Evolution News & Views

Some of the recent reporting on the evolution debate in the UK has been less than accurate. Looks like we're not the only ones to notice. Peter Hitchens had an insightful op-ed in The Mail last Sunday looking at why it is that some many in Britian are up in arms about the possiblity of schools teaching criticisms of Darwin as well as the argument for intelligent design. He rightly points out that proponents of ID are, for the most part, misrepresented in recent reporting.

For what I noticed (as I have also observed over the global warming controversy) is that the people on one side of this dispute tend to misrepresent the other side. Rational scientists who are doubtful about Darwinism are abused. And expressions such as 'Creationism' are used to suggest that a complex, nuanced position is in fact a crude Hillbilly superstition.
I think this form of intolerance is always a bad sign.

He goes on to point out that ID is not a theory of everything, but rather a theory that challenges one key aspect of Darwinism, namely the claim that it can account for the complexity of life and the universe through natural selection and random mutation alone. According to Hitchens:

All they are doing is casting doubt on the supposed certainties of Darwinism, and using advanced scientific knowledge to do so. If Darwinists are as secure in their beliefs as they claim to be, they should easily be able to see off the ID proponents, in school or out of it, without suppressing, abusing or misrepresenting anyone.

Yet the evolutionists trumpet and bellow about this small, modest challenge, like an enormous elephant panicking over the presence of a mouse. I wonder why.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Our popular podcast (20,000 subscribers in just the past six months) today features Casey Luskin interviewing Dr. Thomas Woodward. They discuss his new book, Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design, which analyzes the rhetoric used by Darwinists in their critiques of intelligent design. Woodward documents how Darwinists often use ad hominem attacks and promote “fantasy themes” about the supposed “theocracy” of intelligent design to avoid discussing the scientific issues.

Click here to listen to the interview.

Woodward of course is the author of Doubts About Darwin, the 2004 book that documented the emergence of intelligent design among scientists. Darwin Strikes Back is the sequel to that book and in it Woodward asks and answers some key questions, such as:

Who are the key players on each side, and what contributions have they made?

How has the debate developed, and where is it headed in the future?

What conclusions can we draw about our origins based on the scientific evidence?

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:28 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The debate over how to teach evolution has ignited a firestorm of controversy in Britain. And, as hard to believe as it is, the truth is that the reporting in the UK has been even worse than the reporting on the issue here in the US.

British media seem nearly universally incapable of discerning any difference between creationism and intelligent design. They use the terms interchangeably and often refer to “the Bible story of God creating the world in six days, 6,000 years ago,” no matter whether they are discussing creationism or intelligent design.

Here’s a typical British description of intelligent design:

People who believe in Intelligent Design or ID say that it is a scientific alternative to evolution - It explains the way that life has developed on Earth as being guided by an intelligence, a force that many would call God. Its supporters say it is a more sophisticated explanation than creationism - which views the development of the world solely in biblical terms. Intelligent Design accepts many of the scientific aspects of evolution, but sees the guiding hand of God behind them all.

Clearly, many in the British media simply can’t write a story that communicates ID supporters’ own views on the subject but rather insist on asserting that intelligent design seeks to name the intelligent cause we see scientific evidence for in the natural world.

Asserting that ID believes “God is behind it all” flies in the face of what British – and American – ID scientists have themselves said. I blogged briefly about BBC News Night’s interview with Prof. Andy Mcintosh of Truth in Science (TiS). Mcintosh repeatedly explained that in science you look at the scientific evidence, and that the evidence can’t tell you who the designer is. “We are not seeking to say in any way who the designer is when we’re examining science in the classroom. … Within the science classroom we’re simply asking to look at the scientific evidence.” Later Mcintosh restated this. “We are not asking for belief to be brought into the classroom we are simply saying let’s look at the evidence, let’s look at the scientific evidence to see whether it actually shows the design thesis or not.”

There have been a few cases where accurate reporting has leaked through. BBC’s Science & Nature website correctly reports that it was Phillip Johnson who helped to ignite the modern ID movement and even properly defines the theory.

Johnson recruited other Darwin doubters, including biochemist Professor Michael Behe, mathematician Dr William Dembski, and philosopher of science Dr Stephen Meyer. These scientists developed the theory of intelligent design (ID) which claims that certain features of the natural world are best explained as the result of an intelligent being.

But the group is backed by a number of respected academics.

Its four-man board of directors includes Andy McIntosh, a professor of thermodynamics and combustion at Leeds University, and Maurice Roberts, a former classics teacher and now a minister in the Free Church of Scotland.

The group's advisory council includes Stuart Burgess, professor of design and nature at Bristol University, Derek Linkens, an emeritus professor at the department of automatic control and systems engineering at Sheffield University, and Dr Tim Wells, a senior lecturer in the school of biosciences at Cardiff University.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to an informed and irenic Turkish blog that I follow (thewhitepath.com), I already knew much of material covered in a Reuters story on Turks’ dislike of Darwinism. But it probably is news to many in this country, including the media. The Darwinists’ propaganda trope is that six-day creationism is the same as intelligent design, or might as well be the same. Yet it is obvious that Turkey really is primarily creationist--following a literalist reading of the Quaran rather than the Bible, of course--and that the creationists in Turkey have substantial funding, while ID has virtually none

Still, like certain creationists in the United States and Britain, those in Turkey do seem to make use of some of the same scientific research employed by Darwin critics who are not creationists and they likewise also may support some tenets of intelligent design. The ID movement, as such, is more limited, but enjoys substantial influence among officialdom, media and academics. Several Turkish scientists have signed the Dissent from Darwin statement.

No one in the Middle East has covered ID with such enthusiasm as the cultured and adroit science writer, Mustafa Akyol in Istanbul. His rejoinder last year to an article by the biologist Jerry Coyne in The New Republic was delightful. Writing in National Review Online, Akyol ran a shish-kebab skewer through Coyne’s professed fear that ID, supposedly the product of fundamentalist Christians, is the sort of thing that would worsen the West’s relations with the Muslim world. As Akyol observed, Muslims are not bothered by scientific arguments against Darwinism and for design. On the contrary, what they object to in the West is the strident secularist promotion of Darwinism and its pernicious public policy progeny. Poor Dr. Coyne, there he sat with his own argument running down his face.

Mustafa Akyol’s writing in Turkey and elsewhere covers myriad subjects in addition to ID. It can be accessed at the aforementioned blog, thewhitepath.com. (Akyol translates to The White Path in English.) It is a useful resource for anyone trying to understand the domestic Turkish politics surrounding the current visit to Istanbul by Pope Benedict XVI.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 9:08 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

BBC News is reporting that 89 British secondary schools are using the materials sent to them by Truth in Science (TiS), which we reported on last month. The packets include the documentary “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” and were sent to over 5000 schools in Britian, igniting a national debate over the teaching of evolution.

Last night BBC News Night ran a very interesting discussion between TiS spokesperson Professor Andy Mcintosh and Darwinist Professor Lewis Wolpert. You can watch it on their website – though this link may disappear soon. The nine-minute story starts at 18:46 and by the end of the piece even the newscaster seems to have tired of Wolpert’s monotonous — and apparently only — talking point that ID is just religion.

Finally, the newscaster lets Mcintosh briefly explain the argument for intelligent design from information in DNA. Wolpert of course has no clue how to respond and resorts to badgering Mcintosh about who the designer might be. Mcintosh knows that the issue is science, not religion, and so stuck to the science and made his case that TiS is simply seeking to follow the evidence where it leads, and that’s what should be presented in science classes.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Associated Press has a story on the Kansas Science Standards which repeats the rhetoric of Kansas Darwinists. It states, “While Kansas public schools are likely to get their fifth set of science standards in eight years, the officials who want to ditch the anti-evolution ones now in place aren't planning to act immediately.” But the present standards are not “anti-evolution." The present standards teach more about evolution than do most statewide science standards and include extensive sections discussing the evidence both for and against evolution.

The article also wrongly asserts that the standards have a “tilt toward intelligent design,” and the article mentions intelligent design 7 times. This focus on intelligent design is misleading: as we’ve repeatedly discussed, the Kansas Science Standards state they “do not include Intelligent Design” and the standards “neither mandate nor prohibit” teaching about ID. Why were these quotes left out of this article?

The article also claims that the new standards change “a definition of science that doesn't specifically limit science to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.” As discussed here, the standards simply reset the definition of science back to a definition similar to how most states define science, including how Kansas did prior to 2001, and this was not an attempt to claim the supernatural is a part of science.

The article also claims that aspects of the standard which challenge common descent based upon paleontology and molecular biology are “intelligent design arguments, defying mainstream science.” Firstly, it should be noted that the standards present both evidence for and against Neo-Darwinism and do not unilaterally criticize common ancestry. For example, they require students to learn that, “The presence of the same materials and processes of heredity (DNA, replication, transcription, translation, etc.) is used as evidence for the common ancestry of modern organisms.” Of course the Darwinists and Associated Press omit mention of such statements in order to allege the standards are “anti-evolution.”

But what about the aspects of the standards that do critique Darwin? As discussed here, many aspects of the Kansas Science Standards which critique Darwin, including those dealing with common descent and micro vs. macroevolution, have their roots in mainstream scientific publications. For example, W. F. Doolittle (a Neo-Darwinist) writes "[m]olecular phylogenists will have failed to find the 'true tree,' not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree." The article is simply repeating Darwinist rhetoric and ignoring the fact that criticisms of Neo-Darwinism can be found in mainstream science.

Despite the fact that intelligent design was irrelevant to the article, the article does have a pretty good definition of intelligent design: “Intelligent design says an intelligent cause is the best way to explain some features of the universe that are complex and well-ordered.” If by “complex and well-ordered,” the reporter means “complex and specified,” then I’d have to say this is one of the best definitions of intelligent design in the media. Nonetheless, given its repetition of Darwinist rhetoric, the article also provides an excellent example of the media bias on this issue.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A common Darwinist myth is that the only people who are skeptical of evolution are Americans. A recent article in the Virginia Informer stated, “John Swaddler, UK native and associate professor of biology at the College [of William and Mary], noted that the media phenomenon of creationism/ID vs. evolution doesn’t happen in countries besides America.” Saddler is promoting a common Darwinist claim which is simply untrue:

As we’ve noted recently, there has been a push to teach intelligent design in the United Kingdom. This summer an article in the London Guardian noted that over 30% of British students support non-evolutionary accounts of the history of life. Such skepticism extends far beyond the U.K. Nature reported that Poland is experiencing an “aggressive anti-evolution campaign.” According to another Nature article, there’s a legal controversy over teaching evolution in Russia as well. Finally, a very recent Nature news article entitled "Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe" discusses challenges to evolution in Poland, Belgium, France, Germany, Britain, Russia, Italy, and Turkey over the past few years.

Some of these disputes resemble American disputes over evolution-education. For example, Poland's minister of science, Micha Seweryski, perfectly expressed the typical position of Darwinists: “'There is no need for a discussion,'” he told Nature. 'Scientific evidence is clear and the opinion of a minority will not change teaching in schools.'” ("Polish scientists fight creationism," Nature, Vol 443:890, Oct. 26, 2006, emphasis added) Seweryski's dogmatism speaks for itself.

Of course Darwinists try to pretend that evolution-skepticism is unique to America in order to promote what Justice Antonin Scalia called the “beloved secular legend of the [Scopes] Monkey Trial,” which claims Darwin skepticism is entirely religiously based. Regardless of what Micha Seweryski says, there are many scientific reasons to be skeptical of Neo-Darwinism.

In my opinion, we should drop these myths, stop excluding “minority” opinions, and start discussing the evidence!

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

(Editors Note: This Post Was Revised and Updated on November 28, 2006):

Some people have contacted me insisting that not all freshmen were required to attend the lecture by Robert Pennock at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) (first discussed here). In this regard, consider the following points:

Both Uncommon Descent and Telic Thoughts are discussing how less than 1 mile up the road from UCSD, scientists gathered last week at The Salk Institute for Biological Studies to bash religion. The New York Times' science section covered the conference, but failed to recognize that many ID-proponents accept Big Bang cosmology and even find it is evidence indicating cosmic design. Nonetheless, the vitriol and hatred coming from these scientists against religion is striking. Consider these excerpts from the article:

[O]ne speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief . . . With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy . . . By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.” “With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

(George Johnson, "A Free-for-All on Science and Religion," The New York Times [November 21, 2006], emphasis added)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A small group of evangelicals is making waves in America, writing inflammatory best-sellers and going on a media crusade to spread their message of fear and intolerance. As CSC’s Logan Gage explains in this article from The Examiner, while it may seem counter-intuitive, these rabble-rousers defy the usual caricature of pitchfork-waving fundamentalists by virtue of their atheism.

In trying to figure out what’s gotten these atheists all in a tizzy, Gage asks,

What is happening? Is it all just election-year hoopla against the religious right? I suggest another explanation. A quiet revolution is underway; and it will not be publicized.

Gage sees this rise of atheist fundamentalism as a reaction to the challenge of intelligent design:

Just as we have confidence that black holes exist, not by direct observation, but because of the movement of bodies around the blackness, so, too, can one be sure an intellectual revolution is underway when we increasingly find books on The New York Times best-seller list by evangelical atheists like Richard Dawkins.

These authors are surely responding to something. That something is powerful scientific evidence challenging their worldview. Time got it right: “This debate long predates Darwin, but the anti-religion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design. …”

To see the whole article, read "Evangelical atheists crusade against ‘pernicious’ religions," by Logan Gage (The Examiner, November 17, 2006).

Posted by Anika Smith at 4:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Meet Mark A. Farmer, Ph.D., of Winterville, Georgia.

Dr. Farmer is a Professor and Head of the Department of Cellular Biology at the University of Georgia. His research is on the "origin and evolution of eukaryotic cells." Until recently, Dr. Farmer also held the position of Directorate for Biological Sciences, Division of Biological Infrastructure, with the National Science Foundation, with responsibility for soliciting grants for the NSF's "Assembling the Tree of Life" project.

Publicly, Mark A. Farmer says he is passionate about keeping religious alternatives to evolution out of biology:
Farmer signed a petition addressed to the Cobb County Board of Education objecting to "the proposal to allow 'alternative theories' of the origin and development of life on earth to be presented alongside evolutionary theory in Cobb County science classrooms" because it would "significantly degrade the quality of science education in Cobb County schools." Internet Infidels the on-line host of Farmer's petition, is "a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to defending and promoting a naturalistic worldview on the Internet." As Internet Infidels explains on its website, “[N]aturalism entails the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic God.”

In May of 2005, University Affairs magazine reported that Farmer teaches students in his "Origins of Life" course "why scientists feel Darwinian theory offers the best explanation for biological diversity."

In a November 2005 letter to the Athens Banner-Herald, Farmer wrote that "the voters of Dover, Pa. were right to reject those school board members who would interject belief in the supernatural into America’s science classrooms."

Privately, Mark A. Farmer says he is passionate about putting religious alternatives to evolution into biology:
As president of Quality Science Education for All (QSEA), an organization dedicated to improving science education by including the scientific weaknesses of evolution along with its strengths in biology, I get e-mails.

In November 2005, I received an e-mail from Mark A. Farmer in which he wrote:

I was considering making a donation to Quality Science Education for All but in reading about your recent activities I am still a bit confused as to what the mission of QSEA actually is. Specifically I would like to know whether or not you support the word of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ being taught in our public schools. This is an issue I feel very strongly about and would need to know your position before making a decision to financially support QSEA. (Emphasis added.)

Thank you very much,

Mark Farmer
Winterville, Georgia

In December 2005, Mark A. Farmer wrote the following in an e-mail to my wife, Jeannie Caldwell:

[Y]our recent lawsuit against the website at Berkeley seems based on drawing a very hard line between Church [and] state. . . . Should your lawsuit prevail I feel that the concepts of ALL religions, and thus alternatives to evolution, will be forever be banned from schools. (Emphasis added.)

Notably, in his correspondence with QSEA, Mark A. Farmer did not disclose his roles as biology professor and fervent Darwinist. We only discovered those dimensions of Mark A. Farmer through detective work on the internet by my wife, Jeannie.

So how did Jeannie determine with certainty that the "public" Mark A. Farmer who has made Darwinist statements and the "private" Mark A. Farmer who has made creationist statements are one in the same? Three simple lines of evidence establish the connection:

(1) The e-mail address from which "Mark Farmer of Winterville, GA" wrote to QSEA matches the e-mail address listed for Mark A. Farmer on the Winterville City Council official website, and when my wife wrote to Mark A. Farmer at that e-mail address, Mark Farmer responded to us from that e-mail address with his December 2005 e-mail message above;

(2) The Mark A. Farmer on the Winterville, GA City Council is the same Mark A. Farmer who is professor of biology at UGA: the picture of Mark A. Farmer on the Winterville City Council official website shows the same person as the picture of Mark A. Farmer on the University of Georgia website for Professor Mark A. Farmer;

(3) Winterville, GA, where Mark A. Farmer is on the city council, is less than 8 miles from the University of Georgia, in Athens, GA, where Mark A. Farmer is on the faculty, and where Mark A. Farmer wrote his letter to the editor of the Athens Banner.

So what are we to make of Mark A. Farmer, of Winterville, Georgia?

Have we uncovered the Strange Case of Dr. Darwinist and Mr. Creationist — a public Darwinist, but a closet creationist?

Or have we uncovered Inspector Clouseau in a labcoat — a bumbling Darwinist attempting a clumsy imitation of a Christian fundamentalist?

Only Mark A. Farmer knows for sure.

Posted by Larry Caldwell at 1:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

We would like to welcome our newest addition to the Evolution News & Views reporting team, Larry Caldwell. Mr. Caldwell is a parent and attorney in Roseville, California. He is also president of Quality Science Education for All (QSEA), a non-profit organization which has advocated for quality science education policies in the Roseville school district to guarantee that science will not be taught dogmatically and that teachers will "help students analyze the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories, including the theory of evolution." Under Larry's leadership, QSEA has been involved in a lawsuit to end Establishment Clause violations by Darwinists who are using taxpayer money to promote pro-Darwinian theology via the Understanding Evolution website. More information can be found at QSEA.org.

Larry will be occasionally reporting here to keep readers apprised of his activities and comment on issues related to the teaching of evolution. His kickoff-post recounts a biology professor who e-mailed QSEA, impersonating either a creationist or a Darwinist.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Parents and students beware: the author of a leading college biochemistry textbook believes that pro-intelligent design students are not smart and should not be admitted to college. Discussing the UCSD Robert Pennock lecture, UncommonDescent reports that Larry Moran, professor of biochemistry at the University of Toronto and author of the widely used college biochemistry textbook, Principles of Biochemistry, thinks that UCSD should not admit students who are pro-ID. In a post entitled, "Flunk the IDiots," Professor Moran wrote:

I agree with the Dembski sycophants that UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place. Having made that mistake, it's hopeless to expect that a single lecture—even one by a distinguished scholar like Robert Pennock—will have any effect. The University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.

(University of Toronto Biochemistry Professor Larry Moran, author of Principles of Biochemistry in "Flunk the IDiots")

It is also worth noting that Professor Moran called ID-proponents "IDiots" and "sycophants." A sycophant is "a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite." This is the mindset and attitude of a leading biochemist who writes textbooks used by thousands of undergraduates.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This final installment of the response to National Geographic's recent evolution article will discuss both Carl Zimmer's scientific arguments regarding the evolution of the eye, and his theological arguments which he uses to claim the eye was not designed. Before Zimmer discussed "conservation" among genes controlling eye development in widely different types of eyes (reminiscent of common design), he does some blocking by using theological arguments against eye design. Up to this point, Zimmer avoided typical evolutionary icons, but once he started to make the dysteleological argument that the eye is "far from perfect," he slipped into classical Darwinist iconography.

Zimmer cites 3 lines of evidence which he thinks count against design of the vertebrate eye: (1) our retinas may become detached after "a sharp punch to the head"; (2) light-gathering cells point inward, not outward towards the light; (3) the optic nerve creates a blind spot because it starts in front of the retina before going into the brain. Based on this evidence, Zimmer concludes that "[e]volution, with all its blunders, made the eye."

Zimmer's argument is based upon 2 fallacies: (a) that "imperfect" or "suboptimal" design implies no design, and (b) that the eye has an obviously suboptimal design.

(a) Firstly, Zimmer's claim that an eye is not designed because our retinas may become detached after "a sharp punch to the head" is not a scientific argument: intelligent design doesn't require "perfection," nor does it require that a system always survive malicious physical attacks. Was the Ford Pinto, with all its imperfections revealed in crash tests, not designed?

Zimmer thus presents a straw-man argument against intelligent design, based upon his view that a designer must design things to withstand a certain type of malicious physical attack. This is not a scientific objection, but a theological objection. As a scientific theory, intelligent design does not require that systems always survive malicious physical beatings: as a science, ID requires the detection of specified complexity, and the moral purposes of the designer or the "perfection" of the design are irrelevant when determining whether an object was designed. But Carl Zimmer's personal theological views have no bearing upon the science of intelligent design. A more interesting question is, Why has National Geographic become a mouthpiece for a view of theology that states that a designer must design things to withstand certain types of physical attacks?

(b) Secondly, the design of the eye actually isn't inefficient, refuting this tired icon. Both the presence of the blind-spot and the inward orientation of light-recepting cells—cited by Zimmer as evidence against "perfection"—are actually the result of an eye design which appears optimized for high visual acuity. George Ayoub explains why vertebrate eye design does not even appear to be suboptimal:

It has been commonly claimed that the vertebrate eye is functionally suboptimal, because photoreceptors in the retina are oriented away from incoming light. However, there are excellent functional reasons for vertebrate photoreceptors to be oriented as they are. Photoreceptor structure and function is maintained by a critical tissue, the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE), which recycles photopigments, removes spent outer segments of the photoreceptors, provides an opaque layer to absorb excess light, and performs additional functions. These aspects of the structure and function of the vertebrate eye have been ignored in evolutionary arguments about suboptimality, yet they are essential for understanding how the eye works.

[...]

[I]ndeed, our thought experiment has taken the vertebrate eye rapidly downhill. In trying to eliminate the blind spot, we have generated a host of new and more severe functional problems to solve. Our "repair" seems far worse than the apparent flaw we wanted to fix.

(George Ayoub, "On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina," Origins & Design 17:1; read the full article to get an appreciation for the argument)

Carl Zimmer's dysteleological argument makes inappropriate theological assumptions that a designer must make things to withstand certain physical attacks. The argument also makes inappropriate scientific assumptions which assumes that the presence of the "blind spot" implies suboptimal design. Both assumptions are false. It's time to put to rest the evolutionary icon of "poor design of the eye's retina.” Just like the panda's thumb, the vertebrate eye functions quite well.

Eye - Carumba
Carl Zimmer does make one scientific argument about the eye. His article has a diagram showing various types of eyes, asserting that the gradations of extant eye types imply that step-wise evolution of the eye is possible. This type of diagram is common among ID-critics, and it is almost becoming an icon in-and-of itself. It brings to mind an excellent passage from Thomas Woodward's new book Darwin Strikes Back: Defending the Science of Intelligent Design:

I once asked the renowned Princeton biologist John Tyler Bonner how he would explain the macroevolution of such complex organs. In response, he directed me to George Gaylord Simpson's book, The Meaning of Evolution. Simpson's answer--looking at a suggestive sequence or gradation of different eyes, from simple to complex--was not much advanced on Darwin's. Do we really know that natural selection can accomplish the drastic morphological transitions between these different types of eyes, with all the knitting and organizing of new complex proteins? (Thomas Woodward, Darwin Strikes Back (Baker, 2006))

Thank you for reading this series of responses. Readers with questions or comments may contact me at cluskin@discovery.org.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On Tuesday, I reported that the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) required all freshmen to attend an anti-ID lecture by Robert Pennock. Apparently it was a packed house in the 5000-seat RIMAC arena, illustrating that thousands of freshmen did attend (as they were required). In my prior post I noted that Pennock’s “arguments are fairly standard misrepresentations of intelligent design” and tried to make “educated predictions about Pennock will say.” I know many pro-ID people were in the audience. One friend contacted me and confirmed that most of my predictions about Pennock’s arguments were correct. Pennock made the following arguments, as I predicted:

We recently discussed how New Scientist reporter Celeste Biever unnecessarily used a fake identity to talk to the IDEA Club at Cornell. Over the past year, I’ve had a few analogous encounters where Darwinist biologists have used their positions at major secular universities to feign being pro-ID in an unnecessary deception to engage in dialogue. One very recent example is a biologist at Northeastern University in Boston named Donald M. O'Malley.

In September, 2006, Dr. O'Malley wrote me an e-mail saying that he was pro-ID and that “the grandest of designs [is] the central nervous system.” He said that he shared this information “in confidence” because “there are certain parties that certainly would not be sympathetic to my views” and therefore wanted to stay “under the radar.” He even said, “I am having trouble getting my research refunded by NIH (20 rejected grant applications in a row). If they identify me as a design theorist, this would only get worse, I expect.”

I responded to O’Malley with the usual kindness which I extend to anyone, whether pro-Darwin or pro-ID. He then replied back:

You have been a kind and understanding person and so it is with some regret that I must tell you that my emails to you were misleading. . . . As a bit of a subterfuge, I feigned sympathy for the ID movement, within the context of understanding how the CNS works. . . . My writings were tailored to lead you to a false perception and I not only apologize for this deception, but I am also frankly embarrassed by my actions.

Ironically, O’Malley also claimed that the reason he contacted me with deception was because he was “originally interested in trying to understand how an intelligent person could hold [your] beliefs.” If he wanted to know my reasons for holding my scientific views, all he had to do was ask and disclose his true identity and intentions: I’m willing to talk to anyone as long as they are being honest with me, and I regularly engage in friendly dialogues with Darwinists.

Dr. O'Malley was a rare case of a Darwinist who ultimately followed his conscience and disclosed his true identity. That should be to his credit. Another example will be discussed in the coming days who does not seem to have yet admitted anything. But the moral of this story is that the public should be aware of this pattern: some Darwinists at major U.S. universities and in the media are using their power and position in order to deceive people through unnecessary lies--claiming they are pro-ID and attempting to get information from those who are pro-ID.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Science writer Denyse O'Leary has just published a four-part series about peer-review on her Post-Darwinist website. It is a thorough overview of what peer-review is and what some of the problems are with the current system. She has some interesting ideas on how this may be resolved in the future, but it is her identification of one major problem that is of most interest to the ID/evolution debate.

O'Leary notes that:

Generally, the two most common complaints are that peer review fails to safeguard quality, which was its original purpose and that it punishes new ideas, regardless of merit. ...

Findings that support a consensus are too easily accepted - that is the inevitable flip side to squelching new ideas.

The take-home lesson I have learned is that, while some science journal editors are individually tolerant and will entertain thoughts of publishing challenges to current views, when a group (such as the editorial board) gets together, orthodoxy prevails.

I'm torn by your request to submit a (thoughtful) response to critics of your non-evolutionary theory for the origin of complexity. On the one hand I am painfully aware of the close-mindedness of the scientific community to non-orthodoxy, and I think it is counterproductive. But on the other hand we have fixed page limits for each month's issue, and there are many more good submissions than we can accept. So, your unorthodox theory would have to displace something that would be extending the current paradigm.

As you no doubt know, our journal has supported and demonstrated a strong evolutionary position from the very beginning, and believes that evolutionary explanations of all structures and phenomena of life are possible and inevitable. Hence a position such as yours, which opposes this view on other than scientific grounds, cannot be appropriate for our pages.

The manuscript did not argue for intelligent design, nor did it say that complex systems would never be explained within Darwinian theory. Rather, it just made the simple, obvious, and unarguable point that gene duplication by itself is an incomplete explanation. Apparently, however, my skepticism about Darwinism overshadowed all other points. Everything I wrote beyond the first sentence was pretty much ignored or dismissed without engagement. I should also point out that, on the one hand, my paper discussed published experiments on specific genes in the clotting cascade of mice, the published misinterpretation of those experiments, and why that shows we need more information than sequence similarity to explain the origin of the cascade and other systems.

The overwhelming flaw in the traditional peer review system is that it listed so heavily toward consensus that it showed little tolerance for genuinely new findings and interpretations. The print and postage-based technologies of the mid-twentieth century greatly increased the significance of this flaw because only a few parties could afford to operate publishing systems. A small like-minded cabal can easily get control of such a system and run it into the ground, without significant challenge. By contrast, Internet-based technologies permit widespread low-cost access. The Internet may help to restore a more open and creative conversation - though it certainly won't sound pretty at first.

For years the Darwinian lobbyists at the National Center for Science Education (NSCE) have falsely complained that scientists who support the theory of intelligent design don’t publish peer-reviewed articles, never mind that we have listed a number of pro-ID peer-reviewed papers on the Discovery Institute website. And there are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles that challenge one aspect or another of Darwinian evolution in the scientific literature.

When an article has appeared in a biology journal that the NCSE couldn't spin out of existence, they immediately clamored that the article shouldn’t have been published, despite the fact that it was approved by peer-review.

The article in question was, of course, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," written by CSC Director Dr. Stephen Meyer, and it appeared in the biology journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. Meyer’s article explicitly argued that the theory of intelligent design explains the origin of the genetic information in early animal forms better than current materialistic theories of evolution.

"It's too bad the Proceedings published it," lamented anthropologist Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE. "... This article is substandard science."

In an interview with The Scientist, the editor of The Proceedings, Richard Sternberg, confirmed that Meyer’s article went through the standard peer-review process, and the three peer reviewers of the paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research institute."

At the time, Meyer commented, “Darwinists have argued that intelligent design isn’t science because it hasn’t been published in peer-reviewed journals. But now that an increasing number of scientists are making their case for design in scientific publications, Darwinists are ready to disown peer-review—temporarily, I’m sure.”

As O'Leary's report on the state of peer-review asserts and the responses from journal editors make obvious, Darwinists seem to embrace peer-review only when it confirms their pre-determined conclusions. Their goal isn’t peer-review, it’s censorship. They want to squelch any dissent from the Darwinian paradigm.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:52 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In Part I, I discussed how Carl Zimmer's recent article, "From Fins to Wings," in National Geographic quoted a biologist in a fashion that sounded like an advertisement for evolution. While the article obviously was not pro-ID, it ironically discussed much evidence which ID-proponents often contend supports intelligent design. This segment of the 3-part response will discuss evidence for design from "conservation" in developmental genes.

Evolutionarily Conserved Genes or Common Design?
"From Fins to Wings" discusses many examples of similar genes controlling similar developmental processes in widely different organisms. ID-proponents have taken this re-usage of genetic coding components as indicative of common design. Pro-ID scientist Mike Gene has noted that we have to be careful when advancing arguments about common design:

I am reluctant to advance the old thesis of common design because of its nasty ad hoc flavor. Nevertheless, we are exploring the world through the Design Matrix and I simply cannot subscribe to the notion that a designer would always reinvent the wheel every time a machine is invented.

(Common Design by Mike Gene)

Gene's statement seems fair. In my view, the case for common design becomes much stronger when one finds genetic similarity expressed in the fundamental programs of many species, in places perhaps unexpected by common descent. Thus the National Geographic article reports:

The genes responsible for laying out the fly's body plan have nearly identical counterparts in many other animals, ranging from crabs to earthworms to lampreys to us. The discovery came as a surprise, since these animals have such differently looking bodies.

But "the discovery" should come as no surprise to anyone who recognizes that designers often re-use parts that work in different designs. Other examples discussed in the article which ID-proponents might argue imply common design include:

Genes that control neural cell development in larvaceans are also at work in the development of our own brains;

The same genes control eye development in organisms as diverse as insects, cats, scallops, octuposes, and ragworms;

The same genes control the growth of feathers and scales;

A similar genetic map is found on the tips of stems before flowers grow and also on early animal embryos.

Designer Analogies
Sean Carroll is quoted in the National Geographic article noting that animal development entails "variations on a theme." But the "variations on a theme" metaphor is most applicable to an intelligent composer reusing basic music segments with slight variations to design beautiful music. Similarly, the article quotes Todd Oakley saying, "It's like remodeling a house. You don't have to start from scratch; you just change certain elements." While Carroll and Oakley are staunch evolutionists, in light of Mike Gene’s comments above, composers and construction engineers are interesting choices of analogy: both are intelligent agents.

How easy is it to remodel a house through a blind, random process? The article glosses over some difficulties faced by blind evolution of developmental genes recognized in other places. These difficulties were discussed in an earlier Time magazine article:

The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad others will change as well—and not necessarily for the better. Thus dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists call a "hopeful monster"— such as a fish with feet—are likely to remain elusive.

(Where Do Toes Come From?)

Where are the detailed step-by-step explanations of how evolution "tinkered" with genes so as to create functional advantages and functional intermediates while "remodeling" species? Zimmer provides none. Successful "remodeling," it would seem, inherently implicates intelligent design.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)

Since 1998, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells, William Dembski, and Paul Nelson have all spoken at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD). Now UCSD is striking back. Tonight, anti-ID philosopher of science Robert Pennock is being paid by UCSD's Council of Provosts and the Division of Biological Sciences to speak against intelligent design in a lecture that is free and open to the public in UCSD's RIMAC Arena (which holds about 5000 people). Of course, these groups are all taxpayer-supported. Not only is this free event open to anyone, but TritonLink, the UCSD student website, on its main home-page, reports that Professor Pennock's lecture is mandatory attendance for all freshmen: "All first-quarter freshmen are required to attend the event, which is open to the public":

If a major public biology research university like UCSD is requiring freshmen to attend talks by leading anti-ID philosophers, could the anti-ID bias in the academy be any clearer? Will UCSD later invite a pro-ID speaker which all freshmen are required to hear? I had a great experience at UCSD despite its anti-ID bias. But if you're a student at UCSD (like I was for 5 years, getting my undergraduate and masters degrees), would you consider this mandatory lecture to more closely resemble objective education or one-sided, mandatory indoctrination against intelligent design?

If you're not forced to attend, I say you should still go hear Pennock speak. I chose to take about a dozen courses dealing with evolution in an anti-ID fashion while at UCSD. But if you are forced to attend, what should you expect? Pennock was the anti-ID expert witness in philosophy of science for the plaintiffs during the Kitzmiller trial. I directly observed, in the courtroom, nearly all of Pennock's testimony during the trial. His arguments are fairly standard misrepresentations of intelligent design:

If you attend tonight, you will see him simply claim that ID requires supernatural causation, and therefore is a form of special creationism. He will then explain that science prohibits invoking the supernatural, asserting that a "ground rule" of science is methodological naturalism. He will then conclude that therefore ID is not science. His arguments are easy to refute.

A User's Guide to Refuting Pennock

I can't precisely predict what Pennock will say tonight. But based upon his Kitzmiller testimony, here are my educated predictions about Pennock will say, along with some useful resources for rebuttal:

If you have not seen it already, you will enjoy playing with this random mutation generator. You will see how wonderful the Darwinian process is at taking your text and moving on to ever-greater levels of complexity.

Many ENV readers may recall Richard Dawkins’s now famous blunder

in The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins claimed that a Darwinian process can create meaningful information, such as Hamlet’s phrase, “Methinks it is like a weasel." Whereas it is very improbable to hit upon this sequence of letters all at one time, Dawkins attempted to show that the Darwinian step-by-step process could do it by taking advantage of small “mutations,” preserving the advantageous changes and getting rid of the unhelpful ones. And in this way such a process could eek toward the meaningful Shakespearian sentence.

As Benjamin Wiker and Jonathan Witt note in their new book, A Meaningful World,

Dawkins is trying to demonstrate that in assessing the powers of chance to produce a living being or a complex organ, evolutionists are not claiming that, say, a functional grackle’s wing pops into existence in one fell swoop. Rather, evolution always works by cumulative steps, building slowly to the goal through a long series of functional intermediates.

Second, “the functional intermediates aren’t functional.” For instance, even the starting sequence of WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P does not have a function. Something truly mimicking Darwinian evolution would begin with a meaningful sentence and attempt to move to another meaningful sentence and maintain some sort of meaning (function) all along the way. "[A]ll nonsense strings would be eliminated as gibberish, only to be followed by another random go at the whole string on the next try."

For a fascinating discussion of how Dawkins’s reduction of Hamlet’s meaningful sentence is strikingly similar to the Darwinian reduction of organisms as unified living wholes, see chapter 2 of A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature.

Posted by Logan Gage at 1:13 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

CSC Senior Fellow John West is featured in Human Events this week, offering a reality check and a history lesson on the debate over Darwinian evolution.

The debate over Darwinian evolution is typically framed by the news media as a clash between “right” and “left.” Conservatives are presumed to be critical of Darwin’s theory, while liberals are presumed to be supportive of it.

As in most cases, reality is more complicated.

There always have been liberal critics of Darwin. In the early 20th Century, progressive reformer Wi