Abrams’s supposed creationist beliefs. But let’s take a moment to reflect on this.

As readers of this blog well know, the Kansas science standards do not call for teaching any alternative theory to Darwinian evolution, least of all young earth creationism. Rather, they call for critical analysis of evolution—i.e., making students aware of the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian theory as they are found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. For example, some mainstream scientists think four-winged fruit fly experiments are a good example of Darwinian evolution; other mainstream scientists do not. Instead of only learning about the former, the Kansas board of education thinks students should know both of these views. As this is a good, common sense policy to which the vast majority of Americans can agree, one should support it regardless of the individual beliefs of members of the Kansas board.

Frankly, I have no idea whether the Kansas board members who voted for the critical analysis policy are young earth creationists (YECs). But let’s assume for a minute that they are. So what? If they are YECs, then their restrained and sensible science standards are particularly admirable: as publicly elected officials, they tempered their desire to push their own position and rather put forward a common sense, middle-of-the-road public policy that stops at simply teaching students the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinism found in the mainstream scientific literature. We should applaud them for doing the right thing.

Krauss seems to think the board members are somehow disqualified by their (again, alleged) religious beliefs. But is that what we really want? Should someone not be able to hold public office because of her religious beliefs? Are only people who subscribe to Dr. Krauss’s approved list of religious beliefs qualified for public office? We should not care about the Kansas board’s religious beliefs. Instead we should care about the public policy they put forward. And on that front, Dr. Krauss does not even attempt an argument against teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. He is off in the corner by himself, albeit with a really big bullhorn, discussing young earth creationism that is not in the Kansas science standards.

Posted by Logan Gage at 6:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As a representative of Discovery Institute, I sent the following letter to The Seattle Times last week. It didn't appear there, so we're publishing it here.

Dear editor,

Tuesday’s editorial “Kansas Evolves” mischaracterized the science standards that Darwinists successfully opposed in the state’s August 1 primary. That’s no surprise since the Darwinists mischaracterized them in order to win the election. The standards, like those adopted in other states and supported by a three-to-one margin among U.S. voters, don't call for teaching intelligent design, much less religion. They call for schools to equip students to critically analyze modern evolutionary theory by teaching the evidence both for and against it.

For instance, many high-school biology textbooks have presented Haeckel's 19th century embryo drawings, the four-winged fruit fly, peppered moths hidden on tree trunks and the evolving beak of the Galapagos finch as knockdown evidence for Darwinian evolution. What they don't tell students is that these icons of evolution have been discredited, not by Christian fundamentalists but by mainstream biologists.

Opponents of the Kansas science standards don't want Kansas high-school students grappling with these facts. They argue that such problems aren't worth bothering with because Darwinism is supported by "overwhelming evidence." But if the evidence is overwhelming, why the campaign to mischaracterize the current standards and replace them with a plan to spoon-feed students Darwinian pabulum strained of uncooperative evidence?

Jonathan Witt, Ph.D.
Senior fellow, Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture

Fact checking sources:
Polling data
Peer-reviewed science articles highlighting significant weaknesses in Darwinian evolution (in most cases written by Darwinists)

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 8:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Joe Manzari and Casey Luskin

In 2001, the distinguished philosopher and naturalist Quentin Smith wrote a famous article entitled “The Metaphilosophy of Naturalism” for the prestigious philosophy journal Philo, of which he is the editor-in-chief. In his article, Smith lays out the scholastic climate of contemporary university philosophy departments. Smith explains that by the second half of the twentieth century, universities and colleges had become in the main secularized. This secularization, however, began to quickly unravel upon the publication of Alvin Plantinga’s influential book on realist theism, God and Other Minds, in 1967, and The Nature of Necessity seven years later. Smith reluctantly admits that almost overnight it became “academically respectable” to argue for theism as an influx of talented theists entered the field. A survey of the Oxford University Press catalogue for the year 2000-2001 makes this ultimately clear. Of the 96 books published on the philosophy of religion, 94 advanced theism and two presented “both sides.” Naturalists quickly found themselves to be a mere bare majority, with many of the leading thinkers in the various disciplines in philosophy, ranging from philosophy of science (Van Fraassen) to epistemology (Moser) being theists. Smith characterizes the naturalist philosopher’s current practice of ignoring theism as “a disastrous failure.” He concludes by stating that the naturalist philosopher’s pursuit of the cultural goal of mainstream secularization in academia has failed both philosophically and culturally. Smith concludes that “the philosophical failure has led to a cultural failure.”

In a recent issue of National Review, George Gilder—co-founder of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA—wrote a piece entitled “Evolution and Me” in which he argues that in light of the modern findings in physics, mathematics, computer science, and biology, scientists need to eschew naturalism and adopt a metaphysic that can make sense of the information and complexity we observe in nature. In response, the self described “pop-math author” and “point man against Creationists,” John Derbyshire then responded to Gilder with a piece on The Corner blog entitled “George Gilder, Metaphysic.” It is the prevalence of opinion pieces like Derbyshire’s that illustrate Smith’s conclusion that naturalistic philosophy is a philosophical and cultural failure. Derbyshire’s hand waiving dismissal of non-naturalistic philosophy exemplifies what Smith likened to a man “trying to halt a tidal wave with a hand-held sieve.”

Derbyshire: Fun-Filled Fallacies
The writings of Darwinists like Derbyshire remind one more of a sample sheet of logical fallacies because they are full of ad hominem attacks. This is most evident when he conflates ID-theorists with creationists in attacking Gilder:

It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again. This is why most biologists just can’t be bothered with Creationism at all, even for the fun of it. It isn’t actually any fun. Creationists just chase you round in circles. It’s boring. It would be less boring if they’d come up with a new argument once in a while, but they never do. I’ve been engaging with Creationists for a couple of years now, and I have yet to hear an argument younger than I am. (I am not young.) All Creationist arguments have been whacked down a thousand times, but they keep popping up again. Nowadays I just refer argumentative e-mailers to the TalkOrigins website, where any argument you are ever going to hear from a Creationist is whacked down several times over. Don’t think it’ll stop ’em, though.**

(John Derbyshire in George Gilder, Metaphysic)

While this mindset is disheartening to those desiring serious discussion of the scientific debate over ID and evolution, Salvador Cordova reminds us of the silver lining:

When the other side starts resorting to ad hominems, rather than engaging the arguments, it’s a sign they know we’re scoring points. I actually take this as a good sign!

(Salvador Cordova at the UncommonDescent blog, http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1273#comment-46090)

More to come soon in Parts II and III!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 4:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A short but unique little book entitled Getting Past the Culture Wars: Regarding Intelligent Design, by Glenn Shrom, contains some refreshing, and worthwhile thoughts about intelligent design (ID).

The author seems to "get" ID. His main point is that people should start focusing on the science and not get distracted about charges of creationism, personal beliefs about the identity of the designer, the "wedge document," etc. Having clearly followed the Kitzmiller v. Dover case closely, Shrom gives a commendable call to take the issue seriously as a science:

Too much has been made of intelligent design theory in our culture wars, because the press, the lawyers, the politicians, and the people love to sensationalize. They want a story with a lot of conflict. So when they talk about intelligent design in the press, they feel like they have to tell you what the theory implies, and not just what the theory is. They think they have to spell out who or what the designer is, even if it is just to say an "unknown force", instead of simply letting it go at the evidence of design ... Let us be sober-minded, patient, curious, polite, flexible, and welcoming in our scientific endeavors. Let's work together with honesty and integrity. (pg. 92-93)

Shrom immediately latches on to how cultural stereotypes affect how people perceive ID. He is also quick to explain that personal beliefs do not change the scientific evidence:

Whatever you think are the implications or apparent implications of intelligent design theory, these do not change the actual scientific evidence or scientific reasoning that Behe so thoroughly expounds in Darwin's Black Box. (pg. 28)

Shrom is also not afraid to talk about his own beliefs, but explains that when it comes to matters of science, "intelligent design theory says nothing about the creation or creator, and does not even imply that any supernatural exists." (pg. 33)

While I don't agree with everything Mr. Shrom says and feel that his theory of "intelligent DNA" is a bit weird, I wholeheartedly endorse the general spirit of the book. And Shrom deserves credit for his insight that if intelligent design is considered philosophy or religion then "so can Evolution be" (pg. 50) but for ultimately taking the position that both ID and evolution are scientific. I completely agree--both theories have equivalent status as historical scientific theories. I also agree with Shrom that neither should be banned from labs or classrooms. Shrom also enjoyably takes aim at various misdefinitions of intelligent design given by the press and the popular culture.

The book also has a good exposition of irreducible complexity, and a lively exchange with some Darwinists critics. The e-mail exchange is surely illustrative of many e-mail exchanges going on around the world between Darwinists and ID-proponents. (And I'm glad that Shrom reports he received permission to publish these e-mail exchanges.) Of interest is Shrom's defense of the irreducible complexity of the blood clotting cascade against arguments from critics such as Ken Miller.

In the end, this is not the most elegantly written book, but it has a wonderful message. Shrom's book is a call for people to take ID seriously as a science, and avoid the common assumptions and prejudices people bring to this debate. His book cuts against both sides, and he's not afraid to criticize design-proponents when they inappropriately bring metaphysical assumptions into this debate. Since Shrom himself is a design-proponent, I think this adds a lot of credibility to his book. More than anything, however, readers will find it a refreshing alternative to those certain types of ID-critics who base their arguments upon motive-mongering, ad hominem attacks, and other logical fallacies. Glenn Shrom gets ID, plain and simple.

Below is the book description from Amazon.com:

In "Getting Past the Culture Wars", the author appeals to both evolutionists and Creationists to drop their preconceived, visceral baggage and take a fresh look, with reaason and fair-mindedness, at the first approach. Such an enlightened vision is desirable for good education, good religion, good science, and good judicial rulings.

The author's hope is that this book will find its way into the minds of school board members, parents, teachers, university communities, religious advocates, scientists, the news media, philosophers, judges and other government officials. It is possible that no reader will be entirely comfortable with the cognitive dissonance it produces, but if you are open to the thinker's challenge of a cutting-edge text on ID, you've picked up the right book!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Many proponents of intelligent design (ID) have argued for design of the cosmos based upon the highly improbable fine-tuning of our universe to permit the existence of advanced forms of life. Skeptics of cosmic-design often cite the possibility that there are infinite universes, or “multiverses,” where our universe just happened to win a cosmic lottery and get the right conditions for life. An infinite number of universes, they argue, reduces the odds that ours just “happened to get it right,” because it shows that some universe was just bound to eventually get the right conditions for life. We wouldn't be here if ours hadn't won. They argue this rationale provides the probabilistic resources to overcome a design inference based upon highly improbable cosmic-fine-tuning.

However, a Nature article from earlier this year noted that this “multiverse” hypothesis is not testable:

Since the early 1980s, some cosmologists have argued that multiple universes could have formed during a period of cosmic inflation that preceded the Big Bang. More recently, string theorists have calculated that there could be 10⁵⁰⁰ universes, which is more than the number of atoms in our observable Universe. Under these circumstances, it becomes more reasonable to assume that several would turn out like ours. It’s like getting zillions and zillions of darts to throw at the dart board, Susskind says. “Surely, a large number of them are going to wind up in the target zone.” And of course, we exist in our particular Universe because we couldn’t exist anywhere else. It’s an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: “It’s impossible to disprove.” Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can’t falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn’t science.

(Geoff Brumfiel, "Outrageous Fortune," Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006).)

National Academy of Sciences member Leonard Susskind was given print-space--in fact he had a highlighted box-quote--saying that we should not reject the multi-verse hypothesis on the grounds that it isn’t testable. Nature reports:

Susskind, too, finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there’s no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science,” he says.

(Geoff Brumfiel, "Outrageous Fortune," Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006) (emphasis added).)

Many scientists challenge ID on the grounds that it allegedly is not testable. Plainly, the multiple universe hypothesis isn’t testable. And yet somehow you see prominent physicists like Leonard Susskind arguing that, even if it isn't testable, "It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science." If an ID proponent made such a claim, you'd never see it printed in Nature.

Regardless of this double-standard, I strongly believe ID is testable (see here and here). In fact, Jonathan Wells humorously comments about the state of Darwinist arguments on this point in his new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, saying Darwinists criticisms “collaps[e] into a contradiction: ID isn’t science because it isn’t testable, and, besides, it has been tested and proven false.” (pg. 140)

But when critics claim ID isn’t testable, has the scientific community given ID proponents the courtesy given to Dr. Susskind? Can you imagine Nature affirmatively quoting someone like William Dembski or Jonathan Wells saying, "It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science"? If the answer is "no," then maybe there is a double standard in the journals when it comes to ID and testability. Perhaps untestable theories are acceptable to Nature when they can challenge intelligent design, but are not acceptable when they support design.

[Note: originally this post said Dr. Susskind was a Nobel Laureate, but that was a mistake and I deleted that incorrect statement. My apologies.]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature is now available at Amazon for direct shipping. Here's what scientists and scholars are saying about it:

"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 Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box.

“I am not exaggerating much to say that A Meaningful World is in the same class as the works of human genius its authors describe. It displays rare depth and breadth. Scientists should read this book to regain their justification for doing science, and poets should read it to regain a ground for the meaning of their texts.” Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, co-author of The Privileged Planet.

"Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt have convinced me that from literature to mathematics, physics to biology, the very phenomena of the world breathes intelligence. A Meaningful World is a masterful argument, a tour de force, framed with brilliance and wit." James W. Sire, author of The Universe Next Door and Why Good Arguments Often Fail.

"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 Darwin on Trial.

“In a world where materialism fails and where intelligent design is evident, how should we think about ourselves in the grand scheme of things? A Meaningful World masterfully answers this question, ramping up the cultural revolution begun by Phillip Johnson in the 1990s.” William Dembski, author of Intelligent Design and The Design Revolution.

“A Meaningful World cleverly integrates the intricacy found in literary classics with the aesthetic beauty of scientific discovery and the unreasonable ability of the human mind to comprehend meaning in both. In this interesting book, we discover that meaning is inherent in nature at every level.”
Gerald Schroeder, author of Genesis And The Big Bang; The Science Of God; and The Hidden Face of God

Amazon Book Purchase

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 6:36 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

SEATTLE— "This book is going to upset defenders of Darwin's theory, because it exposes just how weak the evidence for it is and how irrational their criticisms of intelligent design really are," says biologist Jonathan Wells author of the controversial new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book will be published on August 21st by Regnery as part of their popular series of “Politically Incorrect Guides.”

In clear, non-technical language, Wells explains who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He also explains what is ultimately at stake for liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, educators, policymakers, and scientists.

Discovery Institute will host a book release party for The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design on Thursday, September 7, from 4:30 to 6 p.m. at the Rainier Square Atrium, 1333 Fifth Avenue, Seattle. Copies of Wells’ new book will be available at a discounted rate, and the author will be signing books at the event.

Wells is probably best known for his unveiling of some of the most common and most unsupported so-called proofs of Darwinian evolution in his groundbreaking 2000 book, Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong,. Wells has received two Ph.D.s: one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward.

Discovery Institute will host a companion website at www.darwinismandid.com, which will be officially launched after the book's release and will include (among other things) internet links from the book's endnotes, websites the Darwinists don't want you to visit, and books the Darwinists don't want you to read.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Click here to see full size image.

A recent book attacking intelligent design (Intelligent Thought: Science vs. the Intelligent Design Movement, ed. John Brockman, Vintage Press, May 2006), , has chapters by most of the big names in evolutionary thought: Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Steven Pinker, Lee Smolin, Stuart A. Kauffman and others. In the introduction Brockman summarizes the situation from his perspective: materialistic Darwinism is the only scientific approach to origins, and the “bizarre” claims of “fundamentalists” with “beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages” must be opposed. “The Visigoths are at the gates” of science, chanting that schools must teach the controversy, “when in actuality there is no debate, no controversy.

While Brockman intended the “Visigoths” reference as an insult equating those who do not embrace materialistic Darwinism to uneducated barbarians, he has actually created an interesting analogy of the situation, and perhaps a prophetic look at the future. For it was the Visigoths of the 3rd and 4th centuries that were waiting at the gates of the Roman Empire when it collapsed under its own weight. For years the Darwinists in power have pretended all is well in the land of random mutation and natural selection and that intelligent design should be ignored. With this book (and several others like it), they are attempting to both laugh and fight back at the ID movement. ”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 3:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An editorial in yesterday's Washington Post, "Nothing Wrong With Kansas", contains many inaccurate statements about the Kansas Science Standards and intelligent design.

First, it wrongly frames the Kansas issue as being about intelligent design:

[T]he conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and moved to promote intelligent design -- a challenge to Darwinian theory based not on biblical inerrancy or overt creationism but on purportedly scientific flaws in the theory.

("Nothing Wrong With Kansas," Washington Post, Sunday, August 6, 2006)

But the standards are not about intelligent design. Not only do they clearly state, "the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design" (Kansas Science Standards, pg. ii), but the standards only require teaching about scientific criticisms of Neo-Darwinism in a way that does not get into intelligent design (see here for an explanation).

Because the editorial board at The Washington Post mistakenly thinks Kansas is dealing with intelligent design, it then goes on to promote a mistaken and straw version of intelligent design, asserting that ID is all about the supernatural. The editorial ends up promoting the following misinformation about ID:

Intelligent design is a defensible theological position — the belief that life is so complex and perfect that a creator must lie somewhere behind it. But being untestable in its positing of a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena, it is no more scientific than the belief that Athena was born from Zeus's head.

("Nothing Wrong With Kansas," Washington Post, Sunday, August 6, 2006)

This characterization might be an accurate description of how some critics view intelligent design, but the actual theory of intelligent design does not postulate anything about the supernatural. Michael Behe explains this point:

"[A] scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel--fallen or not; Plato's demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo."

(Michael Behe, "The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis," Philosophia Christi, 2(3)(1):165 (2001)

Ironically, after wrongly accusing the Kansas Science Standards of teaching about the "untestable" supernatural, the editorial fails to recognize that the Kansas Science Standards make testability the centerpiece of their definition of science:

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. ... The core theories of science have been subjected to a wide variety of confirmations and have a high degree of reliability within the limits to which they have been tested.

(Kansas Science Standards, pg. ix, emphasis added)

How can the Kansas Science Standards promote the supernatural (which is untestable) when the standards emphatically make testability a centerpiece of its definition of science? Did the author of this editorial read the Kansas Science Standards?

Finally, the editorial sets up a straw-characterization of ID proponents, implying they reject all forms of evolution. It states, "[T]here is no scientific controversy over whether evolution happens," implying that ID-proponents would not view evolution as an answer to the question, "How do bacteria become drug-resistant?" Of course, no ID-proponent doubts the reality that "evolution happens." We all know that small-scale changes take place in populations, causing major problems like antibiotic drug resistance.

The editorial also asks, "Why do birds, bees and bats all have wings?" That's a good question, a question we think students should ask. And we think they should look carefully at statements of mainstream scientists like Robert Carroll, who doubts the sufficiency of microevolutionary mechanisms to answer such questions:

Can 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? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?

(Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 8-10))

The truth is that, according to the editorial, students shouldn't ask such questions because they might challenge Neo-Darwinism. The editorial states that "[i]ntelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students, or at least badly educated ones." This argument is predicated upon a false claim because Kansas isn't teaching intelligent design. But would teaching ID lead to deficient students? If America is really failing at science, then perhaps the problem is the status quo, where the vast majority of school districts teach only the scientific evidence that supports Darwin's theory.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at The Media Report, Davie Pierre recently nailed the Los Angeles Times for its obvious bias against intelligent design.

"As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID!"

"Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving its readers."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:39 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Previously I wrote about problems with John Derbyshire's TalkOrigins webpage, which I discussed here (Part I) and here (Part II).

Where's the Citation?
The TalkOrigins webpate asserts that The Design Inference doesn't count because it was reviewed by "philosophers, not biologists." Even if correct, why should that matter? The book was reviewed by the relevant experts in the field which relates to theoretical design-detection, the subject of the book. Moreover, where is the citation on the TalkOrigins page so we can verify their claim? And why should one assume that The Design Inference, published as a part of "Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory" and containing many technical mathematical arguments, was not reviewed by mathematicians?

Obfuscating the Facts of Stephen Meyer's Paper
Finally, the TalkOrigins webpage asserts that some papers, like that of Stephen Meyer, "subverted the peer-review process for the sole purpose of getting an 'intelligent design' article in a respectable journal that would never have accepted it otherwise." This is a complete misrepresentation. Meyer's article did undergo peer-review, as described by the editor who oversaw publication of Meyer's paper:

I sent the paper out for review to four experts. Three reviewers responded and were willing to review the paper; all are experts in relevant aspects of evolutionary and molecular biology and hold full-time faculty positions in major research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, another at a major North American public university, a third on a well-known overseas research faculty. There was substantial feedback from reviewers to the author, resulting in significant changes to the paper. The reviewers did not necessarily agree with Dr. Meyer's arguments or his conclusion but all found the paper meritorious and concluded that it warranted publication. The reviewers felt that the issues raised by Meyer were worthy of scientific debate.

(Details of publication process)

There is no question that Meyer's paper was peer-reviewed, and any claims otherwise distort the issue.

The TalkOrigins webpage also leaves off details of the Meyer incident which reveal why pro-ID articles are difficult to get published in mainsteram journals: after the editor published Meyer’s paper, a government investigator found the editor was harassed and discriminated against by his superiors at the Smithsonian as retribution. As Mark Hartwig wrote, this incident "[n]ot only has ... given ID proponents a publication in a peer-reviewed biology journal, it has also handed a smoking gun to those ID proponents who argue that the peer-review process is unfairly stacked against them."

The Talk Origins Bumper Sticker:

John Derbyshire cites to TalkOrigins as an authority, but the page in fact has many problems. This is not to mention that the page engages in name-calling, labeling journals which publish pro-ID papers "crackpottery," and calling their editors "Darwin denier[s],” and attacks ID papers as "poor quality." In recognition of this, I again present the TalkOrigins bumper sticker, a parody that people can point to when being harassed by those on the internet who use the all-too-common MO of “cite TalkOrigins, then call your opponent names.”

But the danger of the TalkOrigins page runs much deeper. It seeks to instill a mindset where concepts must enjoy high levels of support in the scientific community, and the oft-criticized peer-reviewed literature, before being trusted. This mindset threatens to inhibit the progress of science.

In conclusion, this point was made emphatically by Stephen Jay Gould and other scientists to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, pleaing that courts should not disbar scientific evidence from the courtroom simply because it hasn't won a "popularity" contest:

Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that contradict someone's notion of the prevailing “consensus” of scientific opinion. . . . Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once deemed eccentric or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth. . . . The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists.

(Brief Amici Curiae of Stephen Jay Gould (and other scientists) in support of petitioners, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (No. 92-102).)

Would Dr. Gould approve of the mindset promoted by the TalkOrigins webpage or would he rightly recognize it as dangerous to science?

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

What happened in the Kansas school board primaries earlier this week, where supporters of the current science standards apparently lost control of the board, is something that lots of people are asking. It's not a difficult question to answer. Darwinists mounted a massive, and effective, misinformation campaign.

They fed to the media and public three false facts. First, that the Kansas science standards include intelligent design. They do not. Second, that the Kansas board redefined science to include the supernatural. It did not. And third, that the Kansas standards do not teach students the consensus view of science and include criticisms of evolution rejected by mainstream science. Also not true. We answered these false claims many times, but most succinctly here.

David Klinghoffer spells out perfectly what happened in his article at National Review Online today, "What's The Matter With Kansas?"

Yet an outfit called Kansas Citizens for Science (KCS) argued exactly the reverse — that the Kansas Science Standards do indeed mandate instruction about ID. It ended up convincing the voters. Or rather, deceiving them.

Klinghoffer points out that:

The silliest objection to be raised was that the Kansas standards — get ready — hurt poor children. As a political-action committee, the Kansas Alliance for Education, put it during the lead-up to the election, “the best chance children, especially those in poverty, have to experience economic self-sufficiency and become tax-paying citizens is to receive a quality education.” According to this PAC, learning to critically analyze scientific evidence is incompatible with a “quality education.”

There are two things to remember. On the policy side this is about academic freedom, and on the science side it is the evidence that will win out in the end.

The New York Times interviewed CSC associate director John West about this specifically:

John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a group in the forefront of the intelligent design movement, said any repeal of the science standards would be a disservice to students here, and an effort to censor legitimate scientific challenges to Darwin’s theories. Still, he said, no local political skirmish will ultimately answer the broad issue.

“The debate over Darwin’s theory will be won or lost over the science,” he said.

“We see this as an academic freedom issue,” Luskin said. “The freedom of teachers to teach more about the science of evolution and the freedom of students to learn more about the science of evolution.”

If you think this is the end of the debate over how to teach evolution, then I have some tickets to a Barbara Streisand "farewell" concert to sell you.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We often report on the misreporting about the debate over evolution, and point out the misinformation that is spread not just by our critics, but also by the media itself.

How does it happen that urban myths, such as the one claiming that the Kansas state science standards include intelligent design, spread and catch on? Or what about one that is growing right now from an egregious misquote of CSC Fellow Paul Nelson?

Former journalist and media consultant Mark Mathis explains it this way in his excellent book “Feeding the Media Beast”:

Repetition does not make any distinctions between what is accurate and what is not. With so much intentional and unintentional disinformation out there, fact and fiction can become a muddled mess.

The pressure to pump out news product has become so intense that reporters often don’t have the time to check each other’s work. The “facts” presented by one reporter are assumed to be accurate. Consequently other reporters will use them in their stories. If the facts turn out to be erroneous, before long the inaccuracies get repeated so many times by so many reporters that they are generally accepted as truth.

…

If a mistake is repeated a few times, it becomes harder to kill because many people have seen, read, or heard this “fact” and will continue to believe it true. If the issue resurfaces in the future, reporters, anchors, and producers may write new stories based on a tainted memory and it all starts over again.

But, now we can see how this happens.

Today there is another urban myth building up a head of steam, and being helped along by Darwinists, about Discovery Fellow Paul Nelson. Gaurdian reporter Karen Armstrong reports: 'Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth,' says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, 'but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light.' And yet this is pure rubbish because Nelson never said anything like this, and it turns out that Armstrong never even interviewed him. Nelson points this out in his letter to the Guardian demanding a correction. (Note to Paul: don’t hold your breath)

Recently there has been much misinformation being spread around about the Kansas state science standards, which lead to our launching the www.standupforscience.com website to defend the standards. It is our hope that such efforts will help to stave off poor reporting based on reiteration of faulty “facts.”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I report with great sadness that my friend Wesley Elsberry of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has a publicly stated a strategy of trying to paint ID-proponents as liars:

If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ’s message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars.
(see here)

NCSE, by the way, was a sub-contractor to the University of California Museum of Paleontology on the NSF grant for the “Understanding Evolution” website. The $450,000 figure was the total budgeted amount for the project. NCSE’s part was a small fraction of that."

But don't take my word for it; feel free to look out the window and see how, as Wesley puts it, "the sky is blue." I have posted below some court documents, which, if I have interpreted them correctly, show Kevin Padian and Eugenie Scott requesting ~$452,000 to make the website and list themselves as the only "Senior Personnel," on the Understanding Evolution project:

Partial graphic:

Click here for the full graphic:

It appears as if the NCSE leaders ran the grant through Berkeley to get the money from the NSF. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I think this shows what I said was perfectly true. Who was behind it all in the end? The NCSE.

As for the rest of Wesley's blog post, we clearly live in different worlds. He thinks that ID funding is comparable to the tens and tens and tens of millions the government gives to fund evolution-research. Until the NSF would fund an "Understanding Intelligent Design” website, Wesley and I do live in different worlds. Although they are very unequal worlds, I hope Wesley will recognize that in both worlds, "the sky is blue."

[note: edited a little soon after posting; also, my apologies but I had to temporarily remove and then resize the partial graphic beacuse the original size was wreaking havoc with the webpage formatting]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

“The ‘Stand up for Science, Stand Up For Kansas’ educational campaign is intended to defend newly implemented science standards in Kansas from misleading and blatantly false campaigns of misinformation,” said Robert Crowther, director of communications for the Center for Science & Culture in response to criticism of Discovery Institute’s public education campaign.

“As we’ve reiterated previously, Discovery Institute does not get involved in electoral campaigns, and we do not endorse candidates,” added Crowther.

“Groups such as Kansas Citizens for Science are waging a campaign of misinformation, blatantly misinterpreting the new standards in three major ways,” said John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science and Culture. “For instance, they continue to advance the false idea that the teaching of intelligent design is an integral part of the new standards. It is not.” (see here)

“The real debate is about academic freedom – the freedom of teachers to teach more about evolution, and the freedom of students to learn more about evolution,” said Crowther. “Will students have the academic freedom to learn about the Cambrian explosion 530 million years ago and the challenges it poses to Darwin’s theory?”

“Critics of the standards are trying to censor science, they’re trying to stifle science, they’re afraid to let students learn about some of the problems with evolutionary theory,” added Crowther.

For more information visit www.standupforscience.com, and www.discovery.org/csc/.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 5:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Much of the mainstream media’s coverage of the controversy surrounding Kansas’s science standards has repeatedly talked about a "conservative" or “far right” position on the one hand and a “moderate” position on the other. Are those labels accurate? The so-called “conservative” or “far right” position calls for students to learn both the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. An overwhelming majority of Americans, both Republicans and Democrats, support this approach.

In contrast, the so-called “moderate” position insists that students learn only the strengths of modern evolutionary theory--science education as propaganda.

This isn’t even a liberal position in the classic sense of that term. Liberalism supports an open marketplace of ideas, but the “moderate” position wants none of that. Instead, it tries to protect Darwinism from critical scrutiny, tries to spoon feed Darwinism to high school science students as settled dogma even while mainstream scientists continue to explore crucial problems with the theory.

So no, the media’s labels are not accurate. The so-called conservative or “far right” position is really the moderate position, holding up as it does a bedrock principle of liberal democracy in the older sense of that term. And what the media is calling the “moderate” position is really a very extreme position, one akin to efforts by 20th century political figures on the extreme left and extreme right, efforts to shut down debate in favor of an officially mandated position beyond questioning.

A biologist colleague adds:

Funny, when I was growing up there were liberals, moderates and conservatives--and at either end, left-wing extremists and right-wing extremists. But the Left, which knows very well that In the beginning was the Word, now dominates the media, and people who formerly would have been considered moderates or even classical liberals are now called "conservatives" (or even "right-wing extremists") while people who formerly would have been properly designated as "liberals" or even "left-wing extremists" are now "moderates." Welcome to Newspeak, folks.

For more on the truly moderate Kansas science standards, go here and here.

Posted by Jonathan Witt at 12:19 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)