I was recently e-mailed by a student who is an evolutionist and skeptical of intelligent design. This student asked various questions about intelligent design, but they were honest questions from an inquiring mind. The student had many misconceptions about ID, and this is unfortunate, because in a different political environment it might be possible for such misconceptions to be dispelled by science educators. I felt it might be helpful to put these questions, along with my answers, in a post here:

You asked: “Do you think evolution exists at all?”

I reply: Yes. Every ID proponent I know acknowledges that random mutation and blind natural selection are real phenomena that can cause at least some changes within species. Moreover, they also acknowledge that species have undergone at least some degree of change in the past. ID proponents simply don’t think such random and blind processes can account for the origin of many complex biological features, like irreducible complex molecular machines, or the explosion of new body plans that appear in a geological instant during the Cambrian explosion. Also, you asked about whether I accept anti-biotic resistance (i.e. antibacterial soap) as an example of evolution. Again, every ID-proponent I know agrees that anti-biotic resistance is a real evolutionary phenomenon. But we generally observe that anti-biotic resistance typically involves trivial biochemical changes that do not explain the origin of complex biological systems. If you’d like to know more, I wrote an article about the fact of antibiotic resistance and how it does not prove that Darwinian evolution can produce complex biological changes at:

The Implications of Antibiotic and Antiviral Drug Resistance for the Power of Darwinian Evolution

I think that SUNY Professor of Neurosurgery Michael Egnor gives a good explanation of how anti-biotic resistance is a very real problem, but he shows that Darwinian evolution is not helping us to solve it or understand it:

“Microbiology tells us that bacterial populations are heterogeneous. Individual bacteria differ from one another. Molecular biology tells us that some bacteria have molecular mechanisms by which they can survive antibiotics. Molecular genetics tells us how these resistance mechanisms are passed to other bacteria and through generations of bacteria. Pharmacology helps us design new antibiotics that circumvent the bacterial defenses. What does Darwinism add to the sciences of microbiology, molecular biology, molecular genetics, and pharmacology? Darwinism tells us that antibiotic-resistant bacteria survive exposure to antibiotics because of natural selection. That is, bacteria survive antibiotics that they're not sensitive to, so non-killed bacteria will eventually outnumber killed bacteria. That’s it.” (Michael Egnor, Quick, Nurse, Give the Patient a Tautology!)

Finally, regarding this question, you might be interested in reading Michael Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution because it acknowledges that Darwinian evolution can cause some evolutionary change but argues there are many things that it cannot evolve. I think that book will help clarify your understanding of where ID stands on these issues.

You asked: “Or do you believe that this designer created everything as it is today?”

I reply: No, I do not believe that, and I don’t know of a single ID proponent who believes that.

You asked: “Do you think an atheist can believe in Intelligent Design?”

I reply: Yes. ID proponents have been firmly consistent in explaining that ID doesn’t try to address religious questions about the identity of the designer. My personal view is that the designer is God, but that’s not a conclusion of ID, that’s my personal religious view. I know ID proponents who do not believe in God, so it seems that it is possible to accept ID but not have any particular religious viewpoint.

You asked: “Do you look down upon supporters of evolution?”

I reply: No, absolutely not. In fact, I respect Darwin greatly as a scientist because he was a good observer, a good science-writer, and was so open about the weaknesses of his theory. As Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” I respect evolutionists who disagree with my views, and I wouldn’t want anyone to be convinced of anything apart from a reasonable and civil discussion about the data. There are some evolutionists today who are willing to candidly admit weaknesses in evolutionary theory. But I wish that more modern evolutionists would deeply consider Darwin’s words.

Additionally, while an undergraduate and graduate student at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) I worked as a research assistant in the mainstream scientific community, and I had many friends and colleagues who were evolutionists. They were intelligent people—in my view equally as gifted as the scientists I am privileged to work presently in the ID movement. In fact, many of my closest friends in college were evolutionists, and I continue to respect these people and value their friendships today.

Finally, in my experience, people in the ID movement don’t look down on people. If you’d like to see some documentation regarding what some evolutionists think about ID-proponents, you might enjoy this blog post:

Asking the Right Questions Brings out Internet Darwinists’ True Colors

You asked: “Do you really, actually, in your heart, believe in Intelligent Design?”

I reply: In my view, ID is the best scientific explanation for the origin of much biological complexity. I have outlined my views in the attached document, The Positive Case for Design, which helps explain why I believe that ID is a compelling scientific theory. You can read more about how ID interacts uses the scientific method at:

Does intelligent design theory implement the scientific method?

For me, ID is about science and so I wouldn’t say that I support ID “in my heart”—my support of ID comes more from intellectual arguments of the mind. For me, I got interested in ID because I was taking evolutionary biology courses at UCSD, and from what I was learning in class, Darwinian theory did not seem like a good explanation for much of the data. Darwin was a gifted scientist and had many groundbreaking insights. 150 years later it’s clear that his ideas explain some small-scale changes, but a huge mass of data do not support many of his grander claims regarding macroevolution, common descent, and the origin of biological complexity. I like how Robert Carroll puts it:

“Biologists have long struggled with the conceptual gap between the small-scale modifications that can be seen over the short time scale of human study and major changes in structure and ways of life over millions and tens of millions of years. Paleontologists in particular have found it difficult to accept that the slow, continuous, and progressive changes postulated by Darwin can adequately explain the major reorganizations that have occurred between dominant groups of plants and animals. Can changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?” (Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)

In my view, the origin of biological complexity is best explained by intelligent design, because our observation-based understanding of the world shows that such complexity comes only from intelligence. As Stephen C. Meyer puts it, “[o]ur experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source from a mind or personal agent … the highly specified hierarchical arrangements of parts in animal body plans also suggest design, again because of our experience of the kinds of features and systems that designers can and do produce.” (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177&program=CSC%20%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 7 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

PBS observes that Darwin boasted that embryology provided "the strongest single class of facts in favor of" his theory of evolution. But Darwin penned those words in the 1860s, and developmental biologists have learned much since that time. In fact, Darwin staked much of his evidential support upon the work of the 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel. After Darwin, it was discovered that Haeckel promoted fraudulent data to falsely support vertebrate common ancestry by overstating the similarities between vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages of development.

Haeckel’s infamous embryo drawings obscured the differences between vertebrate embryos in their earliest stages, leading to widespread belief in the false idea that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (i.e. development replays evolutionary history). The factual data reveal that vertebrate embryos develop very differently from their earliest stages in a pattern that is unexpected if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. Darwin himself was a victim of Haeckel’s fraud, and had Darwin known the truth, perhaps he might never have made the statement that PBS quotes above.

But there are even stronger reasons to understand that modern developmental biology challenges Darwin. Biologists have discovered, as PBS puts it, that “microbes to man … share a common ‘tool kit’ of so-called master genes.” PBS claims this supports Darwinian evolution because living animal groups inherited these genes from a common ancestor. While intelligent design is certainly compatible with common ancestry, PBS ignores the possibility that such recurring fundamental genetic programs across species could also be explained as the result of common design, i.e. the re-usage of genetic programs that fulfill the functional requirements of animal development. Indeed, common design may be the best explanation for the many instances where these master genes control the growth of analogous body parts in widely diverse organisms where it is even not thought that the common ancestor even had the body part in question.

For example, vertebrates, sea urchins, insects, and various other invertebrate groups all use the same regulatory genes to control growth of their widely diverse types of limbs, but it is not thought that their common ancestor had a common limb. Similarly, vertebrates, insects, and jellyfish use similar master control genes to control the development of their widely different eyes, but their alleged common ancestor is not thought to have had a common type of eye. In these cases, living animal groups would NOT be expected to have inherited their genetic “tool kits” from a common ancestor because there is no reason to believe that the common ancestor was using that genetic toolkit for some common body part. As Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, plant geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Genetics writes, "No theorist in evolutionary biology will ever derive chicken and insects from a winged common ancestor, and yet, clearly related sequences are specifically expressed in wing buds and imaginal disks."¹

Darwinists try to resolve such quandaries by appealing to extreme examples of convergent genetic evolution, what one might term genetic predestination. But such examples of extreme convergence strain the credulity of Darwin’s mechanism. Can blind and undirected natural selection cause many animal groups to independently deploy precisely the same genetic toolkits for development? Such a high level of genetic similarity seems highly unlikely to evolve independently numerous times in the history of life.

Reference Cited:
1. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, "Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis, and the origin of irreducible complexity," in Dynamical Genetics pages. 101-119 (Valerio Parisi, Valeria De Fonzo, and Filippo Aluffi-Pentini eds., 2004) (quoting Cohn M.J., and Tickle, C. 1996, Trends Genet. 12, 253-257).

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it appears that my article about the inherent contradiction in an important section of the Dover vs. Kitzmiller decision is making evident some potentially dangerous developments among Darwinist opponents of Intelligent Design. Both Richard Hoppe at Panda's Thumb ("The Disco 'Tute's New Man") and Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars ("ID and Testability") have offered arguments against my position, and with each other—and, it turns out (at least in Brayton's case), with themselves.

I had pointed out that Judge John Jones affirmed a blatant contradiction in his opinion. He argued that the alleged unsoundness of the argument from irreducible complexity is a blow to Intelligent Design, since it is "central to ID," and then later argues that even if irreducible complexity were true, it wouldn't confirm ID because it isn't central to it, but "merely a test for evolution, not design."

I also said that this kind of argument falls into the trap of affirming two more general contradictory positions: that ID is not falsifiable, and that it is false.

I argued two points:

1. That Judge Jones both affirmed and denied that irreducible complexity is "central to ID"; and

2. That, as a consequence, he only allowed irreducible complexity to count against ID, but not for it.

This was completely lost on Hoppe, who just ran on about how ID makes testable claims he says are false, and untestable claims that can't be judged true or false:

What Cothran is apparently unable to comprehend is that while ID proponents occasionally make testable empirical claims, ID theory itself does not.

Hoppe agrees with Jones—and he doesn't. He agrees with the Jones who says that irreducible complexity is not central to ID, but disagrees with the Jones who says that it does. But nowhere does he deny my central thesis: that there are two Joneses, and that they disagree with each other.

So what does Ed Brayton say to this? First, that he has heard my argument "many times" before. Shucks. And I thought my "Two Jones" thesis was my very own discovery. Turns out, claims Brayton, that someone beat me to it, although he doesn't say who it was.

Brayton, it turns out, is not only unimpressed by my argument (or the one I thought was mine before Ed informed me it wasn't—although, in a Jonesian logical maneuver, he's going to hold it against me anyway) but is less than impressed with Hoppe's refutation of it, saying that he gives my argument "too much credit":

I think he's actually making things more complicated than they are. There is no "ID theory" and there never has been. What ID proponents call "ID theory" is nothing more than a set of bad arguments against evolution, all straight out of the creationist jokebook. They all take the form of a basic god of the gaps argument: "not evolution, therefore God."

Note carefully what is going on here. Neither Hoppe nor Brayton addresses the two central points of my argument. Hoppe agrees with the Jones who says that arguments against evolution are not central to ID, and disagrees with the Jones who says they are, while Brayton agrees with the Jones who says that arguments against evolution are central to ID and disagrees with the Jones who says that they aren't.

Neither, however, denies there are two Joneses: they simply disagree on which is the better Jones. In fact, when you put them together, not only do Hoppe and Brayton not address my argument, they actually confirm it: in agreeing with different Joneses they implicitly recognize that there are two of them.

Yet, in the final analysis, even Brayton can't resist the apparently contagious logical schizophrenia that is increasingly infecting opponents of ID:

ID argument like this can be falsified because they are tests of evolution, not of the non-existent "ID theory." ID is a purely negative argument that invokes supernatural causation, and that is why it cannot be tested on its own merits.

In other words, Brayton too argues that ID is both false and unfalsifiable. Not only are there now two Joneses, there are two Braytons.

Is it only a matter of time before Hoppe too—and all the other ID opponents—begin to experience this peculiar form of alogical reproduction? Considering the consequences (such as the potential twofold multiplication of bad reasoning), let's hope not.

Posted by Martin Cothran at 12:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

CSC Senior Fellow John West this week had an insightful commentary in the Tampa Bay Tribune about the growing discussion of religion and science in conjunction with the ongoing presidential campaigns.

Ironically, both the preoccupation with religion and the avoidance of science in the presidential campaign may have been fueled by the scientific community itself.

Increasingly, self-proclaimed defenders of science have tried to turn "science" into an ideological weapon to attack any questioning by religious believers of the "consensus view" of scientific elites on embryonic stem-cell research, global warming, Darwinian evolution, and similar issues.

Read the full piece here.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:16 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 6 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

PBS observes that the famous 19th century naturalist, T.H. Huxley, declared that "evolution excludes creation and all other kinds of supernatural intervention." But modern Darwinists have gone much further than Huxley. In Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, leading evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala celebrates that "Darwin’s greatest accomplishment” was to show that the origin of life’s complexity “can be explained as the result of a natural process—natural selection—without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent."¹

America’s great champion of evolution, the late Stephen Jay Gould, similarly announced that “[b]efore Darwin, we thought that a benevolent God had created us,”² but because of Darwin’s ideas, “biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God.”³ Richard Dawkins is Oxford University’s Charles Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and is probably the most famous evolutionist in the world. Yet Dawkins believes that God is a “delusion” and that "Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”⁶

Gould's and Dawkins's views are by no means uncommon among leading scientists. A 2007 editorial by the editors of the world's top scientific journal, Nature, stated that "the idea that human minds are the product of evolution" is an "unassailable fact," and thus concluded, "the idea that man was created in the image of God can surely be put aside.”⁴

Also noteworthy is the fact that key public defenders of Darwin involved in the Dover trial who were featured in PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary have strong ties to secular humanist groups. For example, Eugenie Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. She is also a public signer of the Third Humanist Manifesto, an aggressive statement of the humanist agenda to create a world with “without supernaturalism” based upon the view that “[h]umans are… the result of unguided evolutionary change” and the universe is “self-existing.”⁵ Similarly, Dover plaintiffs’ expert Barbara Forrest, also featured in the PBS show, is a long time board member of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association.

Indeed, PBS-NOVA’s star theistic evolutionary biologist Ken Miller has claimed in five editions of his textbooks that evolution works “without either plan or purpose” and is “random and undirected.”⁷ Two additional editions of Miller’s textbooks state: “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products.”⁸ Harvard paleontologist and author Richard Lewontin explains how this materialism is an overriding assumption propping Darwinian thought:

"[W]e have a prior commitment … to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to … produce material explanations… [T]hat materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."⁹

References Cited:
1. Francisco J. Ayala, "Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 104:8567–8573 (May 15, 2007) (emphasis added).
2. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, page 267 (W.W. Norton, 1977).
3. Stephen Jay Gould, Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History, page 147 (W.W. Norton, 1977).
4. "Evolution and the brain," Nature, Vol. 447:753 (June 14, 2007).
5. "Humanism and its Aspirations," at http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm.
6. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, page 6 (W. W. Norton, 1986).
7. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991), pg. 658; (2nd ed., Prentice Hall, 1993), pg. 658; (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995), pg. 658; (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998), pg. 658; (5th ed. Teachers Ed., Prentice Hall, 2000), pg. 658.
8. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, Biology: Discovering Life (1st ed., D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152; (2nd ed.. D.C. Heath and Co., 1994), p. 161; emphasis in original.
9. Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, page. 28 (January 9, 1997).
10. Michael Ruse, “Nonliteralist Antievolution” AAAS Symposium: “The New Antievolutionism,” February 13, 1993, Boston, MA (1993).

The graphic above was hot-linked from http://users.telenet.be/stamboom.broeckx/blog/darwin-god.jpg.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

On December 3, Discovery Institute helped organize a press conference at the Iowa State Capitol where we released evidence that Guillermo Gonzalez faced discrimination at ISU because he supports intelligent design as a science. Someone from the pro-Darwin activist group, Iowa Citizens for Science, attended that press conference and passed out a press release. Citizens were welcome to attend the press conference and we made no objections to this person attending and distributing his press release.

Within a couple days, a press release appeared on the Iowa Citizens for Science (ICFS) website, asserting that “[Guillermo] Gonzalez and the DI have announced plans to sue Iowa State University.” But that statement was both untrue and impossible: Discovery Institute is not Dr. Gonzalez’s legal representative and has no right to sue on his behalf, and that statement was directly contradicted at the press conference where Dr. Gonzalez’s attorneys made it clear that no decision has yet been made regarding whether to sue ISU. The correct position was public even before ICFS issued its press release at the Dec. 3rd press conference, having been repeated in the Des Moines Register. Soon after ICFS posted their press release, Dr. Gonzalez stated in the Iowa State Daily, "I haven't decided yet. I have not yet decided to pursue legal action."

The misinformation remained in ICFS’s website until last Sunday, when I e-mailed ICFS asking them to correct this statement. Thankfully, they did correct this point, responding quickly with a one-line e-mail stating the correction made to the press release. The e-mail I received in reply was sent by a generic ICFS e-mail address and was signed by … no one. We saw a similar pattern of behavior from ICFS at the Dec. 3 press conference: when the person who claimed to be a representative of ICFS at the press conference was asked what his name was, he answered with visible reluctance and only called himself “Greg.” Now, apparently a nameless operative is modifying their website and corresponding with the outside world on behalf of the organization. Whoever these stealthy “citizens” are at Iowa Citizens for Science, they continue to promote blatantly false information about Dr. Gonzalez:

In my e-mail to ICFS, also observed that “the Iowa Citizens for Science press release wrongly asserts that, ‘None of his graduate students had completed their programs.’” As I explained in my e-mail, the truth blatantly contradicts their false assertion:

Again, that statement is completely false. The truth is that in 2001, soon before Gonzalez left the University of Washington (UW) [to] join the faculty at ISU, he served as the primary advisor to a UW doctoral student in astronomy, Chris Laws. Gonzalez served as Laws’ primary scientific advisor over the course of Laws’ entire doctoral thesis, and Laws successfully graduated from UW with a Ph.D. in astronomy in December, 2004. Gonzalez also served on the committee of another Ph.D. student at UW, Rory Barnes, and this student also successfully graduated in 2004. You may want to also correct this false information as well and issue a retraction immediately.

As a final problem with the ICFS press release, it cites the Chronicle of Higher Education to assert that “Gonzalez’ rate of publication had dropped off dramatically since he joined the ISU faculty.” Yet as we’ve recounted elsewhere, Dr. Gonzalez has the highest per-capita publication count and highest per-capita citation count among ISU astronomers since 2001, the year he joined ISU. So if there was any “dro[p] off” in Dr. Gonzalez’s productivity, he still outperformed the very ISU astronomers who voted against his tenure.

Moreover, as Rob Crowther recently documented, Dr. Gonzalez’s annual publication rate has remained about the same at both the beginning and the end of his probationary period at ISU, so ultimately there seems to be no “dro[p] off”. Dr. Gonzalez does have a temporary drop in publications during 2004, but this is because during that year he expended much time co-authoring a peer-reviewed astronomy textbook for Cambridge University Press—a textbook that is now used for teaching in his department! But Dr. Gonzalez immediately bounced back in his publication rate after the textbook was published, and as Crowther shows, when Gonzalez was denied tenure by ISU’s president, he was tied for the highest per-capita publication count among ISU astronomers since January, 2006.

ICFS’s objective claim that “[n]one of his graduate students had completed their programs” is flat wrong, and ICFS’s subjective claim that “Gonzalez’ rate of publication had dropped off dramatically since he joined the ISU faculty” is highly questionable. But don’t expect ICFS to change any of this false information—they seem much more interested in secrecy and promoting false information, and blaming the victim for the anti-ID discrimination at ISU.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 5 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

“Darwin was ignorant of the reason for variation within a species,” writes Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe in his book Darwin’s Black Box, “but biochemistry has identified the molecular basis for it.”¹ There were other things that Darwin did not know. For example, Darwin assumed that the cell was like a primitive blob of protoplasm that could easily evolve new biological functions. As Behe explains, “To Darwin, then, as to every other scientist of the time, the cell was a black box. ... The question of how life works was not one that Darwin or his contemporaries could answer.”²

Modern technology has allowed biochemists to open Darwin’s black box, revealing a micro-world of mind-boggling complexity. Even leading proponents of evolution have acknowledged this complexity. Past U.S. National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts has described this complexity in the journal Cell as an elaborate factory: “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”³

But could such integrated complexity evolve in a stepwise, Darwinian fashion? Behe recalls that in Origin of Species, Darwin admitted that if “any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."⁴ According to Behe, “by opening the ultimate black box, the cell,” modern biochemistry “has pushed Darwin’s theory to the limit.”⁵

The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution – blind natural selection acting on random mutations – has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold stated an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”⁶

References Cited:
1. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, page X (Free Press, 1996).
2. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, pages 9-10 (Free Press, 1996).
3. Bruce Alberts, "The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the Next Generation of Molecular Biologists," Cell, Vol. 92:291 (February 8, 1998).
4. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859), Chapter 6, available at http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html.
5. Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The biochemical challenge to evolution, page 15 (Free Press, 1996).
6. Franklin M. Harold, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life, page 205 (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 4 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

As discussed in Slide #1, proponents of Darwinism often employ the “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes and then over-extrapolating to claim that such modest evidence proves Darwin’s grander claims. In fact, this is precisely what PBS does in its online materials for “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.”

A PBS web slide asserts, “Evolution happens through natural selection,” and then goes on to discuss small-scale changes in the sizes of beaks in finches on the Galapagos Islands as supporting evidence. Such small-scale changes do not demonstrate that natural selection can cause large-scale evolutionary changes, such as the origin of new body plans or perhaps even the origin of new species. In fact, all of the finch species in the Galapagos Islands remain so genetically similar that they can interbreed after millions of years of alleged evolutionary change.

If anything, the Galapagos finches demonstrate the limits of natural selection. Beak sizes increased during a drought, yet when the drought ended, finch-beaks predictably returned to their normal sizes. As biologist Jonathan Wells observes in Icons of Evolution, the bait-and-switch occurs when “evidence for oscillating natural selection in finch beaks is claimed as evidence for the origin of finches in the first place.”¹ Are such Darwinist extrapolations warranted? According to UC Berkeley law professor and Darwin-critic Phillip Johnson, “When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble.”²

References Cited:
1. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Why Much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, page 174 (Regnery, 2000).
2. Phillip Johnson, "The Church of Darwin," The Wall Street Journal (August, 16, 1999).

Posted by Casey Luskin at 5:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 3 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

As noted in the Introduction, PBS asserts that the data “unequivocally” support the view that “[e]volution happens through natural selection.” In this dogmatic statement, PBS has again failed to clearly define “evolution.” If by “evolution,” PBS means that we can observe small-scale changes within species, then no one doubts that natural selection plays a role. But in fact, many scientists have questioned whether natural selection acting upon random mutation is sufficient to generate new species or new complex biological features. As evolutionary scientist Robert L. Carroll queries:

"Can changes in individual characters, such as the relative frequency of genes for light and dark wing color in moths adapting to industrial pollution, simply be multiplied over time to account for the origin of moths and butterflies within insects, the origin of insects from primitive arthropods, or the origin of arthropods from among primitive multicellular organisms? How can we explain the gradual evolution of entirely new structures, like the wings of bats, birds, and butterflies, when the function of a partially evolved wing is almost impossible to conceive?"¹

Stanley Salthe, author of an evolutionary biology textbook, proclaims, “I have become an apostate from Darwinian theory and have described it as part of modernism’s origination myth.”⁴ Evolutionary philosopher Jerry Fodor recently wrote that “at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far.”⁵ National Academy of Sciences member Phil Skell also questions the explanatory utility of natural selection:

References Cited:
1. Robert Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, page 9 (Cambridge University Press, 1997).
2. Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, page 29 (Basic Books, 2003).
3. Lynn Margulis quoted in Darry Madden, "UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory," Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer (Feb 3, 2006).
4. Stanley Salthe ,quoted in Discovery Institute, “40 Texas scientists join growing national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin,” September 5, 2003. Available: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1555.
5. Jerry Fodor, "Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings," London Review of Books (October 18, 2007) at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n20/fodo01_.html.
6. Philip S. Skell, "Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology," The Scientist (August 29, 2005), available at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2816.
7. See "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism," at http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:20 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 2 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

No one doubts that Darwin was a gifted scientist who made careful observations of the natural world. The same could be said for Sir Isaac Newton, an early proponent of intelligent design whose ideas inspired both modern physics and modern science as a whole.

Yet despite the long-lasting success of Newton’s ideas, technological advancements in the early 20th century overturned Newtonian physics and replaced them with Einstein’s theories. If history is to be our guide, science must always be open to following the evidence where it leads, even if that means challenging orthodoxy.

PBS urges viewers to believe that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” Such a statement reverses the scientific process by putting conclusions ahead of empirical observations of nature. PBS also quotes evolutionary paleontologist Niles Eldredge, stating, "Nothing that we have learned in the intervening 175 years has contravened Darwin's basic description of how natural selection works," and asserting that the data “unequivocally” support Darwin’s view. Such dogmatic statements fly in the face of the scientific spirit, which opposes dogmatic attachments to theories and promises to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

In 1998, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences printed a guide to teaching evolution that included an essay by the eminent evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr, which stated: “One of the most characteristic features of science is this openness to challenge. The willingness to abandon a currently accepted belief when a new, better one is proposed is an important demarcation between science and religious dogma.”¹ PBS may claim that evolution is open to scrutiny, but the authoritarian and one-sided treatment of the subject in "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" shows that they treat it more like a religious dogma than a science.

Were PBS to promote the tentative, skeptical mindset that underlies all good science, their online materials would have stated, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of the data.”

Reference Cited:
1. Ernst Mayr, "The Concerns of Science" in National Academy of Sciences, Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, page 43 (National Academy Press, 1998).

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:05 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

At festive Winter Solstice Luncheons across the country, determined atheists are gathering to celebrate one of the oldest and most superstitious holidays of human history. As speakers present lectures on the history of Solstice celebrations, participants give and receive Winter Solstice Cards. These vary little from the general theme of my favorite card, which depicts Charles Darwin as Santa Claus on the front. Apparently, Darwin is the Patron Saint of Solstice. Inside, it reads simply:

evolve your beliefs.

CELEBRATE WINTER SOLSTICE

Yes, Solstice is here, that most wonderful time when atheists and humanists gather together “to give meaning to the shortest day of the year.” Why? According to the nicely alliterative Humanists of Huston, “It makes sense to celebrate human compassion, friendship, and family periodically. It also makes sense to do this during the coldest part of the year, given that weather effects [sic] our mood! Furthermore, by attaching our celebration to the winter solstice, we follow a long tradition while signifying our appreciation of the natural universe.” (emphasis added)

Ah, now we have it — appreciation of the natural universe. If you’re still scratching your head at this point, let’s return to the origins of the modern Winter Solstice celebration, starting with the Queen Mother of American atheists, Madalyn Murray O’Hair.

O’Hair had an issue with… well, a lot of things, most famously prayer in schools, but also Christmas and the way it was celebrated in American society. In a 1968 radio broadcast, O’Hair aired her grievances against Christmas. In her words,

Someone stole something from me. I don’t like it. What was stolen from me – and from you – was one of the most beautiful holidays in the world.

For Ingersoll and others, “the most natural of all religions is the worship of the sun,” which makes it superior to Christianity, or any other religion which has a major observance in this season.

For O’Hair, the Christian celebration of Christmas was most detestable because it took the solstice celebration of light triumphing over darkness and “stole the most beautiful holiday of the year – and for what?... a god of a horrible, punitive, new religion called Christianity.”

The solution for O’Hair and many other atheists is simple: reclaim their Pagan heritage. That Paganism involves spiritual belief which would otherwise be anathema to most modern, enlightened atheists doesn’t seem to matter.

And so at these festive Winter Solstice gatherings across the country, fringe atheists are returning to their Pagan roots. The rather ordinary passage of the darkest night of the year in the Northern Hemisphere has become a special focal point for atheists because it makes them more mindful of how humanity is “very much a part of the natural world.” No word yet on whether they have plans to celebrate sunrise and sunset in the same way.

Whether or not this is what Sam Harris and others had in mind when they admonished the new atheists to find some way of exploring and respecting spirituality, the truth is that they have been left with an alternative of nature worship which closely resembles the superstition and ritualism of the ancients.

Just take a look at the annual Winter Solstice concert held in New York’s Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Supposedly “the only non-religious event” held regularly in that sacred space, the program’s musical and visual climax is the ascent of the giant sun-god in full costume.

What does Darwin have to do with all this? According to Andrew Shaffer, the man behind the rather cheeky “Order of St. Nick” greeting cards, a diverse group of people celebrate Winter Solstice: atheists, agnostics, wiccans, and pagans. (It's worth noting that the "Darwin Atheist Holiday Card" is their #1 seller and endorsed by none other than P. Z. Myers.) He sees the Darwin cards as obviously “atheistic” — no surprise, given the theme of rejecting Christmas in favor of “evolved” beliefs — but what he doesn’t seem to see is how similar the different sub-populations of his customers are. In rejecting the Christian holiday, atheists who refuse to be “cultural Christians” a la Richard Dawkins are not progressing toward a more reasoned, enlightened holiday celebration, but are unwittingly defaulting to what was historically the most scientifically ignorant and superstitious belief system possible.

Ironically, as many atheists center their celebrations around the natural order of the sun and the Earth’s orbit, they see the evidence for the improbability of our existence – specifically, of our planet’s relative position to the sun, and also to the moon. When astronomer and design proponent Guillermo Gonzalez saw his first solar eclipse, he was inspired to investigate the case for cosmological design. In stark contrast to Gonzalez’s scientific quest, the American Atheists explain on their website that they

...reflect upon our astronomical uniqueness. We appear to be alone, in a universe devoid of plan or purpose. There is no cosmic intelligence that counts how many rides we complete on the merry-go-round whose axle is the sun… [we celebrate] the human species – the only species known that can understand and appreciate the implausibility of its own existence.

Posted by Anika Smith at 12:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

After yesterday’s article in the Dallas Morning News portrayed Chairman of the Texas State Board of Education Don McLeroy’s Sunday school comments as if they were the basis for his science education policy, McLeroy has a response in the Dallas Morning News today.

McLeroy asks a simple question — what do you teach in science class? — then clarifies for the record his "motivations for questioning evolution:"

My focus is on the empirical evidence and the scientific interpretations of that evidence. In science class, there is no place for dogma and "sacred cows;" no subject should be "untouchable" as to its scientific merits or shortcomings. My motivation is good science and a well-trained, scientifically literate student.

What can stop science is an irrefutable preconception. Anytime you attempt to limit possible explanations in science, it is then that you get your science stopper. In science class, it is important to remember that the consensus of a conviction does not determine whether it is true or false. In science class, you teach science.

Don McLeroy, chair, State Board of Education, College Station

Posted by Anika Smith at 1:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 1 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

PBS confidently instructs us that “evolution happens.” But should that matter? Even Darwin’s scientific critics agree that evolution happens. PBS is introducing equivocation into the discussion by failing to clearly define “evolution.”

Some use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes within individual species that occur over short periods of time (Evolution #1). Others use the same word to mean something much more far-reaching, such as claiming that all living organisms are descended from a single common ancestor (Evolution #2), or that natural selection has the power to produce all of life’s complexity (Evolution #3). Used one way, “evolution” isn’t controversial at all (i.e. Evolution #1); used another way, it’s hotly debated (i.e. Evolution #2 or Evolution #3). Used equivocally, “evolution” is too imprecise to be useful in a scientific discussion.

When you see the word “evolution,” you should ask yourself, “Which of the three definitions is being used?”

Critics of neo-Darwinism today usually take issue with Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. But the discussion gets confusing when a Darwinist takes evidence for Evolution #1 and tries to make it look like it supports Evolution #2 or Evolution #3. Proponents of Darwinism, including PBS, commonly pull this “Evolution” Bait-and-Switch, using evidence for small-scale changes, such as changes in the sizes of bird beaks (Evolution #1) and then over-extrapolating from such modest evidence to claim that it proves Darwin’s grander claims (Evolution #2 or Evolution #3).

The graphic above is hot-linked from http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/apes.jpg.
Some of the above discussion is adapted from Explore Evolution.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Fresh from our debate at Seattle Pacific University last month, Larry Arnhart resumed his on-again-off-again attack on Darwin Day in America—a book he alternately praises and condemns. Arnhart originally misrepresented (here and here) Darwin Day by alleging that I tried to tie every example of scientific reductionism in my book back to Darwin. As I pointed out in a previous blog, Arnhart’s claim is untrue, and I showed how he had misread or misrepresented the particular examples he had cited. Rather than correct his erroneous claim, however, Arnhart now asserts that I engaged in “bait and switch” when I pointed out in my book that Darwinism is “only one part of [the] larger story” of “materialistic reductionism” even while also arguing that “the work of Charles Darwin ultimately supplied the empirical basis for a robust materialism finally to take hold." But if there is any “bait and switch” going on it is by Arnhart, not me.

Of course I believe that Darwinism was a powerful spur to scientific reductionism in the area of public policy and culture. The evidence for that proposition as an historical matter is overwhelming. That still doesn’t mean that I think Darwinism was the only inspiration for the application of scientific materialism to culture, or that I attribute in my book every example of scientific materialism to Darwin. For the reasons outlined in my book, I believe that Darwinism has been a key inspiration for scientific materialism, but also that scientific materialism goes well beyond Darwin. These aren’t mutually exclusive claims, and it seems to me that Arnhart has staked out a preposterous position in trying to make them so. As I said before, he continues to attack a straw man.

As for why I think Darwinism is a key part of the story of cultural scientific materialism, I have explained the case in detail in Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest, as well as in chapter two of Darwin Day in America, which supplies a close reading of Darwin’s Descent of Man. It is telling that Arnhart for the most part has avoided responding to the specific arguments I have made about Darwin himself, as well as the serious questions I and other scholars have raised about Arnhart’s case for “Darwinian conservatism.” Yet these questions aren’t going to go away, no matter how much Larry tries to ignore them. The questions include the following:

1. If Darwinism provides the standard for determining what is moral or immoral (as Arnhart claims), how can we condemn any activity that persists over time among even a subpopulation of human beings or animals? Almost by definition, any such behavior must have been preserved by natural selection because it somehow promoted survival. According to Darwinism, all such behaviors must be equally “natural,” and therefore all such behaviors must be sanctioned by the Darwinian process. According to Darwinism, the maternal instinct is natural, but so is infanticide. Monogamy is natural, but so are polygamy and rape. Darwinism thus becomes an equal-opportunity justifier. Of course, if one believes there is a standard of morality that exists independent of the Darwinian process, then one can still judge these various behaviors as good or bad—but a standard independent from Darwinism is precisely what Arnhart seeks to deny.

2. If Darwinism is so friendly toward Biblical theism (as Arnhart insists), why do the vast majority of leading Darwinists identify themselves as atheists or agnostics? Are they all stupid? Arnhart’s main response to this question seems to be the repetition of the mantra that all biologists aren’t Richard Dawkins. Well, maybe they aren’t, but according to a 1998 survey nearly 95% of biologists in the National Academy of Sciences identify themselves as atheists or agnostics—far higher than any other scientific discipline. And according to a 2003 survey of leading scientists in the field of evolution, 87 percent denied outright the existence of God, 88 percent disbelieved in the existence of life after death, and 90 percent rejected the idea that evolution is directed toward an “ultimate purpose.” Again, why? Arnhart’s argument here is not just with me, it’s with the leading proponents of Darwinian evolution themselves.

3. If Darwinism is so friendly toward limited government (as Arnhart also claims), why did most of the leading Darwinian biologists in the first several decades of the twentieth century champion state-sanctioned eugenics, the effort to breed a better race applying Darwinian principles? Moreover, why did these evolutionary biologists insist that eugenics was a logical corollary to Darwin’s theory? Were they all stupid as well? Why and in what way? Again, Arnhart’s argument here isn’t just with me, it’s with the leading twentieth-century Darwinian biologists like Charles Davenport, who insisted that “eugenics is a branch of biology—social biology—and its study has been cultivated chiefly by the biologists.” Davenport should have known; he is generally regarded as the leading spokesman for the American eugenics movement. Trained at Harvard and a former zoology professor at the University of Chicago, Davenport was also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the first director of the prestigious biological research lab at Cold Spring Harbor, Long Island.

4. If Darwin himself only supported what Arnhart describes as “good eugenics” such as preventing incestuous marriages, how does Arnhart explain the remarkable passage in Darwin’s Descent of Man where Darwin warns of the dangers to the human race of helping the poor, caring for the mentally ill, saving the sick, and even inoculating people against smallpox? In Darwin’s own words, “no one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man… excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” Darwin does goes on to indicate that we can’t follow the dictates of “hard reason” in such cases without undermining our “sympathy… the noblest part of our nature.” But such misgivings represent a lame objection at best. As I wrote in Darwin’s Conservatives: “If Darwin believed that society’s efforts to help the impoverished and sickly ‘must be highly injurious to the race of man’ (note the word ‘must’), then the price of preserving compassion in his view appeared to be the destruction of the human race. Framed in that manner, how many people could be expected to reject the teachings of ‘hard reason’ and sacrifice the human race?” Darwin clearly supplied a logical rationale for eugenics in The Descent of Man, even if his personal scruples made him somewhat ambivalent about pressing his concerns to a logical conclusion.

In one way or another, I have posed each of the above four questions to Arnhart at our encounters this year at the Philadelphia Society, at the American Enterprise Institute, and most recently at our debate at Seattle Pacific University. Arnhart’s response? Mostly silence or efforts to change the subject. In fact, his failure to even try to answer most of these questions was so noticeable at our Seattle Pacific debate, that many audience members were left scratching their heads about whether he had any response at all to offer. Perhaps he doesn’t. And, as I have said before, that may be the most telling point of all.

Posted by John West at 12:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The opponents of Intelligent Design have recently been trying to slither out of a logical dilemma they have created for themselves. Their problem is that they make two mutually exclusive claims: First that ID is not science, and, second, that ID makes false claims.

The primary reason opponents say that ID is not science is because it doesn't make falsifiable claims. But if it doesn't make falsifiable claims, then it can't be said to have made claims that have been found false. Yet this is exactly what they charge.

Opponents of ID have done logical contortions of extraordinary dexterity to get out of this dilemma, but they only seem to land themselves in further contradiction. This contradictory attack on ID is on full display in Judge John Jones arguments in Dover vs. Kitzmiller, the decision that has been hailed by ID's detractors as the end of ID.

In the Dover decision, Judge Jones unwittingly lays a trap for himself, and then spends a good part of his decision falling into it. On p. 64 of the ruling, Jones gives three reasons for determining that ID is not science:

• 1. It permits supernatural causation
• 2. It assumes a "contrived dualism" in the argument for irreducible complexity
• 3. Its negative arguments against evolution (like irreducible complexity) have been "refuted by the scientific community"

In all of this discussion, there is a particular view of how to demarcate science from non-science. It is philosopher Karl Popper's demarcation criterion: that in order for something to be science it has to be falsifiable, or testable. We see this in the following comment by Jones:

Accordingly, the purported positive argument for ID does not satisfy the ground rules of science which require testable hypotheses based upon natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller)). ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in this world. While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory. (p. 82, emphasis added]

But if ID is not falsifiable, as he says in the first part of the argument, then (if you assume Popper's criterion) it is not science—and it cannot therefore be falsified. So how does Jones get around the fact that he says both that ID is not science because it can't be falsified, and that an argument "central to ID" has been falsified?

His method is simply to skip back and forth between the two arguments hoping the reader will not notice.

He says first that the truth or falsity of arguments for ID are irrelevant:

After a searching review of the record and applicable case law, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. (p. 64)

Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich. (2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich) (irreducible complexity “is not a test of intelligent design; it’s a test of evolution”). [p. 68, emphasis added]

As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. [p. 76, emphasis added]

Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. [p. 76, emphasis added]

He then complicates his position even further:

...[E]ven if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID as it is merely a test for evolution, not design. [p. 79, emphasis added]

It is a clever bit of sophistry: if irreducible complexity is false, then it counts against it, but if it is true, then it doesn't count for it!

If anyone was in any doubt as to whether the debate over Intelligent Design was rigged, Jones dispels it here. In the duel over Intelligent Design, the opponents are the only ones allowed a loaded gun.

How can Jones justify this? The short answer is that he can't--not, at least, if he wants to maintain any kind of rational credibility. But if it is not clear how he can do this and remain within the bounds of reason, it is clear why he does it.

ID is science insofar as irreducible complexity and other similar arguments are part of it, and unfalsifiable insofar as they are not. Jones knows this, but wants to have his cake and eat it anyway.

If opponents of ID want to hold irreducible complexity against ID, then they will have to abandon their argument that ID is not science. And if they want to preserve their argument that ID is not science, they will have to stop using arguments against irreducible complexity against ID.

It can't be comforting for opponents of Intelligent Design to know that the decision they all now point to as the death blow for ID contains a blatant contradiction. And arguments that contain contradictions don't kill anything but themselves.

Posted by Martin Cothran at 12:43 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

We're pleased at ENV to welcome new contributor Martin Cothran to our team. Martin brings an educator's fresh perspective to our blog, as you can read for yourself.

Martin is a writer and educator who lives in Kentucky. He is the author of several logic and classical rhetoric textbooks, and is the editor of The Classical Teacher magazine. He is a frequent guest on radio and television on issues of public policy, and has spent over 15 years dealing with educational policy questions at the state level.

Posted by Anika Smith at 11:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

We’ve just launched a new website, JudgingPBS.com, responding to the online materials for PBS/NOVA’s Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.

JudgingPBS.com features 14 slides of “Darwin’s Failed Predictions,” recounting the failures of Darwinism left unmentioned by PBS/NOVA. I’ve included the first installment of the series (the introductory slide) below — but stay tuned for all 14 slides to be posted over the next couple weeks here on Evolution News & Views:

Introduction.
PBS asserts that the evidence “unequivocally supports [Darwin’s] theory of evolution by natural selection.” Do all scientists who approach biology with an open mind believe that the data “unequivocally” supports Darwin’s view? The following slides show that scientists are increasingly skeptical that natural selection is the primary agent of evolutionary change. Moreover, key postulates of Darwin’s theory – universal common descent, the continuity of life, and transitions in the fossil record – have come under intense scientific scrutiny from a diverse array of fields, including molecular biology, developmental biology, genetics, biochemistry, and paleontology. Some of Darwin’s failed predictions include:

• The failure of evolutionary biology to provide detailed evolutionary explanations for the origin of complex biochemical features;
  
• The failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution;
  
• The failure of molecular biology to provide evidence for universal common descent;
  
• The failure of genetics and chemistry to explain the origin of the genetic code;
  
• The failure of developmental biology to explain why vertebrate embryos diverge from the beginning of development.

Posted by Anika Smith at 12:02 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Two years ago this month, defenders of Darwinian evolution gleefully pronounced the death of the scientific theory of intelligent design because of a court ruling by an activist federal judge in Pennsylvania. But if Darwinists truly think intelligent design is dead, why are they continuing to spend so much time trying to kill it?

As a regular Evolution News & Views visitor, you have been continually informed of the ways in which leading Darwinists have unleashed an unprecedented wave of persecution, propaganda, and paranoia in an effort to strangle an idea that they insist is already dead.

Fortunately, America still thrives on the free exchange of ideas—despite Darwinists’ best efforts to stifle open discussion. That’s why the Center for Science and Culture exists at Discovery Institute—to support the hard work of scientists and scholars who are bringing the Darwin vs. design debate out into the open in science, in academia, in the media, and in the public arena. Recognized by the science journal Nature as “the nation’s leading intelligent design think tank,” we have been credited by The New York Times for having “transformed the debate [over evolution] into an issue of academic freedom.”

One of the myths promoted by the our critics is that we are somehow lavishly funded. Unlike Darwinists, however, we receive no tax dollars to support our research and education efforts on intelligent design. As a result, our budget is dwarfed many times over by our opponents. Just one small biology department at a mid-size college has an annual budget several times larger than the CSC’s. Think about how many such departments there are, not to mention the huge biological science establishment at major research universities – most of which are dominated by very dogmatic, intolerant Darwinists.

That’s why we need your help. It is only through the generous support of private donors that we can continue to provide:

• scientific research and publications that meet the Darwinists on their own turf, forcing them to respond to the growing scientific evidence for design;
  
• training for top graduate students in the sciences, social sciences, and humanities through our summer mentoring program;
  
• this online news service (Evolution News & Views), which has received over 2.25 million page views in 2007;
  
• our internet radio show ID the Future, publicizing information censored by the establishment media, and which has over 25,000 subscribers.; and,
  
• practical help for teachers, scientists, and students who are facing indoctrination or persecution at their schools or colleges.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:03 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The producers of Expelled are hosting a contest where people submit videos discussing their persecution as a result of challenging Darwin. One of these entries has already been posted on YouTube—the story of Don McDonald, who was forced to pledge allegiance to evolution while working on his sociology Ph.D., or he might not have been permitted to proceed onward with his dissertation. We blogged about his story back in April 2006. Now you can watch the Dr. McDonald’s submission for the Expelled contest on YouTube:

Posted by Casey Luskin at 12:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

P.Z. Myers recently put up another post supporting censorship of criticism of Darwinism in public education. Democratically elected school board officials in Florida and Texas are moving closer to policies that would include teaching students that some aspects of Darwin’s theory can be questioned scientifically. In other words, they’re proposing that Darwinism can be taught just like any other scientific theory. Florida State School Board Member Linda Taylor put it this way:

I would support teaching evolution, but with all its warts. I think that some of the facts have been questioned by evolutionists themselves. I would want them taught as theories. That's important. They could be challenged by others and the kids could then be taught critical thinking and they can make their own choices.

Who is best qualified to make informed choices about complex scientific theories? A. Scientists with years of training in the subject, and qualified science teachers who understand the fundamentals of the theory. B. Creationists who won't even commit to an estimate of the age of the earth. C. Members of the board of education who have absolutely no training in the sciences. D. Children who are just being introduced to the topic for the first time, haven't read any of the primary literature, and who are entirely dependent on the competence of the instructors who have given them an outline of the general story.

Here’s my suggestion for the answer to the question "Who is best qualified to make informed choices about complex scientific theories in public schools in Florida?":

The people of Florida, through their elected school boards.

Darwinists like Myers find democracy so frustrating.

Posted by Michael Egnor at 7:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I admit it: I’m something of a Snoop Dogg fan. We’re from the same hometown, went to the same high school, and Snoop is basically revered like a god among my hometown friends. In Snoop’s words, “I'm somewhat brain boggled” by a recent press release issued by Darwinist researchers at the University of Manchester who are claiming that evolution is supported because “changes to the shape of [the St Bernard] breed’s head over the years can only be explained through evolution and natural selection.” And what is their evidence for “evolution and natural selection”? You have to see this to believe it: “over time … breeders selected dogs that had the desired physical attributes. … we can be confident that they have evolved purely through the selective considerations of breeders.”

“Breeders selected” and “the selective considerations of breeders” sure sound a lot like intelligently-guided artificial selection, not natural selection. But these scientists don’t let little distinctions like that get in the way of finding support for Darwinism. In fact, they claim their research demonstrates the grand Darwinian narrative: “this research once again demonstrates how selection - whether natural or, in this case, artificially influenced by man - is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life on the planet.” So intelligent design is now cited as proof that natural selection is the fundamental driving force behind the evolution of life. It’s too bad these researchers didn’t consult the facts on dog breeding as they are recounted in Explore Evolution:

[A]s different as these [dog] breeds are, the differences still fall within limits. No one has ever bred a dog lighter than a few pounds, or heavier than about 150 pounds, despite thousands of years of selective breeding. Critics say that the experimental evidence reveals definite, discoverable limits on what artificial selection can do. …
[A]nimal breeders hit limits all the time. Breeders have tried for decades to produce a chicken that will lay more than one egg per day. They have failed. Horse breeders have not significantly increased the running speed of thoroughbreds, despite more than 70 years of trying. Darwin’s theory requires that species have an immense capacity to change, but the evidence from breeding experiments shows that there are definite limits to how much a species can change, even when intelligent agents (the breeders) are doing the selection intentionally, trying to maximize certain traits. … Darwin’ theory requires that species exhibit a tremendous elasticity—or capacity to change. Critics point out that this is not what the evidence from breeding experiments shows.

(Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism, page 90 (Hill House Publishers, 2007).)

In the end, this study doesn’t demonstrate anything about natural selection. Rather, it demonstrates that some Darwinian scientists are following the evidence to Darwinism, even when it leads to intelligent design. To again quote Snoop, “It’s a crazy mixed up world, it's a Doggy Dogg World.”

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

By Pete Chadwell

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In further attempts to try and justify the e-mail lynching of Guillermo Gonzalez by his ISU colleagues during their secret tenure deliberations, there are a few folks trying to make a case that Gonzalez's prestigious record of publication isn't up to snuff, and that somehow he's not been productive during his time at ISU. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's interesting to note the high publication rate of Gonzalez compared to other ISU astronomers in 2006. Gonzalez's raw publication count in 2006 alone was six publications -- which was equaled only by one other astronomer in the department. (Download file)

Here's a breakdown of his annual raw publications since coming to ISU according to the Smithsonian / NASA Astrophysics Data System:

2001: 6
2002: 6
2003: 8
2004: 2
2005: 5
2006: 6

So he peaks in 2003 but ends in 2006 just as high as he was when he started at ISU. Moreover, he outperformed all ISU astronomy faculty in normalized publications during that period. The one year that is obviously less happens to be the same year that he co-authored an astronomy textbook published by Cambridge University Press.

One of Dr. Gonzalez’s recent accomplishments at ISU that has received less attention is his co-authorship of a prestigiously published astronomy textbook, Observational Astronomy. Published by Cambridge University Press and also peer-reviewed, the textbook is used in Dr. Gonzalez’s own department to teach astronomy. Aside from his own department, universities internationally use Observational Astronomy, including University of Toronto, New Jersey’s Science & Technology University, University of Manitoba, Valparaiso University, and Franklin and Marshall College. Prestigious textbook authorship is a new avenue of scholarship for Dr. Gonzalez since he joined ISU. How can his critics sustain the claim that he has not "started new things" at ISU?

Additionally, an extremely important measure of a scientist's reputation is the impact his or her research is having upon a field as measured by the number of citations to that scientist’s work in research articles by other scientists. In short, the more times a scientist’s work has been cited by others, the greater the impact of his work on his particular field. By this standard, Iowa State University (ISU) astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez has performed incredibly well, despite his denial of tenure by ISU.No matter how they spin it, one thing is clear, Gonzalez was professionally qualified for tenure. Intolerant Darwinists at ISU just didn't want to give it to him because he's a proponent of intelligent design.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 2:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Note: This is one of a series of posts adapted from my new book, Darwin Day in America. You can find other posts in the series here.

John B. Watson, founder of the behavioral school of psychology, believed that human beings were on par with animals, and so he insisted that they should be studied just like animals. Indeed, he defined behaviorism as “an attempt to do one thing—to apply to the experimental study of man the same kind of procedure and the same language of description that many research men had found useful for so many years in the study of animals lower than man.” He compared opposition to behaviorism to the “resistance that appeared when Darwin’s ‘Origin of species’ was first published.” In his view, the root of the resistance to Darwin and behaviorism was the same: “Human beings do not want to class themselves with other animals.” Watson attributed the rejection of behaviorism by some psychologists to their unwillingness to accept “the raw fact” that “to remain scientific” they “must describe the behavior of man in no other terms than those [they]... would use in describing the behavior of the ox [they]... slaughter.”

Watson was completely serious when he said that the same experimental methods that were applied to animals should be applied to humans, and accordingly he conducted a series of hideous behavioral experiments on human infants that today would probably be rightly regarded as child abuse. Seeking to identify the source of the “fear response” in children, he would place an infant in a bare room, “the walls of which were painted black,” then let loose a cat or another animal to see if the infant would panic. He also would make sudden loud noises near babies and drop them and jerk blankets out from under them. Loud noises, Watson reported clinically, could provoke “crying, falling down, crawling, walking or running away.” Watson also tried to generate a “rage” response by holding the babies’ heads “lightly between the hands,” pressing their arms “to the sides,” and holding their baby’s “legs... tightly together.” He further tried to spark what he called a “love” response in babies by stroking their “nipples... lips and... sex organs.”

Although Watson is widely remembered today for his role in founding behaviorism, what is less well known is his influence on the advertising industry. After leaving his wife for a graduate student, he found himself dismissed from his academic job at Johns Hopkins University, and he subsequently joined the J. Walter Thompson Company, one of the nation’s leading advertising agencies, where he became a proponent of applying behavioral psychology to advertising. The story of his influence on the development of modern advertising can be found in chapter 8 of Darwin Day in America (“The Science of Business”).

To order Darwin Day in America click here. To find out more information about the book (and watch the trailer), visit the book’s website here.

Posted by John West at 10:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In the Iowa State Daily Hector Avalos asserts that "the Discovery Institute seems to want it both ways. They want scientists whose work leads them to believe ID is scientific to have academic freedom, but they don't want scientists whose research leads them to believe ID is not scientific to express their opinions." No, that’s not our position at all. Critics of ID have every right to oppose intelligent design and express their opinions. If they want to publish articles, books, blogs, etc., or speak expressing dissent from intelligent design, they should absolutely have the right to do that. But no one has the right to create a hostile work environment for other faculty and abridge their academic freedom, regardless of their views on any issue.

Indeed, Avalos' mischaracterization of Discovery Institute’s position seems to be based upon a need to deflect attention away from his own wrongdoing. In the summer of 2005, Avalos e-mailed ISU faculty inviting "all faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science" because of the "negative impact" due to the fact that "Intelligent Design … has now established a presence … at Iowa State University." Gonzalez, being the only well-known ID proponent who has "established a presence" at ISU, is undeniably the target of such a statement, which was ultimately signed by over 120 ISU faculty.

Avalos may view his anti-ID petition as nothing more than a group of academics merely "express[ing] their opinions," but one Darwinist ISU faculty member saw right through it: John Hauptman called Avalos’s petition "reprehensible" and said "freedom of inquiry … was violated by your petition." Here, Hauptman is correct. Keep in mind that Avalos’s petition expressly called on "all faculty members" to reject ID, effectively targeting the academic freedom of those faculty who might support ID. In this sense, Avalos's petition was not just an expression of dissent from ID, but was rather a call for uniform conformity among ISU faculty to oppose intelligent design. It therefore represented an abridgment of academic freedom more than it was a mere expression of it.

People are entitled to have opinions and express them. Avalos apparently does not understand that sometimes one’s method of expressing an opinion is not an exercise of academic freedom, but is rather an offense to academic freedom.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Design Matrix by Mike Gene is now available. It's the first in a series of books and items that Discovery President Bruce Chapman is highlighting as great Christmas gifts at Discovery Blog.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Evolutionists sometimes try to re-frame the debate over evolution such that it appears that there is no debate. They fear that merely using the term “evolutionist” could lead people to the belief that not all scientists are Neo-Darwinian “evolutionists.” (A belief that would be correct.) Some Darwinists have even spun urban legends claiming that “evolutionist” is a term invented by Darwin’s critics in order to make it appear as if there is a debate over evolution. For example, a biology graduate student posting on Mike Dunford’s blog scolded another poster for using the word “evolutionist,” stating: “please refrain from using the term ‘evolutionist’. It's a made-up term from the creationists, who refuse to acknowledge that this is BIOLOGY, and people who study evolution are BIOLOGISTS." Similarly, an old article in NCSE’s journal “Creation/Evolution” states, “There are no more ‘evolutionists’ among biologists than there are ‘round-earthers’ or ‘heliocentrists’ among astronomers, ‘Einsteinians’ among physicists, or ‘antiphlogistonists’ among chemists. … to say a person is a scientist encompasses the fact that he or she is an evolutionist. In scientific circles the term is redundant and is, therefore, never used." Again, we see people trying to stifle the view that some scientists dissent from evolution by erasing the term “evolutionist” from discourse. As I will show below, the urban legend that scientists don’t use the term “evolutionist” is blatantly false. Indeed, this “Creation/Evolution” article itself used the term “evolutionist” multiple times!

In fact there are innumerable examples of evolutionists and leading scientists using the term “evolutionist” within their regular scientific discourse. For one, Darwin himself wrote in The Descent of Man, “Every evolutionist will admit that the five great vertebrate classes, namely, mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes, are descended from some one prototype; for they have much in common, especially during their embryonic state.” (Of course, we now have good reasons to question Darwin’s view.) Similarly, Jerry Coyne wrote in Nature, “From time to time, evolutionists re-examine a classic experimental study and find, to their horror, that it is flawed or downright wrong. … in evolutionary biology there is little payoff in repeating other people’s experiments, and, unlike molecular biology, our field is not self-correcting because few studies depend on the accuracy of earlier ones.” (Jerry Coyne, “Not Black and White,” Nature, Vol. 396:35-36 (Nov. 5, 1998).) Eric Davidson writes in Science that, “the sea urchin's evolutionary relation to ourselves, its genome provides what evolutionists consider an extremely useful outgroup for the understanding of our own genomes.”(“The Sea Urchin Genome: Where Will It Lead Us?,”Science, Vol. 314:939-940 (Nov. 10, 2006).) Also last year, Nick Matzke and Mark Pallen wrote in Nature Reviews Microbiology that “the great evolutionist Ernst Mayr noted, one of Darwin's greatest achievements was to abolish typological or essentialist thinking.” (Nature Reviews Microbiology, Vol. 4:784 – 790 (Sept. 5, 2006).)

In fact, a search of Nature reveals that the world’s top scientific journal has printed dozens of articles using the word “evolutionist,” and a search for the same in Science reveals hundreds of hits.

It is a blatantly false Darwinist urban legend to claim that the term “evolutionist” is “a made-up term from the creationists” or “[i]n scientific circles the term [evolutionist] is redundant and is, therefore, never used.” If anything here is “made-up,” it’s the notion that “scientific circles” never use the word “evolutionist.” Perhaps the old NCSE article raises a point, for it’s true that there are no, “‘round-earthers’ or ‘heliocentrists’ among astronomers, ‘Einsteinians’ among physicists, or ‘antiphlogistonists’ among chemists.” That’s probably because there are no debates among scientists over the scientific issues involved with those ideas. So why do we observe the undeniable fact that there are “evolutionists” among scientists? It’s simple: there are many scientists and members of the public who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution. But some Darwinists are willing to spin blatantly false urban legends and use Orwellian tactics to have the term “evolutionist” declared politically incorrect, so they can cover up the fact of that scientific disagreement about Darwinism.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The controversy over why Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure has resulted in much flip-flopping and denials from Darwinists at Iowa State University (ISU):

• John Hauptman, ISU Physicist:
  Now: The ISU Daily reports, "Hauptman said his tenure decision was 'absolutely not' based on Gonzalez's research into intelligent design."
  Then: Last June, Hauptman explicitly admitted that he voted against Gonzalez’s tenure because of intelligent design (ID): "I participated in the initial vote and voted no, based on this fundamental question: What is science? … It is purely a question of what is science and what is not, and a physics department is not obligated to support notions that do not even begin to meet scientific standards."
  
  
• Eli Rosenberg, Chair of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy:
  Now: Rosenberg tells the Des Moines Register that tenure documents included "a few words about intelligent design at the end, and that's it," and previously told Nature that "intelligent design was not a major or even a big factor in this decision."
  Then: During actual tenure deliberations in November, 2006, Rosenberg devotes a full 1/3 of his Chair’s statement in Gonzalez’s tenure file to discussing intelligent design, instructing voting members of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy to make ID a litmus test where Gonzalez’s support for ID as science "disqualifies him from serving as a science educator."

• Hector Avalos, outspoken atheist Professor of Religion at ISU:
  Then: In the summer of 2005, Avalos e-mails ISU faculty, inviting them to sign a statement calling on "all faculty members to ... reject efforts to portray Intelligent Design as science" because of the "negative impact" due to the fact that "Intelligent Design … has now established a presence … at Iowa State University." Guillermo Gonzalez, being the only well-known ID proponent who has "established a presence" at ISU, is the undeniable target of such a statement.
  Later: Avalos asserts publicly in the ISU Daily, "The statement we wrote was in no way targeted specifically at Gonzalez."

• John Clem, ISU physicist:
  Then: Apparently Clem prejudges Gonzalez’s tenure case because of ID, stating: "Many of us here at Iowa State are embarrassed by the work of Guillermo Gonzalez, who with Jay Richards published the book 'The Privileged Planet.' ... I now feel that publication of such a statement might become the most important piece of evidence in a successful court case to guarantee tenure to the person whose scientific credibility we would be attempting to discredit. … As for the unfortunate publicity we are receiving and the embarrassment we feel as a department, I think the best policy is to just grin and bear it for the next couple of years."
  Now: The ISU Daily reports, "Clem said the decision to deny tenure to Gonzalez was 'absolutely not' based on ID."

• Joerg Schmalian, ISU physicist:
  Now: Schmalian publicly asserts in the ISU Daily, "We wanted to take advantage of our freedom to express our opinion on this matter and inform the public about the fact that intelligent design is not generally accepted within our department," and asserts, "Guillermo Gonzalez’s views on Intelligent Design, with which I utterly disagree, had no bearing whatsoever on my vote on his tenure case."
  Then: Schmalian expresses a very different motive for releasing the statement in an e-mail, intending to send a message to Gonzalez: "If we go on record, we give Gonzalez a clear sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty." Other faculty (see below) endorse such statements from Schmalian with an intent to directly target Gonzalez.

As Joerg [Schmalian] says, I think Gonzalez should know that some faculty in his department are not going to count his ID work as a plus for tenure. Quite the opposite.

• Dr. Gonzalez’s funding level, high or otherwise, does NOTHING to negate the undeniable evidence of bias and prejudice against him in the department because he supports ID.

• Dr. Gonzalez’s department does not even consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure. Yet he has a $50,000 grant from Discovery Institute that allows him to collect more than enough observational astronomy data each year for the next 5 years. In short, Dr. Gonzalez has precisely the money he needs to have a successful research program at ISU. As one external reviewer observed, "Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction. In light of your criteria I would certainly recommend the promotion." Indeed, 2/3 of the external reviewers who gave an opinion about whether Dr. Gonzalez deserves tenure said he should receive tenure.

• Dr. Gonzalez has more per-capita publications and more per-capita scientific citations since 2001, the year he joined ISU, than all ISU tenured astronomers who voted against his tenure, and he has over 350% more peer-reviewed science articles than what his department ordinarily requires for indicating the type of reputation that demonstrates research excellence. Moreover, he co-authored a peer-reviewed astronomy textbook with Cambridge University Press that some ISU astronomy classes are now using. These seem like distinct accomplishments that make a tenure denial difficult to justify.

Wired ignores the fact that Gonzalez’s ID work was not "creationist pseudoscience masquerading as science." Gonzalez’s ID book, The Privileged Planet, was written by a grant funded by the prestigious Templeton Foundation (money that was accepted by ISU to help pay Gonzalez’s salary) and the book was praised by eminent scientists such as Cambridge’s Simon Conway Morris, Harvard’s Owen Gingerich, and National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell. To my knowledge, groups and people like this don’t praise "creationist pseudoscience masquerading as science" as having the high level of academic legitimacy of Gonzalez’s ID work in The Privileged Planet.

But keep in mind that one ISU faculty member even admitted that "freedom of inquiry … has been violated massively in the physics department." Perhaps Wired should e-mail John Hauptman and ask him why he said that. (If they do, expect more flip-flopping in response from Hauptman.)

Although Brandon Keim at Wired apparently now believes otherwise, even ID proponents deserve academic freedom and the courtesy to be free from a hostile work environment.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mac Johnson is a columnist at Human Events who writes columns with which I often agree. Last month he posted a column with which I, and many commentators on his blog, disagree. His column, Intelligent Design and Other Dumb Ideas, attacks a theory not held by any advocate of Intelligent Design. Perhaps I can help clear up his misunderstanding.

Intelligent Design in biology is a straightforward idea — one that Mr. Johnson, who is a medical researcher and is well acquainted with the methods of science, should have no trouble getting right. Understanding what advocates of intelligent design are saying is a necessary prelude to a thoughtful critique, which Mr. Johnson has not yet offered.

Intelligent Design is the theory that some aspects of biological structure and function are best explained as the consequence of intelligent agency. That’s it. It’s a modest concept, and it’s caused a firestorm because it challenges dogmatic materialistic concepts that have crept into science over the past century or so. This materialistic dogma, most evident in Darwinism, utterly precludes intelligent agency as a scientific explanation in biology. This exclusion of even the possibility of intelligent design in biology is a philosophical dogma, not a scientific conclusion.

Mr. Johnson misunderstands Intelligent Design theory. To wit, he writes:

A few short years ago, nobody had ever heard of “Intelligent Design”.

The inference that intelligent agency is discernible in living things (and in nature as a whole) has been held by virtually all philosophers and scientists dating back to antiquity. Greek philosophers understood the intelligent agency as the logos, and Judeo-Christian scientists and philosophers understood the Logos in theological terms. The Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution were based the inference that there was design in the universe and that man could understand it using systematic investigation. Modern science arose from the design inference. All of the great scientists of the Scientific Revolution — Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Lavoisier, Linnaeus, Faraday, Maxwell, and Pasteur (among many others) — believed that intelligent design was discernible in nature. The inference to design was the basis — the indispensable basis — for modern science. The recent Intelligent Design movement is a restatement of the inference that gave us modern science. It’s not new.

The inference to design was excluded from many areas of science (such as biology) only in the later half of the 20th century. It wasn’t excluded for scientific reasons — if anything, modern science has shown us remarkable evidence for biological design — such as the genetic code and nanotechnology inside cells — that is even more compelling evidence for intelligent design that what was known to scientists in the past. The inference to design was excluded from biology for ideological reasons. The rise of atheism and materialism in the 19th and 20th centuries brought an atheist-materialist philosophical bias to our scientific understanding of nature. The bias was itself unscientific: only non-intelligent mechanical explanations were accepted, regardless of the evidence.

Mr. Johnson continues:

… [until] ten years ago, ID had enough confidence and honesty to go by its birth name, “Creationism.” Whereas today, it has been dressed up in a lab coat and a mail order Ph.D. and is trying to pass itself off as a scientific theory, thus the sudden re-branding as “Intelligent Design.”

Intelligent design is not creationism, and it is not derived from creationism. Creationism is the view that Genesis is literally true as science. Yet the historic inference to design, dating from the Greeks to scientists in modern times, wasn’t based on Genesis, but was based on the rather obvious inference that there was a kind of ‘reason’ in nature. Virtually all scientists and philosophers throughout history have attributed that ‘reason’ to intelligent agency. Intelligent design theory is the modern version of the theory that intelligent agency is discernible in some aspects of nature, using the scientific method. Intelligent Design is not biblical literalism, anymore than Plato’s or Aristotle’s inference to design in nature was based on the Hebrew Bible. Intelligent Design and creationism are not the same, and one is not derivative of the other. Mr. Johnson is smart enough to know this.

Furthermore, Mr. Johnson’s comment about “mail order PhD’s” is objectionable. Advocates of Intelligent Design theory such as Dr. Michael Behe, Dr. William Dembski, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Dr. Jonathan Wells, Dr. Steven Meyer, and Dr. Paul Nelson have quite real PhD’s, and over 700 scientists with real PhD’s have signed a statement dissenting from Darwinism. One doubts that Mr. Johnson would fare well in a debate with any of these scientists whose credentials he denigrates. Few prominent Darwinists are willing to debate them.

Mr. Johnson’s slur denying the “honesty” of Intelligent Design advocates is particularly reprehensible. Many scientists (e.g. Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Sternberg) have paid a very high professional price for speaking out honestly about their support for intelligent design. Whether or not Mr. Johnson agrees with their scientific views, their integrity is above reproach.

It’s ironic that Mr. Johnson, who understands so little about Intelligent Design, would accuse others of dishonesty and academic fraud. I challenge Mr. Johnson to name the prominent Intelligent Design advocates who have a “mail order PhD” and have been dishonest in their views. If he can’t, he should publicly retract the slur.

I’ll deal with the other issues that Mr. Johnson raises in my next post.

Posted by Michael Egnor at 8:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

German geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig Tackles The Latest Claims on Giraffe Evolution

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

One of the basic problems with natural selection, however, is that – to illustrate – it only acts like a sieve which selects (screens) tea leaves from a certain size onwards 11 but, of course, sieves never create the tea leaves themselves (for a detailed discussion on the limits of natural selection, see http://www.weloennig.de/NaturalSelection.html.). Hence, it is necessary to clearly distinguish between selection and the rich but limited genetic potential for phenotypic variations of any species (the range of ‘tea leaves’, so to speak, that it can offer for survival to the sieve of natural selection). So for the smaller browsers this definitely means that phenotypic variation is limited too. Moreover, whatever ‘selection pressure’ may exist, one may safely predict it will never transform them into 6 m tall animals at all. And naturally this was true for the past as well.

(Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, Appendix on Cameron & du Toit (2007): "Winning by a Neck: Tall Giraffes Avoid Competing With Shorter Browsers" of the Paper: The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe: What do we really know?.)

Lönnig provides an excellent critical analysis of Cameron & du Toit’s paper, observing that even if their data is correct, “it would prove nothing concerning evolution by the postulated random mutations and natural selection.” Lönnig concludes that “Cameron and du Toit are trying to force the state of being of the giraffe and other browsers into the Procrustean bed of perpetual Darwinian evolution by natural selection, taking for granted that mutations have produced the genetic variation necessary to evolve all the animals now found.”

Read Lönnig’s full response to the Cameron & du Toit paper at http://www.weloennig.de/Giraffe_Note_on_Cameron_and_duToit.pdf.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 9:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In a post entitled “Denied Tenure, Astronomer Alleges Intelligent Design Witchhunt,” Wired Magazine’s blog has acknowledged that Iowa State University (ISU) discriminated against Guillermo Gonzalez because he supports intelligent design:

So far, science bloggers and defenders of evolution have dismissed Gonzalez's complaints. However, I'm not sure they're being fair. Though out-of-context email excerpts can be misleading, statements like "this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas” make it sound like Gonzalez was not, as the university insisted, judged solely on the content of his astronomical scholarship.

Wired is exactly right. Regardless of Dr. Gonzalez’s level of grants or his publication record, the crucial question here is, Was Gonzalez discriminated against because he supports intelligent design? The evidence undeniably shows that such discrimination did exist:

Iowa State University (ISU) physicist John Hauptman is talking out of both sides of his mouth. The ISU Daily has a great article up today on the Guillermo Gonzalez case, in which ISU professor John Hauptman was quoted as saying:

the tenure decision was "absolutely not" based on Gonzalez's research into intelligent design

Really? Huh. I hate to be rude, but aren't you contradicting something you wrote rather publicly in the Des Moines Register early this summer? Back in June, you honestly admitted that you voted to deny Gonzalez tenure because of The Privileged Planet.

This is better than John Kerry's infamous "flipper" line. In this case, John Hauptman's vote was because of ID... before it wasn't.

Posted by Anika Smith at 12:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Note: This is one of a series of posts adapted from my new book, Darwin Day in America. You can find other posts in the series here.

During the early decades of the twentieth century, Katherine Blackford , M.D., urged America’s businesses to reinvent their employment policies by drawing on the discoveries of modern science, especially Darwinian biology. Employment selection procedures, in short, needed to be based on the facts of natural selection.

According Blackford, this meant first of all that businesses must understand that every person’s mental and physical traits have evolved through a long process of “survival of the fittest.” As a result, “every feature of his body, as well as every little twist and turn of his mental abilities, his morals, and his disposition, are the result of heredity and environment of his ancestors extending back into antiquity... plus his own environment and experiences.” Moreover, “every mental and psychical state and activity is accompanied by its particular physical reaction.” Therefore, to determine a person’s moral and mental characteristics, one merely needed to examine the corresponding physical manifestations of those moral and mental traits. Promoting a system of scientific “character analysis” that might be described as a cross between phrenology and eugenics, Blackford identified nine physical traits she said provided the keys to unlocking a potential employee’s inner secrets, including skin color, form (e.g., the shape of the nose, chin, and mouth), physical size, and the structure of the muscles, the brain, and the digestive system.

Whether or not it was sound science, it was certainly popular. What became known as the “Blackford plan” for employee selection was adopted by companies throughout the country, and books by Blackford went through multiple editions. According to Blackford, skin color was one of the most important traits in understanding someone’s capabilities, and they divided all human beings into “blondes” and “brunettes”—“those with white skins and those with dark skins.” She also insisted that scientific character analysis did not even require personal interviews. Photographs were enough for a trained analyst to draw scientifically justified conclusions about the subjects under study.

But the Blackford plan was just one example of how Darwinian pseudoscience was used to justify racist employee selection in the early part of the twentieth century. As I explain in “The Science of Business,” chapter 8 of my book Darwin Day in America, misusing biology to weed out the presumed unfit from various occupations was rampant in pre-World War II America.

To order Darwin Day in America click here. To find out more information about the book (and watch the trailer), visit the book’s website here.

Posted by John West at 10:17 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Ames Tribune editorial today tries to make out that Discovery Institute is more interested in headlines than in truth. Ironic, coming from a news organization that hasn’t even reported all of the news on this story. The piece sounds like it was ghost-written by the press office at ISU (or at least is based on ISU's talking points).

The news at the press conference this week was that a hostile work environment was created at ISU for Dr. Gonzalez – and then covered up by his colleagues, his department, the university, and now the Board of Regents. This thing stinks from top to bottom.

That’s a big story. They tried to cover up what amounts to a crime – viewpoint discrimination in a personnel and hiring issue. Dr. Gonzalez’s academic freedom was trampled, and now the news media in Iowa are largely ignoring it, along with the cover up. Instead they raise red herrings like the grant issue, which is old news.

The Ames editorial board can’t even seem to be consistent in the same editorial. Trying to justify an egregious example of persecution, they report that Dr. Gonzalez didn’t raise enough grant money, yet they acknowledge the Discovery Institute gave him $50,000 for research. Don’t know about you, but for a non-profit with a tiny staff, that is not chump change.

Then they go on to smugly advise:

Maybe if the Discovery Institute would have given Gonzalez the dollars it's now spending before the tenure decision was made, he'd still have a job.

This isn’t about money or about job performance. It’s about the fact that Dr. Gonzalez holds a minority view that his colleagues don’t like, and so they bounced him out of the department with complete disregard for his academic freedom and the processes in place at the university.

As for whether ISU really grants tenure based on fundraising rather than scholarship and teaching, the fact remains that the stated tenure and promotion policies of Dr. Gonzalez's own department never mention grant money. In addition, ISU bestowed tenure on many professors this year who raised less grant money than Dr. Gonzalez, according to information supplied by ISU.

It is revealing that even an outside scientific reviewer—a professional hand-picked by the university to review Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure application—observed that ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy does not consider grants as a criterion for gaining tenure, and stated that “Dr. Gonzalez is eminently qualified for the promotion according to your guidelines of excellence in scholarship and exhibiting a potential for national distinction. In light of your criteria I would certainly recommend the promotion.” (emphasis mine)

The internal e-mail traffic generated by Dr. Gonzalez's colleagues provides further evidence about the real agenda behind the expulsion of Dr. Gonzalez. In those e-mails, Gonzalez's colleagues were not obsessed with his funding (or lack thereof), they were obsessed with his views about intelligent design.

The clear majority of outside reviewers ISU sought recommendations from agreed that Dr. Gonzalez should receive tenure. The University ignored them and instead opted to make this an ideological issue. Money had nothing to do with it.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 4:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dear Human Events:

If Mac Johnson is to be believed, intelligent design (ID) advocates are Neanderthals—their theory “dressed up in a lab coat and a mail order Ph.D.” [“Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas,” November 15]

Mr. Johnson regurgitates the tired falsity of Darwinists everywhere. Leading ID advocates have reputable Ph.D.s, and avid readers of Human Events (HE) know as much. Michael Behe does biochemical research with his University of Pennsylvania Ph.D.; Jonathan Wells does biological research with his U.C. Berkeley Ph.D.; Stephen Meyer researches the history and philosophy of science with his Cambridge University Ph.D.; etc.

This kind of argument is called “poisoning the well.” That is, HE readers are supposed to dismiss ID scientists because they are not reputable. Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, it is his reputation that should now be in question.

But perhaps we should be gracious to Mr. Johnson: As he did not actually quote any ID advocates in his long article, and because he cannot define the theory properly (“it essentially states that every thing is the way it is because God wanted it that way”), we can safely assume he has not read their work, and hence he missed the dust jacket blurbs about the Ph.D.s.

Sincerely,

Logan Paul Gage
Discovery Institute

Posted by Logan Gage at 3:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last night Brit Hume highlighted the Guillermo Gonzalez tenure battle during the "Grapevine" segment of his nightly news show on the Fox News channel. You can watch the segment online here.

Posted by John West at 7:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Nature recently carried a glowing review of "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design" which uses strong language to attack ID: "Judgment Day gracefully avoids ridiculing intelligent design for the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist fig-leaf that it is." Rather than make any attacks against the reviewer, Adam Rutherford, I'll just let Mr. Rutherford speak for himself: "were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist." (emphasis added) Rutherford continues:

Guillermo Gonzalez has been denied a physics post by his university. Quite right: you cannot believe in ID and call yourself a scientist. So farewell, I hope, to the scientific career of Guillermo Gonzalez. ... I know that, were I in a position to offer Guillermo Gonzalez tenure, I would deny it for the precise reason that his, yes, religious views about purpose in the universe explicitly mean he is a crap scientist, regardless of his ability to generate valid data. ... As a vocal supporter of the demonstrably unscientific guff that is intelligent design, Gonzalez displays ignorance of the scientific process, and appears to wilfully [sic] defy it. And for that reason, he neither deserves the use of the facilities of a university to conduct scientific research, nor the privilege of teaching the next generation of scientists.

(Adam Rutherford, "Wrong by Design")

It’s worth mentioning that Rutherford's review came out a week before the "Judgment Day" documentary was released. How did he get the opportunity to view such a pre-screening? Someone inside Nature or PBS must have hand-picked Rutherford to view a sneak preview of the documentary. Apparently these are the views of those who are chosen to review PBS documentaries in the world's top scientific journals.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to KOB News in New Mexico, the Rio Rancho School District has “rescind[ed]" its "intelligent design policy," which allegedly “allow[s] alternative theories of evolution to be discussed in public school science classes.” But according to my understanding of the district's Science Education Policy 401 (revised April, 2006), it says absolutely nothing about teaching intelligent design. In fact, if board members rescinded this policy, then they rescinded a policy that protected against indoctrinating students in religious or philosophical viewpoints, encouraged sensitivity towards the controversy caused by teaching about origins, and required “objective science education, without religious or philosophical bias, that upholds the highest standards of empirical science.” Only a Darwinist would rescind a policy like this. To my knowledge, here is what the policy stated, with my comments interspersed:

"The Rio Rancho Board of Education recognizes that scientific theories, such as theories regarding biological and cosmological origins, may be used to support or to challenge individual religious and philosophical beliefs. Consequently, the teaching of science in public school science classrooms may be of great interest and concern to students and their parents."

"The Board also acknowledges the conditional trust parents place in public education, as well as the requirements of the Constitution and New Mexico education law, that the classroom not be used to indoctrinate students into any religious or philosophical belief system."

"Because of these concerns, this policy recognizes that the Rio Rancho Public Schools should teach an objective science education, without religious or philosophical bias, that upholds the highest standards of empirical science."

"Therefore, science teachers in Rio Rancho Public Schools will align their instruction with the District’s approved curricula and fully comply with the requirements of the New Mexico 2003 revised Science Content Standards, Benchmarks, and Performance Standards. Age-appropriate emphasis will be given to Strand I, Science Thinking and Practice; Strand II, The Content of Science; and Strand III, Science and Society."

"Students shall understand that reasonable people may disagree about some issues that are of interest to both science and religion (e.g., the origin of life on Earth, the cause of the Big Bang, the future of Earth)."

The top two news pieces for local CBS and Fox affiliates in Des Moines are about the press conference yesterday at which it was revealed the extensive lengths ISU faculty and administration went to cover up the hostile work environment and blatant viewpoint discrimination directed against ISU astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez.

Fox News affiliate channel 17 click here
CBS News affiliate channel 8 click here

(Note, these links may die. If you go to the video page for each channel you should be able to scroll down and find the news reports.)

Posted by Robert Crowther at 11:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Tenure votes at the earliest levels are made by a faculty member’s department, and they typically set the tone for whether that faculty member will ultimately receive tenure. Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez was first denied tenure by his Department of Physics and Astronomy at Iowa State University (ISU) in November 2006, and he soon thereafter received a letter from the Eli Rosenberg, Department Chair, asserting that intelligent design (ID) played only a minor role in tenure deliberations. As Dr. Rosenberg stated:

“Your co-authorship of ‘The Privileged Planet’ and related activity was raised by several of the external and internal letter writers and discussed briefly in the faculty meetings where your promotion was under consideration.”

(Tenure notification letter from Dr. Rosenberg to Dr. Gonzalez, November 18, 2006)

These were Dr. Rosenberg’s public statements about ID and Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure. But Dr. Rosenberg was also required to author a private Chair’s Statement that went into Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure file. This Chair’s Statement contained instructions to other faculty on how Dr. Rosenberg thought they should vote on Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure. Rosenberg’s Chair’s Statement tells a very different story about whether ID should be an “overriding factor”:

[O]n numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. … A valid scientific theory should plant the seeds of its own destruction and be falsifiable. It should point to the way to new discoveries and increase our understanding of the physical world. In this regard Intelligent Design does nothing. … The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator. (emphasis added)

Table 1: Dr. Eli Rosenberg’s Public and Private Statements about ID and Tenure.

In other words, when making public statements, Dr. Rosenberg claims that ID was merely “discussed briefly” and was “not an overriding factor.” But privately his Chair’s Statement sounds very different: he instructed other department members that Dr. Gonzalez’s view that ID is science “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.” Something that “disqualifies” someone as an educator sure sounds like an overriding factor, and it probably was discussed more than just briefly.

Is Rosenberg Correct about ID and Guillermo Gonzalez?
As seen above, Dr. Rosenberg’s primary reason for claiming that ID is not science is the assertion that ID is not falsifiable and makes no predictions. Ironically, Guillermo Gonzalez anticipated that some of his colleagues would mistakenly believe that ID is not science because they would misunderstand it to be unfalsifiable or lack predictive power. As a rebuttal to this charge, in 2005 Dr. Gonzalez published “An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues” on The Privileged Planet website, which addressed the precise concerns about falsifiability and predictability raised by Dr. Rosenberg. As Gonzalez publicly wrote more than a year before his tenure evaluations:

The argument covers everything from the fine-tuning of the constants of physics to the initial conditions of the Big Bang; from our host star and planetary neighbors to our atmosphere and moon. Our conclusion? The universe is designed not only for life but also for scientific discovery. The argument is falsifiable, vulnerable to the river of data about extrasolar planets, our galaxy, and the larger universe flowing in over the next two decades thanks to missions like Gaia and Kepler. … Although I would love to see our hypothesis confirmed, in the interim I’m gratified to see our argument the subject of reasoned debate and discussions about what future discoveries would count for or against our position. This is the scientific process at its best.

(Guillermo Gonzalez, “An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues,” June 29, 2005.)

Did Dr. Rosenberg even read Gonzalez’s “An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues”? We may never know. But it seems clear that Dr. Rosenberg has turned out to not be one of the “open minded colleagues” to which Dr. Gonzalez tried to address his letter.

Subjugating Academic Freedom to Personal Prejudices
Both Guillermo Gonzalez and Eli Rosenberg believe that science must be testable and falsifiable. Gonzalez believes ID is testable and falsifiable, while Rosenberg believes it isn’t. While Dr. Rosenberg is entitled to his view, does it follow that he is entitled to claim that Dr. Gonzalez’s view that ID is science “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator” and therefore Gonzalez must be denied tenure? Not unless Dr. Rosenberg is to discount Dr. Gonzalez’s academic freedom, which ISU’s Faculty handbook says is “the foundation of the university.”

Dr. Gonzalez’s view may not be the majority view, but it is also not part of the lunatic fringe. As he recounts in his "An Open Letter to My Open-Minded Colleagues," The Privileged Planet has received praise from various prestigious scientific sources:

Though controversial, the book has received positive endorsement or reviews from such leading scientists as Cambridge’s Simon Conway Morris, Harvard’s Owen Gingerich, and David Hughes, a Vice-President of the Royal Astronomical Society. … Design theorists, as they define themselves, are simply those arguing that purposive activity is scientifically detectable somewhere in nature. By this standard, a number of prominent scientists are design theorists, though they would never label themselves thus. … For example, physics Nobel Laureate Charles Townes (by no means a self-identified design theorist) recently wrote the following in The Wall Street Journal: “What is the purpose or meaning of life? Or of our universe? These are questions which should concern us all. As a scientist, I have been primarily trying to understand our world—the universe, including humans—what it is and how it works. Of course, if the universe has a purpose, then its structure, and how it works, must reflect this purpose.” Townes goes on in the essay to call for a “serious intellectual discussion of the possible meaning of our universe.”

Townes and I probably disagree about some issues. Here, however, there is a meeting of the minds. Scientists can study the cosmos and argue from the evidence to different conclusions. As long as they can formulate a plausible hypothesis and put their arguments in empirical harms’ way--as philosopher of science Del Ratzsch has put it--there should be no talk of banishing anyone to outer darkness.

More ISU Faculty Disregard Academic Freedom
Dr. Rosenberg stated that Gonzalez’s ID views were “discussed briefly in the faculty meetings where [his] promotion was under consideration.” If that statement is true, it is irrelevant, for (as we have already discussed) there exists an abundance of e-mails showing that ID was discussed extensively outside of the official tenure deliberations. Documentation shows that his department members communicated behind Dr. Gonzalez’s back, calling Dr. Gonzalez’s pro-ID views “intellectually vacuous,” “more than just vacuous,” and expressing their hope that ID would experience “self destruction.” They mocked Gonzalez’s ID work, saying they would study it only while “under medication” and that Gonzalez should be lumped with “idiot[s]” and “religious nutcases.” His colleagues drafted a statement condemning ID with the purpose of discrediting Gonzalez and “giv[ing] Gonzalez a clear sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty” because ISU “is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas.”

Indeed, Gonzalez’s colleague John Hauptman explicitly admitted that he voted against Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure because “Intelligent design is not even a theory.” He further said, “I participated in the initial vote and voted no, based on this fundamental question: What is science?” Does that sound familiar? It parrots the same reasoning that Dr. Rosenberg put in his Chair’s Statement in Dr. Gonzalez's tenure file, where Rosenberg wrote: “The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”

At ISU, it seems that academic freedom really means the freedom to agree with everyone else in your department. These scientists disregarded the academic freedom of scientists to support the view that ID is science. Whether you agree or disagree with ID, two things are clear: ID played a important role in Guillermo Gonzalez’s tenure evaluations, and Eli Rosenberg tried, and failed, to suppress that fact.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Public document requests under Iowa's Open Records Act have obtained revealing correspondence of key faculty members within ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy. Various e-mails show that Dr. Gonzalez’s department was concerned about the “embarrassment” that intelligent design (ID) caused the department’s reputation and unconcerned about protecting his academic freedom--despite the fact that ISU's faculty handbook claims that "[a]cademic freedom is the foundation of the university." Uncritical bias against ID on the part of ISU physicists and astronomers that voted on his tenure, and unreflective ridicule of Gonzalez’s position on ID come out repeatedly.

The faculty considered releasing a statement condemning ID in hopes that it would send a message to Dr. Gonzalez that he was unwelcome at ISU, but proponents of the statement stopped short only when they realized the legal ramifications. E-mails also reveal that some faculty prejudged Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure case a year before his tenure vote simply because he has written about ID. Above all, the e-mails show that intolerance towards intelligent design played a major, if not an overriding factor in Dr. Gonzalez’s denial of tenure by his department at ISU.

A PDF version of this document with footnotes and citations included may be found here.

Joerg Schmalian, ISU Physicist. Embarrassed about Gonzalez’s views on ID, but simultaneously worried about the emails engaging in secret tenure deliberation, and the undeniable evidence of a hostile work environment that prejudiced the case:

ISU’s tenure process and official explanation in the Gonzalez case exposed as a sham.

Des Moines, IA -- Iowa State University faculty plotted to deny tenure to a distinguished astronomer, as revealed in private emails written by faculty and administrators at ISU.

Discovery Institute is making public a record of secret emails exchanged among faculty at Iowa State University about noted ISU astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez. The emails demonstrate that a campaign was organized and conducted against Gonzalez by his colleagues, with the intent to deny him tenure because of views he holds on the intelligent design (ID) of the universe, expressed in his 2004 book The Privileged Planet. In spite of his distinguished publishing career, Gonzalez was denied tenure by ISU in the spring of 2007.

Faculty involved in the tenure decision were well aware of Gonzalez’s support for ID. More than one year before his tenure evaluation was scheduled, one ISU professor wrote an e-mail that left no doubt that Gonzalez’s tenure application would never receive a fair evaluation.

“He will be up for tenure next year,” wrote the professor. “And if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department.”

Contrary to his public statements, and those of ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, the chairman of ISU’s Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dr. Eli Rosenberg, stated in Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure dossier that Dr. Gonzalez’s support for intelligent design “disqualifies him from serving as a science educator.”

---

Click to download ID Was the Issue After All (including e-mail quotes)
Click to download Backgrounder on Guillermo Gonzalez Story
Click to download Q&A on Guillermo Gonzalez Story

---

ISU faculty have claimed that ID was not discussed as often as other subjects during the tenure deliberations, but that “is only because at secret and inappropriate tenure deliberations held via e-mail a year before the official process started, they decided that they wanted Gonzalez out of ISU because he supported intelligent design,” said Luskin.

Gonzalez’s colleagues privately deliberated via e-mails about his tenure and collaborated to express their intolerance toward him by asserting that ID is “intellectually vacuous,” and “more than just vacuous,” and that “embalming is more of a science” than ID.

They also wrote that Gonzalez should be lumped with “idiots” and “religious nutcases.” They mocked Gonzalez’s ID work, saying they would study it “[u]nder medication.”

His own department members drafted—and nearly released—a petition against ID with the avowed purpose “to discredit” Gonzalez and “give Gonzalez a clear sign that his ID efforts will not be considered as science by the faculty.”

Members of ISU’s department of Physics and Astronomy wanted Gonzalez to know “that this is not a friendly place for him to develop further his IDeas” and thus hoped “he may look for a better place as a result.”

“Faculty in the department knew they were treading on dangerous ground,” explained Luskin. “They repeatedly expressed their fear that their e-mails were, in effect, ‘secret meetings’ on Dr. Gonzalez’s tenure.”

One faculty member wrote in e-mails that “[i]n view of an upcoming tenure decision, secrecy in the department may equally be interpreted as prejudging the case as making a statement” because “[i]f it becomes clear that there were efforts to write such a statement and that the statement was not made only to avoid the impression of a hostile environment, isn’t this strong evidence for secrecy in the department[?].” Another stated, “I don’t think talking behind Guillermo’s back is quite ethical.”

“Their concerns ultimately centered around outward appearances of fairness for legal purposes, not true protection of academic freedom,” added Luskin.

“The emails prove that Dr. Gonzalez lost his job because of views on ID, not because of his job performance,” said Luskin, adding that this “is a clear First Amendment case.”

On December 4, the Iowa State Board of Regents has its next scheduled meeting.

“Like the ISU administration, the Board has ignored the significance of such a gross breach of academic freedom and professional misconduct by some faculty,” said Luskin.

“By denying requests to include these e-mails from the record in Gonzalez’s case, the Board has refused to acknowledge most of the evidence uncovered in the open records request in an apparent attempt to keep it from the public,” said Luskin. “It is extremely disconcerting that they are closing their eyes to the fact that Gonzalez was a victim of academic persecution, since they will ultimately issue a final administrative ruling on this case.”

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Documents show Gonzalez was denied fair tenure process by hostile colleagues who plotted behind his back, suppressed evidence, and then misled the public.

Click Here To See a PDF Version of this Document with Citations Included.

Executive Summary.

Internal e-mails and other documents obtained under the Iowa Open Records Act contradict public claims by Iowa State University (ISU) that denial of tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez was unrelated to his writing on the theory of intelligent design. According to these documents:

The Des Moines Register has run a story that starts to reveal the real reasons Iowa State University has denied tenure to one of its most productive astronomy faculty members, Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, and yes, it turns out to be a case of discrimination based on Gonzalez's views that the origin of the universe shows scientifically detectable signs of design.

But The DMR story is just the tip of the iceberg. A press conference Monday will reveal more of the suppressed email traffic that shows the climate of viewpoint suppression at Iowa State that led to denial of tenure for Dr. Gonzalez. In important addition, it will unveil the high level cover-up that tried to prevent the public from learning the reasons for getting rid of Gonzalez. So far, the Board of Regents. meeting Tuesday, has declined to intervene.

Here is a University Administration--and its Board of leading figures appointed by the Governor--that apparently cannot abide having on faculty an astronomer who merely detects design in the origin of the universe. But it has this year promoted Hector Avalos, Gonzalez' leading campus tormentor. Avalos is a tenured professor in the Religion Department and is regarded as Iowa's most outspoken atheist.

Readers may suspect that I am overstating the problem at ISU, but they should look more closely. For openers, it might be asked how many of Gonzalez' critics--the people quoted in the emails and the President and other Administration officials and Board at ISU who have ruled on this matter have ever bothered to read The Privileged Planet, the co-authored book that seems to have agitated Gonzalez' enemies? Are they even aware of the internationally prominent scientists who praised Professor Gonzalez' work? Is this failure of curiosity not then a clear indication of the faculty's and University President's prejudice--literally their "pre-judgment"?

It also would be interesting if reporters asked Gonzalez' critics to identify those sections in Gonzalez' writing they consider outside the bounds of respectable scientific discussion of the origins of the universe. It may become clear from their replies that personal projection and prejudice again are quite evident, even if those questioned aren't conscious of them.

"Banned in Iowa" is destined to become a very strange advertisement for a university system that claims to be part of the great Western tradition of free inquiry. Meanwhile, Hawkeye citizens outside of academia may want to look at this case in greater detail. Tomorrow's press conference should help them understand better how ISU is using their tax money.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 2:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I got two calls last night about Dr. John West's presentation at the University of Minnesota on Darwinism's fathership of eugenics. It appears that the scholarly and well-delivered lecture, derived from the new West book, Darwin Day in America, was successful in influencing the thinking of a largely skeptical audience. (The dyspeptic and ad hominem blogger/biologist Dr. P.Z. Myers was there and brought a Darwinist claque. West generously introduced him and acknowledged him as Minnesota's Richard Dawkins, which is about right.)

The matter of scholarship is crucial. The lecture promoters had a professor from the University of Minnesota, Dr. Mark Borrello, respond to West and he made the lame accusation that West was "scapegoating" scientists in general for the terrible mistakes of eugenics. The Darwinists present obviously agreed. But a questioner asked Morrello if it was "scapegoating" to cite the actual historical roles of leading scientists in promoting eugenics, and, if so, is criticism of scientists now supposed to be off limits? Good question, and there was no good answer. Did eugenics just happen all by itself? Maybe it just evolved.

In truth, as West made plain, it wasn't just a few prominent scientists who gave us eugenics, but virtually the entire scientific establishment of the time, including the top professional organizations. They had great sway not only at elite schools like Harvard and Princeton, but also in state governments in places like Indiana and California and in the courts. They were contemptuous of dissent. (Do I hear echoes today?) Further, their work was picked up zealously by the Nazis in Germany; and there is no avoiding this.

West said that science changes and must change as new evidence emerges. Treating scientists as some sort of lab-coated demi-gods--the kind whose recommended policies you cannot critique without being accused of "scapegoating"--is not in the true interests of society, including the scientific community.

The apologists for Darwinism want people to think that the link to eugenics is slight and had no great consequences, but West's facts are authoritative and conclusive in showing that the connection is conspicuous and the consequences were major. I have heard the lecture, and it is as professional as it is illuminating, but an hour only begins to touch the mountain of documentation West cites in Darwin Day in America.

The Darwinists also want you to think that eugenics was all a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But eugenics has been revived in our time and the New Eugenics Movement is also product of Darwinism and Darwinists. You only have to read Dawkins, Singer, Pinker and the rest to see the same disdain for human exceptionalism that fueled the original eugenics movement. Therefore, West's history is not just "academic", it's urgent.

The Darwinists hate hearing about the history of eugenics because it is true and there really isn't much they can do to spin it or control it. I like it for the same reasons.

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 11:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Some Darwinists are presently making the false assertion that Discovery Institute wanted Judge Jones to rule broadly on whether ID is science in the Kitzmiller case. All this comes in the wake of Judge Jones’ recent admissions regarding the activist nature of the Kitzmiller ruling. The Darwinist response to Judge Jones's admissions is revealing: Rather than defending the Judge Jones activist behavior in the Kitzmller ruling, Darwinists have implicitly conceded the activism by changing the subject, and attacking us for allegedly encouraging its activism. As is the usual case when ID proponents make a good point, Darwinists try to deflect the issue by changing the subject and launching into personal attacks. This tells you that we have done something right here.

The two amicus briefs, the Discovery Institute’s Legal Amicus Brief ("DI Legal Brief") and the Brief of Amici Curiae Biologists And Other Scientists In support of Defendants ("85 Scientists' Brief") were filed by Discovery Institute in the Kitzmiller case. The basic assertion from the Darwinists is that because those briefs discuss the issue of whether ID is science, that therefore we wanted Judge Jones to rule on that issue. The Darwinists are blatantly misrepresenting our arguments made in those briefs. In reality, if one actually reads those briefs in their entirety, they make it clear that:

(1) Discovery Institute wanted the Judge to issue a narrow ruling based upon the purpose prong of the Lemon test that did not address whether ID is science,

(2) It was the plaintiffs who raised the issue of whether ID was science to Judge Jones (not us), and

(3) Discovery Institute's reasons for discussing whether ID is science were to rebut the plaintiffs false assertions and also to encourage Judge Jones to not rule broadly on that issue, thus denying the plaintiffs the broad ruling they requested but did not deserve.

The plaintiffs have invited this Court to determine the status of intelligent design as science. Because the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate, this Court should reject the relief requested by the plaintiffs, and affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead.

Q. "Didn't Judge Jones have to decide on whether ID was a science in order to decide if it was appropriate material for the biology classroom independent of the board's motivations?"

My answer: No. We address this in our Montana Law Review article. In its present implementation, the Lemon test basically looks at 2 things to determine whether a government policy establishes religion: (1) motives behind the law; and (2) the effect of the law. Whether ID is science (an objective inquiry) can be irrelevant to the school board's motives, which would result from a subjective inquiry. The reason the answer is “no” is because Judge Jones had clear subjective evidence of religious motives on the part of the Dover School Board (i.e. their statements about taking a stand for Jesus Christ, etc. at school board meetings) and thus none of Judge Jones's expansive inquiry into the objective question of "Is ID Science?" was necessary for him to answer the subjective question "Did the school board have religious motives?"

Whether ID is science goes to the "effect" prong of the Lemon test. But here's the important point to answer your question: if you find evidence for religious motives, the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that no inquiry into the effect prong (i.e. whether ID is science) is necessary: "[i]f the law was enacted for the purpose of endorsing religion, ‘no consideration of the second or third criteria [of Lemon] is necessary.’" Thus it wasn't even necessary for Judge Jones to look at the effect of teaching ID (i.e. asking "is ID science?") if he found religious motives. Judge Jones ignored this principle because he wanted to make a broad sweeping holding, i.e. be an activist judge (see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html).

Regarding Dover School Board members Bonsell and Buckingham, in fact they provided ample evidence for religious motives. Judge Jones could have simply said "The Dover board had religious motives, so their policy is unconstitutional, and I can resolve this case without addressing the bigger question of whether teaching about ID has a secular effect." In fact, I think that the correct outcome in this case would have been for the judge to rule that because Bonsell / Buckingham had religious motives, that therefore Dover's specific policy was unconstitutional, and then he should have left untouched the question of whether ID has a secular effect (a question appropriate for a different case with different facts, such as where a judge finds ID was taught under legitimate secular motives). In fact, we advocated this in Discovery Institute's Legal Amicus Brief which read:

Thus, whatever the merits and history of [Dover's specific] policy, Amicus urges the court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that teaching students about the theory of intelligent design necessarily violates the Establishment Clause. If the Court strikes down DASB’s policy, Amicus urges the court to fashion relief that does not impugn the constitutionality of teaching about intelligent design, since policies permitting such instruction might reflect valid secular purposes and could enhance religious neutrality.

It’s also worth noting that regardless of what issues the parties in the case raise, a judge has discretion to rule as he or she sees fit, and a judge does not have to address an issue simply because one or both parties raise it. In fact, it is considered good judicial practice to limit a ruling to what is necessary in the case and not intrude into expansive questions that are unnecessary to the holding. Thus, the Supreme Court said in a famous case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty:

In the realm of constitutional law, especially, this Court has perceived the embarrassment which is likely to result from an attempt to formulate rules or decide questions beyond the necessities of the immediate issue. It has preferred to follow the method of a gradual approach to the general by a systematically guarded application and extension of constitutional principles to particular cases as they arise, rather than by out of hand attempts to establish general rules to which future cases must be fitted.

(1) It was the PLAINTIFFS (not us) who were raising the issue of whether ID is science; they did so because they wanted an expansive ruling against ID from the judge.

(2) We were ONLY discussing the status of ID as science TO REBUT THE PLAINTIFFS’ FALSE ASSERTIONS that ID was not science.

(3) Our amicus brief discussed the issue to encourage the judge to make a NON-EXPANSIVE RULING. In fact, our discussion of whether ID is science was made for the purpose of convincing the Judge not to rule on the issue! If you don't believe me, read the conclusion of DI's amicus brief:

Because the inclusion of intelligent design in the science curriculum can serve a variety of important secular purposes, and because it has a primary effect of improving science education and even promoting religious neutrality, the plaintiffs’ request for broad and precedent-setting relief should be denied. (emphasis added)

Re-read our amicus briefs through a strategic lawyer's eyes, and you'll see that what they basically say to the Judge is this: "We know that the Dover school board had religious motives, but that's their problem, not ours, because that doesn't mean that ID couldn't be taught under legitimate secular motives. So we have no objection if you go ahead and strike down their policy on those narrow grounds of Lemon's purpose prong. The plaintiffs want you to rule broadly that ID isn't science but religion under Lemon's effect prong. But you shouldn't rule broadly for 2 reasons (1) It isn't necessary for your ruling on the narrow grounds of the "purpose prong" of the Lemon test; (2) ID is science, so you should not strike down ID generally--keep your ruling to NARROW GROUNDS and don't try to enter the larger non-justiciable and complicated debate over whether ID is science. You as a judge aren't qualified to settle those issues."

In order to encourage the judge to understand that it was not appropriate for a court to enter a discussion of whether ID is science, we wrote in Discovery’s legal amicus brief:

"While Amicus believes that there are good reasons to regard intelligent design as scientific, Amicus recognizes that the question itself may be non-justiciable. Questions are non-justiciable when there is “a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267, 277-78 (2004). Even expert philosophers of science have been unable to settle the question, “What is science?” Still less is this question subject to “judicially discoverable and manageable standards.” Insofar as plaintiffs base their argument on the claim that design is inherently unscientific, and thus inherently religious, finding the scientific status of intelligent design non-justiciable would undermine plaintiffs’ case."

The plaintiffs have invited this Court to determine the status of intelligent design as science. Because the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate, this Court should reject the relief requested by the plaintiffs, and affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead.

Could we have made ourselves any clearer? We filed 2 briefs that scream out "Don't rule on whether ID is science and don't rule broadly like what the plaintiffs are asking you to do. It isn't necessary for this case and a court isn't the right body to settle this issue."

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

Posted by Casey Luskin at 11:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)