Evolution News & Views

We notice a trend on the left to denounce scientists who disagree with a social policy objective of the left as “anti-science.” It’s a major theme on the evolution issue. Now it is true, too, on the issue of whether global warming is as big a danger as the Al Gore sorts say and what contribution human activity makes to the problem. And as a Washington Post article shows, the materialist left have decided that medical professors who promote reproductive medicine that doesn’t include abortion or test tube fertilization because of moral scruples are being denounced as “anti-science,” too.

At the same time we hear, a la Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion are properly “non-overlapping magisteria,” that one is about facts and the other values. But it seems that whatever science can do it should do and values ignored. When someone tries to guide science with moral values he is attacked as “anti-science.”

Slowly, the ultimate claims of materialism are made plain, and scientism—the ideology—bares its teeth.

Institute Practices Reproductive Medicine -- and Catholicism
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 31, 2006; A14

OMAHA -- Craig Turczynski traveled from Texas to find ways to help infertile women that do not conflict with his religious beliefs. Cherie LeFevre came from St. Louis to learn how to treat her OB-GYN patients in obedience to her Catholicism. Amie Holmes flew from Ohio so she could practice medicine in conformity with church teachings when she graduates from medical school.

On a journey that would blend the aura of a pilgrimage with the ambience of a medical seminar, the three arrived at an unassuming three-story red-brick building on a quiet side street in this Missouri River city.

Their destination was the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, which has become perhaps the most prominent women's health center serving Catholics and other doctors, medical students and patients who object for religious reasons to in vitro fertilization, contraceptives and other aspects of modern reproductive medicine.

"We have built a new women's health science," said Thomas W. Hilgers, who runs the institute. "Our system works cooperatively with the natural fertility cycle and enables doctors to treat women and married couples, especially Catholic married couples, in a way that allows them to live out their faith."

Hilgers and his supporters say the approach, called "natural procreative technology" or "NaProTechnology," can address a spectrum of women's health issues, including family planning, premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression and infertility, without the use of birth control pills, sterilization, abortion or in vitro fertilization (IVF). Instead, Hilgers said, he uses diagnostics, hormones and surgery to identify and treat underlying causes of reproductive ailments that other doctors often miss.

Although the institute is not formally affiliated with the church, Hilgers's work is endorsed by groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Medical Association.

But many mainstream authorities question Hilgers's assertions that his techniques are equal or even superior to standard therapies. They worry that women are being misled and given unproven, ineffective treatments, denying them the best available care.

"This is anti-science," said Anita L. Nelson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Los Angeles. "I respect people's personal values. But I am deeply concerned that they are giving treatments and making claims that are not scientifically proven as safe and effective."

Although some independent experts say that some of the institute's offerings may be acceptable alternatives for religious patients, as long as they are fully informed about their options, others view its work as a disturbing example of religion intruding into secular society.

"Combining medicine and religion is dangerous," said the Rev. Carlton W. Veazey, president of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. "This tendency is creeping into our health-care system."

The trend will become particularly worrisome, some say, if religiously shaped medicine begins to displace and curtail access to standard medical care.

"If you look at what's happened with abortion services being severely limited in large parts of the country, this is not at all an unrealistic fear," said R. Alta Charo, a bioethicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

The controversy is part of a larger debate over the relationship between religion and medicine, which is being sparked by conflicts between patients and religious health-care workers who refuse to provide care they find offensive, citing a "right of conscience." Such clashes are becoming increasingly common because of the rising religiosity in the United States and the advent of therapies that raise moral quandaries for some, such as the "morning-after" pill, IVF and embryonic stem cell research.

"Many Christians, whether in or out of the Catholic Church, have deep concerns about some of these new technologies," said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical & Dental Associations. "This is the kind of thing that offers an alternative for those with these values."

Inspired by Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which condemned artificial birth control, Hilgers began by helping to develop, with colleagues at nearby Creighton University, a natural family planning method called the Creighton Model, which involves meticulously charting a woman's monthly cycle. But Hilgers goes beyond simply offering an alternative form of birth control.

An obstetrician-gynecologist and reproductive surgeon who trained at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Hilgers said he combines the charting system with intensive hormonal and ultrasound studies for better diagnoses. He said he can then restore fertility and treat other ailments through individually tailored therapies, such as targeted hormones and surgical techniques he developed for conditions including blocked fallopian tubes, pelvic adhesions and endometriosis.

"We can look at a woman's cycles in ways that others simply can't," Hilgers said during an interview in his office, surrounded by images of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. "We work cooperatively with a woman's cycle rather than suppressing it or destroying it. Many women come to us after years of being frustrated by the treatment they received elsewhere."

That was the case for Cami Carlson, 33, of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, who came to the institute after five years of futile efforts to become pregnant with the help of her OB-GYN and a fertility specialist. Because Carlson is Catholic, in vitro fertilization was out of the question.

"Life is God's to create," Carlson said, echoing the sentiment of half a dozen other women from around the United States and Mexico interviewed this month while being treated at the clinic. "It's a huge sense of peace knowing that we're going about things in a morally sound manner."

The institute, which is attracting more than 700 new patients a year, melds modern medical facilities with the philosophy and symbols of Catholicism. The waiting room greets patients with a bust of the Madonna and Child and an illuminated stained-glass crucifix. Bulletin boards titled "Miracle Baby Hall of Fame" are filled with snapshots of children. Down the hall is a fully accredited lab for analyzing hormones. An ultrasound suite downstairs is equipped with the latest technology. A large statue of St. Therese stands in a stairway leading to the Chapel of the Holy Family, where Mass is celebrated weekly.

While most of the patients are Catholic, Hilgers accepts anyone. He said they are drawn by his holistic approach, attentive care and superior outcomes.

"Mainstream gynecology and reproductive medicine take a Band-Aid approach. Our success rates tend to be much, much better," Hilgers said.

Those claims are sharply disputed by mainstream OB-GYNs and fertility specialists.

"I don't think he understands what a traditional reproductive endocrinologist really does," said Jamie Grifo, a New York University fertility specialist. "It's simply a myth that we don't look for the underlying disease."

Experts also question how "natural" Hilgers's techniques are if they employ hormonal supplementation, and they criticize him for not publishing studies in medical journals so his methods can be evaluated independently.

"They might as well be advocating prayer for infertility," said Richard Paul, a fertility expert at the University of Southern California. "The reason that this is dangerous is because women have a biological clock, and while they are using up time with less effective therapies, time may run out."

Hilgers countered that his work is based on numerous research papers that he and others published in well-known journals earlier in his career, and that he has compiled the results of his more recent studies in a 1,243-page textbook he produced in 2004.

"The people who publish the journals are all of a certain mind-set, and that mind-set is contraception, sterilization, abortion and IVF," Hilgers said. "They reject things I submit to them and say, 'What value is this?' "

To spread his methods, Hilgers sponsors a multifaceted training program and invites recent medical school graduates to spend a year studying with him.

"This allows me to practice in a way that I see as truly good for my patients and uphold the dignity of life," said Catherine Keefe, who is in the midst of a one-year fellowship at the institute after completing her OB-GYN residency at the University of Illinois at Peoria.

The institute also instructs laypeople on how to teach the Creighton system, and it has more than 1,000 "educators" and more than 100 centers offering the system around the United States and overseas.

In addition, it offers intensive seminars every fall and spring for doctors, residents, medical students and others.

"This place has just been booming. . . . It's just incredible. And we're only at the beginning," Hilgers said. He said he has trained more than 300 doctors in the United States and overseas, including several in the Washington area.

This year's fall immersion course drew Turczynski, LeFevre, Holmes and eight other doctors, residents and medical students. For eight days this month at a hotel near the institute, the participants gathered early each morning for Mass before spending 12 hours in lectures. They will return in the spring for a follow-up session that will certify them as NaProTechnology "medical consultants."

Turczynski quit his job as head of an infertility laboratory in Shreveport, La., because he decided that creating embryos in a laboratory was wrong. He became disturbed that some of the embryos might be discarded or used for research, and that his work might help unmarried or same-sex couples have children.

"I would like to stay in the field in a way that doesn't conflict with my moral beliefs and the church's teaching," Turczynski said.

LeFevre, the St. Louis OB-GYN, decided after her daughter's first communion that she could no longer prescribe birth control pills, do sterilizations or participate in IVF. Holmes, the medical student, converted to Catholicism and pledged to devote her practice to her new faith when she graduates.

Some trainees took vacation time and paid for the course themselves. Others received funding from their schools or residencies and will get credit toward their medical education. The course is certified through Creighton University.

"In those areas where the culture of medicine differs from what the church teaches," said Karen Saroki, who is incorporating Hilgers's training into a family-practice residency at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "this will enable me to follow what the church teaches."

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 6:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past Thursday, October 26, Dr. Leon Kass, learned intellectual and former Chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, presented a paper before an excellent group of intellectuals at the American Enterprise Institute (Stephen Barr, Eric Cohen, Joseph Bottum, Charles Murray, and Marcello Pera, among others). Dr. Kass had many good things to say about the false nature of scientific reductionism and how it goes against everything we know about reality from everyday life. He also denied that random mutations and natural selection were the whole story to life’s evolution. That said, I took umbrage with one major point Kass made.

Dr. Kass embraced a sort of NOMA approach to origins questions, claiming that scientific findings in this area would not affect humanity’s special status at the apex of nature. He claimed that science has a “metaphysical neutrality,” and hence a scientific finding is “indifferent to questions of being, cause, purpose, inwardness, hierarchy, and the goodness or badness of things, scientific knowledge included.” So for instance, scientists don’t ask what happened before the Big Bang; they just describe the Big Bang.

When I had the opportunity to ask a question, I first said that I found myself in an odd place that day, agreeing more with Dr. Dawkins than Dr. Kass on this supposed neutrality. For Dawkins would claim that scientific findings on origins should affect our view of what it is to be human, and therefore such findings are not metaphysically neutral. (And I would only add that, if we understand that evidence in science can bolster the claim for a world devoid of purpose and teleology, we must also acknowledge that evidence from science could bolster the case for a world with purpose and teleology.)

I mentioned two examples. First, if the Big Bang was somehow overturned by new evidence, and it then looked like the universe was eternal rather than finite. I think this would have HUGE implications for who we are and where we came from. Second, I continued, if, as the Darwinists say, evolution has no discernable goal or direction, and a different random mutation could have made a totally different species than Homo sapiens, this too is more than just a material description and should certainly affect our view of humanity and whether we are intended to be here. That is, it affects a question of purpose.

To all this, it seemed to me, Dr. Kass did not really provide a counterargument. He simply said that if I did not know the monumental difference (presumably by natural reason) between humans and lower species, then there was nothing more he could say to me; and no scientific discovery could possibly take away our natural perception that humanity is of a different status than other species.

Dr. Kass is right, of course, that we can know through the use of our everyday perception that humanity is exceptional. But then how odd if scientific discovery did not back this up? How odd if our natural perception would be at odds with our scientific exploration? Our natural perception of humanity’s unique status should only serve to highlight that the Darwinian theory is wrong since it implies that, contrary to our everyday observations, we were not intended to be here. That is, we were only a few random mutations away from being something totally different.

Scientific discoveries certainly can affect our view of what it is to be human. My hope is that Dr. Kass can find harmony between his common sense perception of the world and the scientific enterprise. ID offers just such an explanation. For ID argues that nature, by showing signs of intelligent agency, is likely the product of intelligence—not just chance material forces. And these scientific observations lend themselves to a view of the world in which humanity was intended and purposed to be here. Thus scientific theories of origins are not metaphysically neutral. There is more going on here than a just-the-facts-ma’am, descriptive science.

Posted by Logan Gage at 12:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I might have titled this post, “Eastern Mystics Join Western Fundamentalist Conspiracy,” except that there are those out there that would howl to the highest that I had finally admitted we are fundamentalists with a secret conspiracy. (First, I’m fundamentally not a fundamentalist, and the so-called “secret conspiracy” is neither secret nor a conspiracy.) Instead, I have a title that neatly sums up the point made in the Asian Tribune today, titled Is our evolving universe an intelligent design?, by essayist Vasantha Raja. It is an excellent article in which Raja shows that following the evidence where it leads isn’t a fundamentalist conspiracy to convert the world in whichever direction at all, it is rather what the scientific method should really be about.

According to Raja:

What follows below does not approve or reject the visions of any particular religion. But the point I want to make is that scientists can seriously consider the Intelligent Design model without committing to the existence of a personal God; also through it science can enhance the scientific enterprise's heuristic power and overcome the ongoing creationist/evolutionist dichotomy.

However, the problems seem to occur at least from two sources: one, the naturalist tendency to resort to chance, random or accidental processes of unthinking matter to explain mystifyingly complex phenomena; two, dogmatic adherence to 'gradual evolution' when the processes in the world have clearly defied it in favour of 'qualitative leaps'.

The idea here is that science is a method for investigating nature and that to understand nature scientists must only invoke ‘natural processes.’ In this context the term ‘natural processes’ means processes operating entirely according to unbroken natural laws and characterized by chance and necessity. … One of the consequences of methodolocial naturalism is to exclude intelligent design from science.

Franklin M. Harold wrote in The Way of the Cell, (Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 205)

We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity (Behe 1996); but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations. (emphasis mine)

Raja points out the same simple fact that we have been emphasizing for years whenever we ask scientists to simply follow the evidence where it leads.

It’s not whether a theory has religious or anti-religious implications that determines its scientific validity, but whether it is grounded in evidence. The more we learn about the evidence, the more it points to intelligent design as a better explanation than Darwinian evolution for many features of living things.

As the pioneering information theorist Henry Quastler observed, "Information habitually arises from conscious activity." A computer user who traces the information on a screen back to its source invariably comes to a mind, that of a software engineer or programmer. Similarly, the information in a book or newspaper column ultimately derives from a writer—from a mental, rather than a strictly material, cause. Thus, what we know about the present cause and effect structure of the world suggests intelligent design as an obvious explanation for the information necessary to build living systems.

As he relates the insistence of the scientific community to adhere to methodolifical naturalism as the scientific method, Raja continually hits the nail on the head:

Thus, the restriction on our legitimate capacity to abstract from what is externally given to us seems to me to be a major problem in science. This seems to be another limitation of scientific methodology as it stands today. …

The point I am trying to drive home is this: The 'Intelligent Design' hypothesis needs not in any way hamper the scientists' effort to develop a convincing model that explains the evolving universe through itself. But the scientists may well have to get rid of their own prejudices originating primarily from the empiricist world outlook to do so.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 8:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past Tuesday, Richard Dawkins spoke at DC's famous Politics & Prose bookstore, reading from his new book "The God Delusion." One philosophically astute questioner, American Enterprise Institute's Joe Manzari, had the following exchange with Dr. Dawkins:

Manzari: Dr. Dawkins thank you for your comments. The thing I have appreciated most about your comments is your consistency in the things I've seen you've written. One of the areas that I wanted to ask you about, and the place where I think there is an inconsistency, and I hoped you would clarify, is that in what I've read you seem to take a position of a strong determinist who says that what we see around us is the product of physical laws playing themselves out; but on the other hand it would seem that you would do things like taking credit for writing this book and things like that. But it would seem, and this isn't to be funny, that the consistent position would be that necessarily the authoring of this book, from the initial conditions of the big bang, it was set that this would be the product of what we see today. I would take it that that would be the consistent position but I wanted to know what you thought about that.

Dawkins: The philosophical question of determinism is a very difficult question. It's not one I discuss in this book, indeed in any other book that I've ever talked about. Now an extreme determinist, as the questioner says, might say that everything we do, everything we think, everything that we write has been determined from the beginning of time in which case the very idea of taking credit for anything doesn't seem to make any sense. Now I don't actually know what I actually think about that, I haven't taken up a position about that, it's not part of my remit to talk about the philosophical issue of determinism. What I do know is that what it feels like to me, and I think to all of us, we don't feel determined. We feel like blaming people for what they do or giving people the credit for what they do. We feel like admiring people for what they do. None of us ever actually as a matter of fact says, "Oh well he couldn't help doing it, he was determined by his molecules." Maybe we should… I sometimes… Um… You probably remember many of you would have seen Fawlty Towers. The episode where Basil where his car won't start and he gives it fair warning, counts up to three, and then gets out of the car and picks up a tree branch and thrashes it within an edge of his life. Maybe that's what we all ought to... Maybe the way we laugh at Basil Fawlty, we ought to laugh in the same way at people who blame humans. I mean when we punish people for doing the most horrible murders, maybe the attitude we should take is "Oh they were just determined by their molecules." It's stupid to punish them. What we should do is say "This unit has a faulty motherboard which needs to be replaced." I can't bring myself to do that. I actually do respond in an emotional way and I blame people, I give people credit, or I might be more charitable and say this individual who has committed murders or child abuse of whatever it is was really abused in his own childhood. And so again I might take a …

Manzari: But do you personally see that as an inconsistency in your views?

Dawkins: I sort of do. Yes. But it is an inconsistency that we sort of have to live with otherwise life would be intolerable. But it has nothing to do with my views on religion it is an entirely separate issue.

Manzari: Thank you.

It appears to me that reality is biting back at Dr. Dawkins. As Mr. Manzari pointed out to me in a recent interview (which will be featured here on the ID the Future podcast), Dawkins is finding it hard to live out his worldview with consistency. It is just plain hard to act as though one does not possess agency. It reminds one of the attempts of materialists to purge their language of "folk psychology," claiming for instance, "the C-fibers in this left lobe are firing like crazy," rather than saying, "I feel a headache." It is simply hard to speak this way, which should prompt one to ask, "Why?"

For those interested in the cross section of Darwinism and free agency, I heartily recommend Angus Menuge's "Agents Under Fire."

Posted by Logan Gage at 11:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We've recently discussed the media bias against intelligent design (ID) (see here and here). As also reported, the British Independent published a harshly anti-ID article adopting the rhetoric of ID-critics as if it were reportable fact. This same article made much ado about the alleged religious motives of proponents of intelligent design. Yet The Independent relies upon the British Humanist Association (BHA) as an authority which opposes teaching ID. This BHA has an anti-religious agenda which instructs people to live “without religious [belief]”. The BHA seeks “an end” to the “privileged position of religion – and Christianity in particular” in society. For The Independent to harp upon the alleged religious motives of ID-proponents and ignore all potential anti-religious motives of ID-critics is not only poor scholarship and biased journalism, it is blatant hypocrisy. However, as discussed below, what matters is the scientific evidence, because motives are irrelevant in scientific discourse.

More Anti-Religious Motives of British Darwinists
On its web page defining humanism, BHA links to the Third Humanist Manifesto, which claims that “[h]umans are … the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.” The manifesto is published by the American Humanist Association, which in 1996 named Britain’s own Richard Dawkins as its “Humanist of the Year.” During his acceptance speech, Dawkins announced that “[f]aith is one of the world’s great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.” Indeed, according to the current cover of Wired Magazine, Dawkins is presently part of a "Crusade Against Religion":

Meanwhile, pro-ID British bloggers have revealed that the recently formed British Center for Science Education (BCSE) was founded by a group of secular humanists with anti-religious agendas and was born out of a group called “BlackShadow” run by vocal atheists. BlackShadow’s website has clear political and cultural goals: it solicits explicit support from a peculiar collection of groups as it invites those who are “gay, liberal, a single mum, a cohabitee, a believer in evolution, or an atheistic or agnostic” to oppose ID.

Clearly some British Darwinists have an anti-religious agenda associated with various political and cultural goals, one of which seems to be to eradicate religion from the public sphere.

Motives Don't Matter
Evolution is a legitimate scientific theory which deserves to be taught in schools. If some of Britain's leading evolutionist advocates are avowed atheists with an agenda to eradicate religion, so what? That doesn’t make evolution any less scientific. Similarly, ID is an empirical argument about the cause-and-effect relationship between intelligence and information in cells which uses the scientific method to make its claims. If some believe it has larger religious implications, so what? Evolution is apparently being used to advance analogous anti-religious political agendas in Britain.

The personal religious—or anti-religious—beliefs or motives of scientists do not disqualify their bona fide scientific views from the classroom. But The Independent selectively harps upon the supposed religious motives of ID-proponents in Britain, while ignoring the blatantly anti-religious motives of the very authorities it quotes against ID.

If The Independent wants to play the motive-mongering game, it should consider how the teaching of evolution in Britain’s biology classrooms would be affected in light of the anti-religious agenda of leading evolution advocates in Britain, such as Dawkins, the BCSE, and The Independent's preferred authority opposing intelligent design: the British Humanist Association.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:35 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier today, Rob Crowther speculated that wording attributed by New York Times reporter Cornelia Dean to Ohio State Board of Education member Dr. Deborah Owens Fink was in fact wording that came from Ms. Dean, not from Dr. Owens Fink. We have just received confirmation of that fact from Dr. Owens Fink herself.

According to Dean’s article, “Dr. Owens Fink...said the [Ohio] curriculum standards she supported did not advocate teaching intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism.” But Dr. Owens Fink did not call intelligent design “an ideological cousin of creationism,” even though Dean’s misleading wording makes this appear to be the case. Those words represent Dean’s own biased editorializing (in what was supposed to be a news article, not an editorial). According to Dr. Owens Fink, “the reporter... put words in the article that may represent her view but not mine.”

This is not the first time a Times’ reporter has invented a comment by someone critical of Darwinism. For an amusing example from last year involving Dr. Stephen Meyer, read here and here.

Posted by John West at 11:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

New York Times science writer Cornelia Dean continues to misinform the public about the debate over evolution, and I think she does so deliberately.

First, Dean mistakenly refers to intelligent design as the “ideological cousin of creationism.” It is not. Second, she makes this incredible assertion without anything to back it up:

Although researchers may argue about its details, the theory of evolution is the foundation for modern biology, and there is no credible scientific challenge to it as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on earth.

There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.

So, I’ll cut and paste my original response, as well.

This claim turns on a profound ambiguity. What does “evolution” mean when asserted to be a “fact”? If it simply means changes in species over long periods of time, there seems to be little doubt the claim is true. If it means universal common ancestry (UCA), the claim is more controversial; reasonable scientific evidence exists both in favor of and against it. But, if “evolution” means UCA plus the Darwinian mechanism of unguided natural selection acting on ran-dom mutation—together giving rise to all the complexity and diversity of the living world—then “evolution” is certainly not a “fact.” There is very limited scientific evidence supporting this view, and powerful evidence against it. (Six Myths About Evolution)

There are numerous scientific challenges to Darwinian evolution. Scientific literature is full of them. Those familiar with the debate in Ohio will remember that Discovery Institute submitted the “Bibliography of Supplementary Resources” to the Ohio State Board of Education:

“These 44 scientific publications represent important lines of evidence and puzzles that any theory of evolution must confront, and that science teachers and students should be allowed to discuss when studying evolution. … The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.”

As for whether or not evolution is the foundation for modern biology, like Dean I will turn to the National Academy of Science--specifically to Dr. Phillip Skell of the NAS, who has written on this subject extensively. Here’s what he wrote in the New Scientist last year in an essay titled “Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology”:

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.

I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.

Skell concludes by saying:

Darwinian evolution--whatever its other virtues--does not provide a fruitful heuristic in experimental biology. This becomes especially clear when we compare it with a heuristic framework such as the atomic model, which opens up structural chemistry and leads to advances in the synthesis of a multitude of new molecules of practical benefit. None of this demonstrates that Darwinism is false. It does, however, mean that the claim that it is the cornerstone of modern experimental biology will be met with quiet skepticism from a growing number of scientists in fields where theories actually do serve as cornerstones for tangible breakthroughs.

In spite of the New York Times’s glowing record as a news outlet above reproach, I think I’ll side with the scientist over the science writer on this one.

What else does Dean have to report? Seemingly quite a bit, since apparently she is able to get inside the mind of one of her sources, Dr. Deborah Owens Fink.

Dean writes: “But Dr. Owens Fink, a professor of marketing at the University of Akron, said the curriculum standards she supported did not advocate teaching intelligent design, an ideological cousin of creationism.” Hmmm. I suspect that Owens Fink did not say that ID is the ideological cousin of creationism, but Dean wrote this in a way that you might think she did.

Referring to the National Academy’s official stand against ID, Dean writes, “But the academy’s opinion does not matter to Dr. Owens Fink, who said the letter was probably right to say she had dismissed it as ‘a group of so-called scientists.’” Did Owens Fink actually say the academy’s opinion doesn’t matter? Probably not. At best that is unclear, since Dean writes in such a way as to try to make us all privy to many things that Owens Fink thinks. But these are just assertions on the part of the reporter.

Am I nitpicking here? Yes, but for a reason. This is a perfect example of media bias in action. Dean has made her own views on evolution and intelligent design quite clear in the past. She is completely biased against intelligent design, and so her reporting on the subject has to be suspect.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last December I wrote a series of blog posts critiquing Judge Jones’ decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. Most of the articles analyzed the text of the Kitzmiller opinion and explained why I thought it was an example of judicial activism. However, in a final post, I also criticized the newsmedia for inaccurately portraying Judge Jones as a political and religious conservative, which I viewed as an effort to shield his judicial opinion from legitimate criticism.

While I emphasized that “I don’t care whether Judge Jones is either conservative or religious. My concern is whether he is fair and accurate as a judge,” I noted that there was scant evidence that he was a political conservative. I also stated, based on public information available at the time, that there was little evidence that Jones was especially religious or even an official member of a church since he graduated from college. That latter claim turns out to be wrong. According to an article in this month’s issue of The Lutheran, Jones has been a member of Trinity Lutheran Church in Pottsville, Pennsylvania since 1982, and previously he was a member of a Presbyterian congregation.

So what was the basis for my earlier statement? The most important reason was information Jones submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation proceedings in 2002. When asked to disclose “all memberships... currently and formerly held in professional, business, fraternal, scholarly, civic, charitable, or other organizations since graduation from college," Jones did not list any religious organizations. Because of the all-encompassing wording of this question, and the fact that other judicial nominees considered at the same time listed their religious memberships, I concluded—wrongly—that Jones had not officially joined a church. In reality, he simply chose not to list his membership on the form.

Since Judge Jones turns out to have been a long-time church member, does that mean he must have been fair and impartial in the Kitzmiller case as the media suggested? I don't think so. The underlying point of my original post was that it is the content of the Kitzmiller decision that provides the best evidence for whether Judge Jones was fair-minded, not his personal affiliations. Did he summarize the evidence fairly and accurately? Did he apply the same standards of evaluation to both parties before him? Did he faithfully and without bias consider the arguments offered by both sides? I think the record of the case provides a clear answer to these questions, and the answer is “no.” That assessment is based on the objective record of the case, not on Judge Jones’ personal affiliations.

Posted by John West at 12:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Almost lost by the MSM are two new statements by Pope Benedict XVI that speak of intelligent design, in contrast to (Darwinian) evolution. First was a homily in Regensburg that was eclipsed in the news by the other, more famous address there that mentioned Islam. The second statement was made only a few days ago in Verona, as covered by the Vatican Information Service (VIS). As someone familiar with A Meaningful World (IVP Academic, 2006) by Discovery senior fellows Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt, I am amazed at how closely Pope Benedict's statements about science and rationality resemble the arguments by Wiker and Witt. The pope's recent address to the Italian Ecclesial Congress sounds like it came right out of chapter 4, "The Geometry of Genius." Here's an excerpt from Benedict (translated from the Italian by VIS):

Verona, Pope Addresses Italian Ecclesial Congress: "At the roots of being a Christian, there is no ethical decision or lofty idea, ... but a meeting with the person of Jesus Christ," said Benedict XVI. "The fruitfulness of this meeting is apparent ... also in today's human and cultural context," he added, using the example of mathematics, a human creation in which the "correlation between its structures and the structures of the universe ... excites our admiration and poses a great question. It implies that the universe itself is structured in an intelligent fashion, in such a way that there exists a profound correspondence between our subjective reason and the objective reason of nature. It is, then, inevitable that we should ask ourselves if there is not a single original intelligence that is the common source of both the one and the other….This overturns the tendency to grant primacy to the irrational, chance and necessity.”

For scientists, the greatest and most peculiar intellectual exhilaration occurs when they find that the order of mathematics illuminates the order of reality. This is not a passionless, accountant-like correspondence of lines and legers, but a participation in an ethereal union of beauty and truth, the beauty and truth of the mathematical order matching some aspect of the natural order. It is interesting that, as biologists (following Darwin) have become more reductionist in regard to beauty, physicists had come to a new appreciation of the centrality of beauty in regard to the relationship of mathematical equations to reality.

We have spent some time focusing on beauty because our appreciation of mathematical beauty extends to the most abstract intellectual realms, including those inhabited by theoretical physicists. We may now ask a crucial but frequently overlooked question: What right have we to expect that our human capacity for mathematical abstraction and our human appreciation of elegance would yield any knowledge of nature? If, after all, the universe itself were randomly produced and did not have us in mind, and if our own reasoning capacities and love of beauty were likewise randomly produced, could we reasonably expect mathematics to be an effective tool for us in ‘working out the meaning of the data’?

As we have argued, if the order of nature preexists our attempts to grasp it, and consequently, if the strange effectiveness of mathematics depends upon the preexistent order of nature to be effective, then nature is intelligibly and ingeniously ordered. Exemplifying both surprising depth and a stunning harmony and elegance, such ingenious design necessarily implies a designing genius.

the only meaningful language is mathematics; and since our everyday language and experience are not governed by mathematics, then our everyday language and experience are not meaningfully related to reality. As a consequence, deep reflections based on our everyday language and experience are taken to be groundless.

The world of mathematics is a world of abstraction, a step away from reality, not reality itself. It is through mathematics, not in mathematics, that scientists find meaning in the data. The data is about reality, about the order of beings in nature. That is why reality always determines whether any particular mathematical formulation is applicable and effective.

Finally, both the pope and A Meaningful World argue for the unity of reason and insist that both nature and human culture point beyond mere matter to a creative reason as the source of nature’s order. The entire book, A Meaningful World, is given over to making that argument. The pope makes the point more briefly and draws theological implications

:... On these premises, it again becomes possible to broaden the horizon of our rationality, open it to the great questions of truth and goodness, and unite theology, philosophy and science, ... respecting their reciprocal autonomy but also aware of the intrinsic unity that holds them together.

We believe in God. This is a fundamental decision on our part. But is such a thing still possible today? Is it reasonable? From the Enlightenment on, science, at least in part, has applied itself to seeking an explanation of the world in which God would be unnecessary. And if this were so, he would also become unnecessary in our lives. But whenever the attempt seemed to be nearing success - inevitably it would become clear: something is missing from the equation! When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe. So we end up with two alternatives. What came first? Creative Reason, the Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, yet somehow brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth - I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason. With this faith we have no reason to hide, no fear of ending up in a dead end. We rejoice that we can know God! And we try to let others see the reasonableness of our faith, as Saint Peter bids us do in his First Letter (cf. 3:15)!

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 1:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We recently reported how New Scientist has exhibited an incredible bias against intelligent design and is encouraging scientists to attack ID using “the weapons of sound bytes and emotional arguments... deploy[ing] all the tools that are used to sell cars, [and] diet drugs...” But the best possible proof that the media is biased against intelligent design would be a cover article in one of the nation's leading media journals instructing editors and reporters to limit and stifle the pro-ID viewpoint when reporting on the ID-evolution debate. Precisely such an article entitled "Undoing Darwin" was co-authored by Chris Mooney as the cover article of the prestigious Columbia Journalism Review just a few weeks before the beginning of the Dover trial in September, 2005.

When Darwinists complain about media coverage of ID, what they really are upset about is the rare article which simply gives the pro-ID viewpoint the time of day and offers more than unyielding praise of Darwin. For example, Jason Rosenhouse and NCSE staff member Glenn Branch wrote in BioScience that "A misconceived concern for balance frequently results in equal time being accorded to biologists and creationists, creating the illusion of scientific equivalence." (from "Media Coverage of 'Intelligent Design,'" BioScience, Vol. 56(3):247-252 (March, 2006).) What Darwinists unambiguously desire in the media is imbalance, with an anti-ID bias and the limiting of pro-ID arguments and evidence in homage to the pro-Darwin position.

All ID-proponents desire is nothing more than what Chris Mooney, Jason Rosenhouse, and Glenn Branch oppose: balance and unbiased media coverage. For more documentation of the media's bias, read this excerpt from my response to Chris Mooney, "Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?: Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design," discussing his Columbia Journalism Review cover article:

In early September, 2005, just as Kitzmiller v. Dover case was approaching, Columbia Journalism Review published “Undoing Darwin,” which recommended nothing short of imbalanced and overall hostile coverage of the pro-ID viewpoint during the forthcoming media coverage of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. This incredible article presented a call for journalists to become partisans in the debate over evolution and exclude a balanced or fair presentation of pro-ID arguments. It was co-authored by none other than Chris Mooney.

The article began by complaining that the media “tend to deemphasize the strong scientific case in favor of evolution and instead lend credence to the notion that a growing ‘controversy’ exists over evolutionary science.” The fundamental premise of the entire article is that “it is false” to claim there are scientific disputes against evolution. Again making misplaced reliance upon authoritarian political statements by scientific authorities, Mr. Mooney begins with the assumption that his position is correct, and that this fact should therefore define and govern journalistic coverage of this issue. He assumes that all critiques of evolution are “theological attacks that masquerade as being ‘scientific’ in nature” and encourages journalists to frame articles as such, to avoid lending “undue credibility” to non-evolutionary viewpoints. This is the same mindset we saw coming from those who attack ID-proponents in the academy: not only is intelligent design wrong, but ID-proponents do not deserve the opportunity to discuss their scientific views in a positive light.

Mr. Mooney complains that simply giving “balance” to the viewpoints in articles over intelligent design does a disservice:

Worse, they [journalists] often provide a springboard for anti-evolutionist criticism of that science, allotting ample quotes and sound bites to Darwin’s critics in a quest to achieve “balance.” The science is only further distorted on the opinion pages of local newspapers.

In other words, the fact that reporting is sometimes “balanced” is a problem: Mr. Mooney's message is that media coverage is not “balance[d]” when one allows dissenters from evolution have their say by allowing the “pairing of competing claims”:

Even worse, such “balance” is far from truly objective. The pairing of competing claims plays directly into the hands of intelligent-design proponents who have cleverly argued that they’re mounting a scientific attack on evolution rather than a religiously driven one, and who paint themselves as maverick outsiders warring against a dogmatic scientific establishment.

Mr. Mooney thus suggests that it is inappropriate to “pai[r] claims” of ID proponents and evolutionists because it will make ID arguments appear scientific. To his credit, Mr. Mooney says that pro-ID voices should not be completely censored. But his article implies that the way to avoid the “pairing” problem is to diminish or weaken pro-ID arguments in articles, leaving pro-evolution arguments to have the louder microphone. Clearly he is not interested in a truly balanced presentation of the views.

Mr. Mooney again warns TV talk show hosts about the dangers of allowing pro-ID guests on their shows because “the adversarial format of most cable news talk shows inherently favors ID’s attacks on evolution by making false journalistic ‘balance’ nearly inescapable.” Can evolution not withstand this “adversarial format”? Or does Mr. Mooney not desire a truly fair presentation? What other solution could Mr. Mooney suggest other than limiting the pro-ID viewpoint from such venues? Mr. Mooney does suggest one clear solution: journalists should become partisans in the debate:

In short, to better cover evolution, journalists don’t merely have to think more like scientists (or science writers). As the evolution issue inevitably shifts into a legal context, they must think more like skeptical jurists.

In recommending that journalists behave as “jurists” who are “skeptical” of intelligent design, Mr. Mooney implies they should let their own prejudices influence their reporting. Under this journalistic philosophy, the court of public opinion is to be determined by the media. Since when is it the media’s role to determine the answers to complex social issues? This is not an issue where the public agrees with the position Chris Mooney thinks the media should advocate: – over 75% of Americans agree that “[w]hen Darwin’s theory of evolution is taught in school, students should also be able to learn about scientific evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.” But according to Mr. Mooney and other powerful players within the journalism establishment, journalists need to discard any notion of true objectivity and neutrality in order to protect the American public from pro-ID arguments. Do these pro-ID arguments pose the sort of threat to evolution that justifies Mr. Mooney’s conceded abandonment of the traditional journalistic principle of balance? Mr. Mooney seems to imply that journalists should become partisans in their coverage of intelligent design because the American people cannot be trusted to think for themselves.

Mr. Mooney even thinks that opinion pages should limit the space given to pro-ID viewpoints:

[On opinion pages], competing arguments about evolution and intelligent design tend to be paired against one another in letters to the editor and sometimes in rival guest op-eds, providing a challenge to editors who want to give voice to alternative ideas yet provide an accurate sense of the state of scientific consensus. The mission of the opinion pages and a faithfulness to scientific accuracy can easily come into conflict.

Mr. Mooney then complains that a local paper covering the Kitzmiller trial “recently print[ed] at least one” letter submitted by “a Christian conservative group.” The problem according to Mr. Mooney is that “many opinion-page editors see their role not as gatekeepers of scientific content, but rather as enablers of debate within pluralistic communities.” Since when are journalists the arbitrators of scientific dogma and not those whom the public entrusts to neutrally communicate and report the diverse viewpoints which exist into the public discourse? According to Mr. Mooney, it was a travesty that some papers covering the Kitzmiller case printed approximately equal numbers of letters-to-the editor in favor or against intelligent design. Mr. Mooney complained that this equal representation resulted in “an entirely lopsided debate within the scientific community [that] was transformed into an evenly divided one in the popular arena.” For Mr. Mooney, because the majority viewpoint in the scientific community is generally against ID, pro-ID voices should not be allowed to make their arguments fairly heard even in the public sphere—even if the public is overwhelmingly friendly to ID. Even those who agree with Mr. Mooney’s scientific position need not agree with his rhetorical strategy: ideas thrive by letting critics have their say and permitting intellectual freedom within the marketplace of viewpoints. If evolution is right, it can win the debates which Mr. Mooney does not want to see occur in the public discussion.

But Chris Mooney didn't always complain. He praised an editorial board of a paper covering the Selman v. Cobb County case because it stated that “our science infrastructure is under attack from religious extremists” and “warned repeatedly of the severe negative economic consequences and national ridicule that anti-evolutionism might bring on the community,” thus adopting Mr. Mooney’s party line. He observed that most of the letters printed were against ID, and pondered if this “may suggest a community with different views than those in Dover, Pennsylvania, or it may suggest a stronger editorial role.” So in Chris Mooney's eyes, a “stronger editorial role” is the limiting of viewpoints that conflict with the prevailing dogma of the scientific establishment, even when that viewpoint has high support from many letter-writers.

Mr. Mooney also praised the New York Times and The Washington Post because “the opinion pages sided heavily with evolution,” but he then scolded the New York Times because “a false sense of scientific controversy was arguably abetted when The New York Times allowed Michael Behe, the prominent ID proponent, to write a full-length op-ed explaining why his is a ‘scientific’ critique of evolution.” Does this imply that Mr. Mooney thinks that Behe’s singular voice explaining the scientific case for ID should have been wiped clean from the New York Times editorial page?

Mr. Mooney fears that “the unintended consequence may be that increased media attention only helps proponents present intelligent design as a contest between scientific theories rather than what it actually is — a sophisticated religious challenge to an overwhelming scientific consensus.” But if he is concerned about not helping a cause, then clearly he is interested in using the media as a tool to hurt it. This non-neutral behavioral recommendation raises a question: What right does Mr. Mooney or anyone in the media have to make judgments about this controversy which lead them to diminish and weaken the presentation of certain viewpoints? (As was previously documented, Mr. Mooney's arguments that ID is not science are based upon fundamental misconstruals of the theory.) He concludes that “[in] such a situation, journalistic coverage that helps fan the flames of a nonexistent scientific controversy (and misrepresents what’s actually known) simply isn’t appropriate.” This assumes that there is no controversy. Mr. Mooney concludes with proscriptions for keeping the pro-ID viewpoint out of media coverage:

So what is a good editor to do about the very real collision between a scientific consensus and a pseudo-scientific movement that opposes the basis of that consensus? At the very least, newspaper editors should think twice about assigning reporters who are fresh to the evolution issue and allowing them to default to the typical strategy frame, carefully balancing “both sides” of the issue in order to file a story on time and get around sorting through the legitimacy of the competing claims.

Here Mr. Mooney’s recommendation for journalistic bias is stated explicitly: In short, Mr. Mooney thinks it is not appropriate to cover “both sides” of a dispute in a truly balanced or objective fashion even if this is “the typical” methodology of journalism. Indeed, he directly suggests that reporters who would employ such balance should not be assigned to report on evolution. According to his view, one side should not be given the same amount of air-time, size of print-space, or numbers of opportunity for rebuttal simply because it goes against the “consensus.” According to Mr. Mooney, such “balancing” isn’t appropriate. Mr. Mooney ends by stating that “the media have a profound responsibility — to the public, and to knowledge itself.” This sounds reasonable, but one would think this responsibility carries with it the duty to inform the public about the arguments promoted by both sides in a balanced fashion, and then let the reader decide. If arguments for evolution are so powerful, then doesn’t Mr. Mooney think they can win the debate?

(From Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?: Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

It looks as if the reporting on evolution and intelligent design is even worse in the UK than it is here in the US. I was just forwarded this article from last week’s Independent titled “Does Creationism Have a Place in the Classroom.” Right off the bat the lead of the article makes unsupported assertions, editorializing in a manner that even some of the most agenda-driven reporting in the US has yet to do.

“A creationist group, Truth in Science, has targeted thousands of secondary schools in the UK with an information pack that is being used by believers and unwary teachers to bring religious dogma into science classrooms.”

Throughout the story, the reporter’s choice of words is so loaded that it is hard to understand how any objective editor would have allowed it to run in this fashion. When covering controversial issues balance and objectivity is necessary for fair reporting. For instances, in political reporting —presumably in the UK as well as in the US— if one were reporting on Democrats and Republicans, they would both be considered political parties. You wouldn’t refer to one as a social club, and the other as a professional political organization. Yet, that is exactly the sort of imbalance that is taking place in this piece in regards to proponents of intelligent design.

Anyone who is even nominally critical of evolution is immediately classified as religious. They are painted as either ignorant or simply motivated by politics, whereas those who support evolution are referred to as scientists.

The Independent doesn’t simply rely on insinuating that intelligent design isn’t science and that its proponents are not scientists, it makes that assertion with nothing to back it up other than vacuous doctrinal statements from governing bodies that are not likely to have ever explored the theory beyond the pages of the Independent or the New York Times.

Even worse are the outright lies put forth about Dr. Michael Behe, who testified in the Dover vs. Kitzmiller ID trial last year.

“Last year Dr Behe had to admit in a US courtroom not only that such organisms could be the result of evolution, but that intelligent design had the same scientific legitimacy as astrology.”

This is simply false. It is based on faulty reporting from that bastion of journalistic integrity, the New Scientist, which falsely reported this last year during the trial. (see here for the straight scoop)

Another false assertion by the Independent is that irreducible complexity has been discredited. Far from it. Behe has written about the hand waving, speculations, and just so stories that greeted his argument for irreducible complexity in the new afterword to his groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box.

• Responding to Darwinists Claiming to Have Explained Away the Challenge of Irreducible Complexity
  
• The Lamest Attempt Yet to Answer the Challenge Irreducible Complexity Poses for Darwinian Evolution by Michael Behe
  
• How to Explain Irreducible Complexity -- A Lab Manual by CSC Fellows
  
• Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature by Michael Behe
  
• Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones's Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum by Casey Luskin

What is it that the Independent, and Darwinian hardliners, are afraid of? A head of science interviewed for the story sums it up nicely. Concerning the distribution of “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” – a documentary presenting and explaining the positive evidence for intelligent design theory – it is clear that following the evidence where it leads is what Darwinists desperately want to keep students from doing.

Graham Wright, head of science at North Bridge House, an independent school in north London, says the pack sent to him went straight into the bin. But he is concerned that some well-meaning teachers, convinced by talk of changes in the national curriculum, will include the pack in lessons. "If I showed this to children, of course they would be convinced," he says. "There's no doubt about that at all."

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:25 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The whole point of independent schools is that they are supposed to be independent! The whole point of the media is to report the news, not distortions. Yet in the story from The Ottawa Citzen (“Teach sex and evolution or close, Quebec evangelical schools told”), we discover by reading the whole story carefully that the schools under attack do teach evolution. They also teach the scientific evidence against it and they teach intelligent design. And that additional teaching is the state’s real beef.

So here we have the state threatening to close supposedly independent schools because, de facto, they fail to teach the party line that there is no evidence against Darwin’s theory. That is sheer nonsense. Further, though we at Discovery Institute do not urge public schools to require instruction in intelligent design, we cannot understand how a state can prohibit a PRIVATE school from including such teaching.

(PC in Canada is in even worse than in the US, that’s for sure.)

Then there is the news story itself. The news writers and headline writer collude with the province’s censors and mislead their readers into thinking that evolution is not being taught at all in the evangelical schools. Only late in the story does the truth come out. The real story is that the province is persecuting people for no good reason whatever and misrepresenting what the schools are doing.

As for sex education, what business of the state is it what a church school teaches or doesn’t teach on moral issues?

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 8:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The NCSE's Nicholas Matzke wrote last summer, "We don’t need the anti-creationists going and mixing their views on religion into their science. In fact, this is probably the surest path to disaster politically and in the courts. Anyone who wants to do this has the right to do it, but it ain’t helpful or particularly smart." Richard Dawkins apparently didn't get Nick's memo. In a recent BBC News interview, Dawkins said that “America is ready for an attack on religion. ... Britain always has been." He explained that he wrote his book The God Delusion to convince “vaguely religious people” that “[t]he religion of their upbringing is probably nonsense” and explained to viewers that “the living world … comes about by Darwinian evolution, by natural selection.”

On Monday, Dawkins wrote in The Huffington Post that "the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis" but alleges that "no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared." Keep in mind that Dawkins is Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and that Campbell, Reece, and Mitchell's widely used textbook, Biology, praised Dawkins for his ability to "engag[e] and challeng[e] nonscientists" (5th ed., pg. 412). Meanwhile, many others are talkin' about Dawkins:

In her Kitzmiller account, Barbara Forrest writes that leading ID proponents have "blustering cowardice ... who must capture support with brazen deceit and sarcastic punditry." Ironically, she later attacks Discovery Institute's critique of the Kitzmiller ruling, claiming it had "nastiness." In response to her inconsistent argument, Dr. Forrest would likely respond that her attacks are justified based upon the evidence she presents in her article. (I’m not conceding that her ad hominem attacks are justified, I’m just describing how she would respond.) Yet our simple claim that Judge Jones got some important facts wrong in the ruling is not just an assertion we’ve invented because we have something against Judge Jones. It’s based upon careful analysis of the facts as they were stated in the opinion. I've already discussed one example in this series responding to Barbara Forrest. This post will discuss the misrepresentation that ID “has not generated peer-reviewed publications” (page 64 of online version) by looking at two examples of pro-ID peer-reviewed scientific papers that were discussed at trial.

Stephen C. Meyer's Paper
Dr. Forrest testified that she “did a key word and subject searches for peer reviewed articles in science journals using intelligent design as a biological theory” and “found nothing.” (Day 6 pm testimony, pgs. 32-33) Perhaps that's true, but it certainly doesn't seem to be the complete story because she later conceded that there were peer-reviewed papers arguing for intelligent design--namely, Stephen Meyer's article. (For a good discussion of the Darwinist response to Meyer's paper, see "The Stricture of Scientific Resolutions" by Mark Hartwig.) But she dismissed Stephen Meyer’s peer-reviewed paper in Proceedings for the Biological Society of Washington because it supposedly "contains no new data" and it's a "review essay.”

Judge Jones was actually presented with a number of papers which support intelligent design during the trial. Discovery Institute submitted an amicus brief which was accepted by Judge Jones listing some peer-reviewed papers, including Meyer's. But the evidence was also directly in the testimonial record, through the testimony of Scott Minnich, who testified about various pro-ID peer-reviewed papers:

I think yesterday there was, as I mentioned, there were around, between, I don't know, seven and ten. I don't have the specific ones. But Dr. Axe published one or two papers in the journal Biological Chemistry that were specifically addressing concepts within intelligent design. Mike Behe had one. Steve Meyer has had one. So, you know, I think the argument that you're not publishing in peer reviewed literature was valid. Now there are a couple out there. How many do we have to publish before it is in the literature and being evaluated? I mean, do we have to have 25? 50? I mean, give me a number.

(Minnich Testimony, Day 21, AM, pg. 34)

If Judge Jones knew about Meyer's peer-reviewed pro-ID article, why did he make absolutely no mention of the paper in the ruling, but instead made explicit findings which implied it doesn't exist? Is it because it was a "review essay" as Forrest says? Judge Jones accepted a review article offered by the plaintiffs entitled "The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses From the Young and Old" (by Manyuan Long, et al., Nature Reviews Genetics (4):865-875 (Nov., 2003)),” claiming that it provided peer-reviewed evidence for “the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes." (page 86 of online version) Either Judge Jones applied a double-standard to pro-ID vs. pro-evolution papers as regards peer-review, or he wrongly ignored Meyer's paper.

Michael Behe and David Snoke's Protein Science Paper
Michael Behe also testified about his peer-reviewed article with David Snoke in Protein Science. At least here Judge Jones did not ignore this paper completely, but he dismissed it as irrelevant in a footnote because he said it “does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID.” (page 88 of online version)

Yet Behe and Snoke's paper clearly does bear on the topic of the origin of irreducible complexity in protein-protein interactions. Again, a double-standard comes into play: Judge Jones claimed that the aforementioned review paper entitled "The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses From the Young and Old" accounted for “the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes” in a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Yet the body of Long et al.'s review article does not even contain the word “information,” much less the phrase “new genetic information.” The word “information” appears once in the entire article--in the title of reference #103.

The lack of the phrases "irreducible complexity" or "ID" in Behe's paper does not mean the peer-reviewed paper does not clearly support ID arguments, just like the lack of the phrase "new genetic information" or the word "information" in Long et al.'s review paper does not mean it doesn't try to address how new genetic information evolves. Once again, it seems Judge Jones applied a double-standard to pro-evolution vs. pro-ID papers as regards peer-review, and he misstated the facts on this matter.

[This post was edited immediately after posting for clarity.]

Posted by Casey Luskin at 6:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

* The estimable cultural commentator Joseph Epstein writes in The Wall Street Journal Thursday about those "Ugly Thorny Things" called facts that have a way of undercutting "velvety and suave" things called ideas. The piece (by subscription only here) makes a fascinating observation about the way that big ideas decay in the presence of factual reality.

"Not only have the past 50 or so years been largely bereft of grand ideas, but much of the best intellectual work of the period has been devoted to eliminating the major ideas, or idea system, of the previous 100 years or so: notably Marxism and Freudianism, with Darwinism perhaps next to tumble."

* The New Republic (October 23 edition) engages New York University philosopher Thomas Nagel ("The Fear of Religion") to review Richard Dawkins' book, The God Delusion, and his effort is both comprehensive and incisive. (link here, but by subscription only.)

Examining the inevitable clash of chance and necessity with design, Nagel describes the “overwhelming improbability of (an original self-replicating molecule)...coming into existence by chance, simply through the laws of physics...Dawkins (he goes on) recognizes the problem, but his response to it is pure hand-waving.”

Darwinism and Dawkins reach a theoretical as well as factual dead end on origins. “That is why the argument from design is still alive, and why scientists who find the conclusion of that argument unacceptable feel there must be a purely physical explanation of why the origin of life is not as physically improbable as it seems.” Multiverse theories are merely an unpersuasive and “desperate device to avoid the demand for a real explanation.”

He agrees with Dawkins that “the issue of design versus purely physical causation is a scientific question.” (We agree with them both on that. Would someone please tell Judge Jones and the ACLU?) But, paradoxically, to try to win the debate on that question, Dawkins and other neo-Darwinists are reduced to the philosophical “reductionist project” that Nagel says “tries to reclaim some of the originally excluded aspects of the world, by analyzing them in physical—that is, behavioral or neurophysiological—terms; but it denies reality to what cannot be so reduced. I believe the project is doomed—that conscious experience, thought, value, and so forth are not illusions, even though they cannot be identified with physical facts...”

Dawkins also would yoke all religion to the sins of the kind of fanatics who attacked on 9/11. Of course, fanatical religionists are bad, Nagel notes, but that is hardly an argument against design. “Blind faith and dogma are dangerous; the view that we can make ultimate sense of the world only by understanding it as the expression of mind or purpose is not,” he concludes.

The New Republic will be assaulted by the Darwinist thought enforcers for even running this essay. Which sorta makes the point about desperation.

* Jean Parietti in the new issue of The Catholic Northwest Progress writes a sound, straightforward article about ID and Darwinism and the real agenda of Discovery Institute. She shows that it can be done. Ms Parietti even provides a resource list.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 11:36 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The following was posted on the Cornell IDEA Club Blog at Reply From the New Scientist:

October 6, 2006

Hello Hannah and thank you for your message.

We are aware of this incident and have addressed the matter internally.

Celeste Biever is a staff reporter at New Scientist who covers, among other specialties, stories related to the intersection of science and culture on the topic of evolutionary biology. The exchange in question is unique in Celeste’s history with us and not representative of New Scientist reporting. We are not currently pursuing a story about your group and do not intend to publish any part of the communication Celeste initiated with you.

I hope this will address any concerns you may have.

Best regards,

Ivan Semeniuk

Posted by Casey Luskin at 5:50 AM