Do Car Engineers Turn to Darwinian Evolution or Intelligent Design?
Don’t read into this post too much, but take it as a series of curious observations. We’re often told that Darwinism is like a scientific magic bullet that can solve anything. Darwinists love to quote Theodosius Dobzhansky saying, “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” We’re also told that intelligent design threatens to destroy science. Nonetheless, I can’t help but notice that when engineers design technology to be sold to the public, they prefer to tell them about processes of intelligent design over unguided selection and random mutation. As a silly anecdote, I recently came across this Hyandai car advertisement, stating: “the i30 name has been chosen to reflect the car’s European styling and its all-round intelligent design.” I decided to see if there were other similar examples, and searches uncovered many examples.
The website “CarReview.com” reviewed the Honda Civic SI and praises its “very modern looking interior, with flowing lines and an intelligent design.” Indeed, Honda’s own website has a page with specs on the Honda S2000 roadster which states, “Further intelligent design details, such as lightweight valve springs and the use of low-friction plating, prove the Honda S2000 is a model of engineering perfection.”
A news article covering Nissan’s new “advanced vehicle-to-traffic-light communication technology” is titled, “Intelligent Design, Transportation-Style, From Nissan.” An article about the Toyota Camry states that, “[t]he 2006 Camry redefines global standards for comfort, safety and intelligent design.” Elsewhere Toyota announces an environment-friendly concept car which gets great fuel economy, in part, because “weight reduction is achieved by intelligent design of interior components, such as the instrument panel and heater modules.” Similarly, an article on Toyota.com about Camry Hybrids calls the car "a world-class sedan that not only redefines global standards for comfort, performance and intelligent design, but also is available, for the first time, with Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive."
A news release advertising a line of RV’s announces: “Intelligent Design Features Incorporated Into Fleetwood's 2006 Bounder Diesel and Expedition RV's.” Even Lexus gets into the action, reporting on its Lexus.com website that the inspiration behind the Lexus SC430, “was to create an elegant, sophisticated and intelligent design.” Indeed, a Wall Street Journal blog writes about Chrysler’s efforts to improve their products, titling the article, “The Case for Intelligent Design at Chrysler.”
These advertisements and reviews don’t say “random-variation-and-unguided-selection-based design.” They say “intelligent design.” And when advertisers mention the “evolution” of a product, you can almost surely bet that it’s intelligently guided “evolution,” not the Darwinian processes of random mutation and unguided natural selection.
And before you start to nitpick reasons why don't like this post, don't forget my words at the beginning: "Don’t read into this post too much, but take it as a series of curious observations."
Finally, if you want a nice example of an irreducibly complex system, try this YouTube video of a Honda Accord commercial. The commercial ends by saying, “Isn’t it nice when things just work?” You won’t find anyone suggesting that the machines in this commercial “work” due to anything other than intelligent design:
Associated Press Suppresses Facts on Louisiana Evolution Hearing
The Associated Press has an article on Louisiana’s Academic Freedom bill which quotes a Darwinist professor at Louisiana State University asserting that "biological evolution really is not scientifically controversial." The article did observe that biologist Caroline Crocker testified in favor of the bill, but left out the fact that multiple other scientists (including professional biologists) also testified that there are scientific problems with evolution. As I recount here, three professional biologists and one chemist, all with Ph.D.’s, testified about scientific problems with Darwinian evolution before Louisiana’s House Education Committee on Wednesday. But the Associated Press chose not to report that fact, instead deciding to serve as a checkpoint to prevent its readers from learning about scientists who doubt Darwin.
MSNBC’s Alan Boyle and Sean B. Carroll Argue Scientists Should Keep “Quiet” about Support for Intelligent Design (Part 2)
In Part 1 I explained how Alan Boyle and Sean B. Carroll unashamedly agree that scientists should keep “quiet” about their support intelligent design (ID). In this final response, I will discuss how the scientific evidence cited by Boyle does little to demonstrate the power of the neo-Darwinian mechanism. In Alan Boyle’s attack upon Expelled, he uses biologist Sean B. Carroll as his big gun scientist to attack intelligent design, touting Carroll’s book Making of the Fittest. In that book, Carroll argues that “[t]he argument for design by some external intelligence is eviscerated.”
Last year I wrote a response to Carroll showing that many of his arguments are frankly unimpressive. As I recounted at that time, "If the loss of function by turning off genes, and the usage of the same genes to build organs in vastly diverse organisms—a fact cited by design-proponents as supporting common design—are the best facts [Carroll] can muster against design, then it would appear that ID has very little to fear from the discoveries of evo-devo."
Boyle cites to a study which makes the trivial finding that some humans have slightly different biochemical or genetic mechanisms for digesting milk. Interestingly, the article assumes that "[h]uman adults were not designed to digest milk," and therefore "[i]t took a genetic mutation to enable humans to tolerate lactose." But what if human adults originally were designed to digest milk, and the fact that some humans have different biochemical mechanisms for lactose digestion, and that some have lost that ability, simply reflects variations or degeneration upon the original design? This evidence might show that evolution is only good at degenerating or destroying function rather than creating it.
Moreover, there are 2 reasons to understand that this study did not really document the evolution of something "new." Note that the article states "human adults" cannot digest milk. This is because most children can digest milk, and lactose intolerance is typically caused by environmental conditions, i.e. the less milk you drink as you age, the more likely you are to become lactose intolerant. In fact, lactose intolerance takes place when your small intestine does not make enough lactase, an enzyme used to break down lactose in milk. So the difference between a lactose intolerant person and a lactose tolerant person is not the presence of a new enzyme, but the production of more of a pre-existing enzyme.
This study did not actually find evidence of the evolutionary acquisition of a new trait here, but rather found evidence for the prolonging of a pre-existing trait. And all humans produce lactase, so there has been no evolution of a new enzyme. Does this example represent the "evolution" of something impressive or new?
Boyle quotes biologist Sean Carroll asserting that when it comes to the validity of neo-Darwinism, "the ballgame is over." This is a premature calling of the game. According to Boyle, "Evo-devo" has solved all the serious problems in evolutionary biology. (Keep in mind that in his book Making of the Fittest, the best "evo-devo" evidence for evolution that Carroll could muster were trivial examples of loss-of-function, like loss of spots on butterfly wings or loss of eyes on blind cave-fish, or an ID-favorite, the re-usage of the same genes in different organisms!) Nonetheless, Boyle argues that we have seen evolution produce new features: "Scientists are analyzing and comparing the genetic codes for hundreds of species, and the results are shedding new light on long-running posers such as the evolution of the eye or the cousinly relationship between elephants and manatees." The truth that Boyle misses is that, as scientists analyze and compare the genetic codes for more and more species, they are finding that Phylogenetic trees are often in sharp conflict with one another. Again, let's check Boyle’s references.
He cites an article that claims that "[s]cientists knew that elephants are related to modern aquatic creatures such as manatees." This relationship has been claimed on the basis of DNA evidence, where Phylogenetic studies have compared the DNA of elephants and manatees and researchers suggest that they are closely related. But all that such studies have actually found is that elephants and manatees have similar DNA. Since their DNA might be similar due to functional requirements and not inheritance from a common ancestor, there’s no reason to presume that this data necessarily indicates common ancestry. But even if the similarities are derived from a common ancestor, the allegedly clear Phylogenetic relationship between elephants and sea cows seems to be the exception, and not the rule in systematics. De Jong (1998) observed that “the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals [of] the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce [the mammalian tree] to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows."
Another severe Phylogenetic conflict is seen in Boyle's reference regarding the "evolution of the eye" which opens by admitting, "While morphological comparisons of eye anatomy and photoreceptor cell types led to the view that animal eyes evolved multiple times independently, the molecular conservation of the pax6 eye-specifying cascade has indicated the contrary - that animal eyes evolved from a common, simple precursor, the proto-eye." In other words, evolutionary scientists were surprised to use that very different types of eyes use the same regulatory genes to control eye growth, because the standard Darwinian phylogeny would never have predicted this. In fact, such unexpected genetic similarity may instead provide strong evidence for common design.
Indeed, some of the very research of Boyle’s big gun, Sean Carroll, also shows that Phylogenetic trees commonly conflict with one another. In 2006, Carroll co-authored a study which acknowledged that "a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality," observing that one study "omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom." Such a selective use of data does not inspire confidence in the methods evolutionary biologists use to construct their phylogenetic trees.
The paper suggests that "certain critical parts of the [tree of life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available." The excuse that Phylogenetic trees are difficult to construct because of insufficient data is no longer feasible. The paper even contends that "[t]he recurring discovery of persistently unresolved clades (bushes) should force a re-evaluation of several widely held assumptions of molecular systematics." Carroll of course is a committed neo-Darwinist. One assumption he does not re-evaluate is the assumption of common ancestry.
Carroll attempts to reconcile the genetic data with common descent by postulating rapid phases of evolution where there was insufficient time for enough differences in the DNA of different lineages to accumulate to allow modern biologists to resolve the evolutionary relationships. This becomes an exercise in neo-Darwinism explaining away the data. Perhaps the inability to construct robust phylogenetic trees using molecular data simply stems from the fact that neo-Darwinian common descent is wrong.
In the end, Boyle’s evidence for neo-Darwinism might be seen from a different angle—as evidence for intelligent design. Unfortunately, as I discussed in part 1, Boyle does not believe that scientists should not have the academic freedom to think such thoughts because they are too "wacky."
MSNBC’s Alan Boyle and Sean B. Carroll Argue Scientists Should Keep "Quiet" about Support for Intelligent Design (Part 1)
We’ve known for a long time that MSNBC’s "Cosmic Log" writer Alan Boyle doesn’t like intelligent design, and in his coverage of Expelled, Boyle is no exception to the "checkpoint" pattern described earlier here on ENV. This time, he's got scientists from the academy "checkpoint" to back him up. Thus, he feels confident to attack Expelled as, "creepy … campaign ad, aimed at swiftboating science."
Enter Sean B. Carroll, a prominent biologist from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Boyle’s big gun who also happens to dislike intelligent design. Boyle quotes Carroll in a one-two punch that essentially states that scientists who support intelligent design should keep quiet about such views in the science classroom. Boyle writes:
Even at the time of 2005's Kitzmiller v. Dover court decision, it was clear that an argument based on academic freedom would be the next frontier for the intelligent-design debate. But the freedom to teach isn't absolute. It's subject to the usual checks and balances of academic institutions, plus the constitutional ban on state establishment of religion - and the idea that the content of a science class should be, well, based on science.
That doesn't mean science teachers can't have wacky ideas. Some of the wackiest ideas have been held by the world's greatest scientists - including Isaac Newton, a religious heretic who calculated that the world would end in the year 2060. To Newton's credit, he kept relatively quiet about the wackier claims and pushed ahead with better ideas like calculus, optics and universal gravitation.
Carroll had similar advice for today's biologists: "The biology community will tell you that understanding genetics and evolution is fundamental to being a literate biologist. ... Do you want your kids to be taught by people who are living in the 18th century? I don't think so. They have a right to think these things or believe these things, but they have an obligation to be technically competent."
What’s that again? In case you missed what Boyle just wrote, let me explain what you just saw: First, Boyle praises Newton because he "kept relatively quiet" about his "wacky ideas." Next, Boyle directly inserts intelligent design into the “wacky idea” category. Then Boyle quotes Sean B. Carroll advising present-day biologists to do the same with their “wackier claims,” except in the context of Carroll’s advice, the topic is doubts about evolution. The implication is clear: Boyle and Carroll think that there should be no academic freedom for scientists or educators to speak in favor of intelligent design. In Boyle and Carroll’s world, if you have real doubts about evolution, then like Newton, you should just keep "quiet."
Alan Boyle of course has every right to believe that intelligent design is "wacky," and he has every right to promote that view. But should he advocate restricting the academic freedom of scientists who believe that there is merit to intelligent design—restricting the academic freedom of scientists who publish research and books supporting the theory and then dare to mention it in the classroom? Apparently, Boyle (with the back-up of Sean Carroll) think the answer is "yes," and they should be the arbiter of who gets academic freedom and who doesn’t in the debate over Darwin. As Gerald Schroeder says in Expelled, academic freedom exists, "but not if you’re on the wrong side of the wall"—i.e. there is no academic freedom if you support intelligent design.
In Boyle’s world, academic "freedom” only exists to express disagreement with intelligent design. Is that really freedom?
Cross Examining Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the Classroom and the Courtroom
A new six part series of interviews has popped up on Youtube featuring attorney Ed Sisson. Sisson you may remember was a key player in the Kansas state board of education's hearings on science standards in 2005. He also happens to have been Dr. Caroline Crocker's pro-bono attorney when she was ousted from George Mason University for teaching some of the scientific evidence that challenges Darwinian evolution. So, he knows a bit about academic freedom and free open scientific inquiry. The main thrust in this interview is Sisson's contention that Darwinian evolution should be open to scrutiny, both in the classroom and the courtroom.
Sisson wrote to tell us about the video:
"Although I gave the talk two years ago, it only occurred to me in April, 2008, to do the edit (thank you Apple iMovie '08) and post it on-line, as a way of contributing to the success of the pending academic freedom bills in several states, and also to develop the idea of hearings and cross-examination. And in light of the fact that both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain voted for the pro-ID 'Santorum Amendment' back in 2001 (Senator Obama was not in office then), my video also raises timely issues for the Presidential campaign."
Here is part one of the series, all six parts of which are available at Youtube.
A series well worth checking out. You can watch a higher quality uncut
version here.
Opponents of academic freedom in Louisiana have been putting out a smokescreen of misinformation in their effort to kill legislation to protect the rights of Louisiana's science teachers. Rather than discuss the real issues at stake, they are trying to get their way through misrepresentations, scare tactics, and the demonization of those who support honest discussion of scientific controversies. Their misinformation campaign shouldn’t be allowed to obscure key facts:
1. Louisiana's academic freedom legislation is not about "creationism." It’s about protecting the rights of teachers to teach good science.
Many teachers remain confused and fearful about what information they can legally teach regarding controversial scientific topics such as evolution. By enacting a limited right to objectively discuss conflicting scientific views in the classroom, proposed legislation would address this problem. Thus far, the main objection to protecting teacher rights in this area is the bogus claim that the legislation will somehow promote "creationism." Repeating the terms "creationist" and "creationism" ad nauseum, opponents of academic freedom clearly hope if they mention these words frequently enough they will stigmatize the legislation sufficiently to kill it. But their rhetoric ignores the actual language of the bills that have been proposed. The operative language of Sen. Nevers' bill merely requires educators to:
create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.1
The operative language of Rep. Hoffman's bill states:
teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, critically analyze, and review, in an objective manner, the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.2
Moreover, the bills expressly state that they shall "only protect[t] the teaching of scientific information" (HB 1168) or only protect the rights of teachers "to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner" (SB 733) and both bills expressly state that they "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or non-religion." (HB 1168 and SB 733) There is no way to legitimately interpret such clear statements as authorizing the teaching of creationism.
2. Louisiana's academic freedom legislation is legally sound.
Opponents of academic freedom are also trying to mislead lawmakers by implying that an academic freedom bill including the subject of evolution would be struck down in the courts or end up in costly litigation. This is a standard scare tactic that has been employed in other states. Despite such threats, at least nine states currently have state or local policies that protect, encourage, and sometimes even require teachers to discuss the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution:
Minnesota’s science standards require that “[t]he student will be able to explain how scientific and technological innovations as well as new evidence can challenge portions of or entire accepted theories and models including... [the] theory of evolution....”3 No lawsuit has ever been filed there.
New Mexico requires that students will “critically analyze the data and observations supporting the conclusion that the species living on Earth today are related by descent from the ancestral one-celled organisms.”4 No lawsuit has been filed there.
Pennsylvania requires that its students “[c]ritically evaluate the status of existing theories (e.g., germ theory of disease, wave theory of light, classification of subatomic particles, theory of evolution, epidemiology of aids).”5 This policy remains unchallenged.
Missouri’s statewide standards state that students must “[i]dentify and analyze current theories that are being questioned, and compare them to new theories that have emerged to challenge older ones (e.g., Theory of Evolution…).”6 There has never been a lawsuit against this policy.
Alabama requires that a disclaimer be inserted into biology textbooks that says that “evolution by natural selection is a controversial theory. ... Instructional material associated with controversy should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”7 Darwinists have not dared to file a lawsuit even against this policy.
In South Carolina, students are required to “[s]ummarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.”8 Darwinists have realized they cannot sue against this policy.
Grantsburg, Wisconsin requires its students to “explain the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.” This policy has gone unchallenged in courts.
A school district in Lancaster, California also passed an academic freedom policy stating that evolution should not be treated as “unalterable fact” and that “[d]iscussions that question the theory may appropriate as long as they do not stray from current criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory.”9 No lawsuit has been filed against that policy.
Ouachita Parish, Louisiana has an academic freedom policy recognizing that “the teaching of some scientific subjects, such as biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning, can cause controversy” and therefore provides that “teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught.”10 This policy is very similar to the present legislation active in the Louisiana Legislature, and it has gone unchallenged in courts.
Many of these policies go much further than the Louisiana Legislature’s proposed academic freedom legislation, showing that even more demanding policies than the present modest proposals to protect academic freedom legislation are legally defensible. Indeed, what critics of academic freedom do not want lawmakers to know is that the law is firmly on the side of this legislation. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that it is permissible for schools to teach “scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories,”11 and even groups like the ACLU and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have had to acknowledge that “any genuinely scientific evidence for or against any explanation of life may be taught.”12
3. Louisiana’s academic freedom legislation is not preempted by Kitzmiller v. Dover.
One of the most disingenuous tactics adopted by the opponents of academic freedom is their claim that legislation on this issue is preempted by the widely-reported decision in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. In reality, the Dover case is completely inapplicable to the academic freedom legislation under consideration in Louisiana:
First, and most important, the Dover case was about intelligent design, not studying the strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories. The proposed legislation in Louisiana does not address the teaching of alternative scientific theories such as intelligent design. It merely protects critical thinking and discussion regarding existing scientific theories in the curriculum.
Second, the Dover case focused on teacher mandates, not on academic freedom policies. The Dover school board required teachers to mention intelligent design in the classroom. By contrast, the proposed academic freedom legislation in Louisiana does not mandate that any teacher teach anything. It’s purely defensive and protective: It protects the jobs of teachers who choose to teach the scientific evidence for and against evolution in the classroom. It essentially says to teachers: “you won’t lose your job for teaching legitimate science for or against evolution.”
Finally, the Dover case has no binding authority over the State of Louisiana. It was decided in the lowest level of the federal courts—over a thousand miles away in a federal trial court in the middle district of Pennsylvania—and it therefore does not represent the law in Louisiana. Since the case was never appealed to a higher court, it is not binding precedent upon parties outside of those involved in that lawsuit.
4. The religious beliefs of Louisiana’s citizens shouldn’t be on trial.
Unfortunately, opponents of academic freedom in Louisiana have spent much of their time trying to smear those they disagree with as “creationists” or “theocrats” or even as “pawns” of an evil conspiracy by groups outside the state. Louisiana citizens with sincere policy differences should not be demonized in this way. The most disturbing part of the tactics of opponents is their unhealthy preoccupation with other people’s private religious beliefs. The opponents of academic freedom seem to believe that legislators and citizens who are religious believers do not have an equal right to participate in the political process as other citizens, suggesting that their secular policy proposals must be treated with suspicion because of their private religious beliefs. Incredibly, opponents invoke the Constitution as a justification for their effort to demote religious believers to the status of second-class citizens. In truth, it is their line of argument that offends the U.S. Constitution, because the First and Fourteenth Amendments clearly guarantee the right of all citizens to participate in the political process, regardless of their religious beliefs. Legislators should resist efforts to turn this public debate into a religious inquisition. The only relevant question is whether there are legitimate secular reasons to protect academic freedom in teaching about scientific controversies, not whether supporters of academic freedom in Louisiana (like the vast majority of Americans) happen to hold religious beliefs.
Efforts to silence supporters of academic freedom by focusing on their religion are shameful. They are also exceedingly hypocritical.
Consider the case of Barbara Forrest, the leading opponent of academic freedom legislation in Louisiana. Forrest has made a career of “outing” the personal religious beliefs of those she disagrees with on the evolution issue and then implying that their religious beliefs disqualify them from equal participation in the political process.13 She also has a record of labeling people and groups as “creationists” that do not subscribe to creationism. For example, she asserts repeatedly that Discovery Institute is a “creationist” group despite the fact that the Institute clearly states that it “is not a creationist organization, and it does not favor including either creationism or the Bible in biology textbooks or science classes.”14 All the while, Forrest pretends that she is an impartial and neutral “expert” without any motives of her own. But is that really the case?
Forrest sits on the Board of Directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association (NOSHA), which describes itself as “an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International.”15 NOSHA is also an affiliate of the Council for Secular Humanism, which it describes as “North America’s leading organization for non-religious people.”16 NOSHA’s links page boasts “The Secular Web,” whose “mission is to defend and promote metaphysical naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.”17 Most notably, NOSHA is an associate member of the American Humanist Association,18 which publishes the Humanist Manifesto III.19 The Humanist Manifesto aspires to create a world with “a progressive philosophy of life … without supernaturalism” and makes broad metaphysical claims that “[h]umans are… the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.”20
In her academic writings, Forrest has even insisted that atheism (i.e., “philosophical naturalism”) is the “only reasonable” belief system for people to hold: “Philosophical naturalism is… the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion—if by reasonable one means both empirically grounded and logically coherent.”21
When asked about her own anti-religious ideological views, a news article reported that “Forrest said her religious beliefs shouldn’t be an issue.”22 This is a blatant double-standard given Forrest’s attacks on other people for their religion. But she happens to be correct: She has every right to hold her anti-religious ideology, and her personal beliefs should be considered irrelevant to her public arguments about science and law. However, she refuses to extend the same courtesy to her opponents in the debate over evolution, constantly harping on her opponents’ supposed religious affiliations, while hypocritically claiming that her own anti-religious agenda is irrelevant.
5. The effort to demonize national groups for supporting academic freedom in Louisiana is a ploy to distract attention from the real issues.
In a further effort to distract attention from the real issues, Barbara Forrest and her supporters are now demonizing Discovery Institute as an “out-of-state” organization that is “meddling” in Louisiana by defending academic freedom proposals there. In fact, Louisiana’s academic freedom proposals are being promoted by Louisiana’s own citizens, teachers, and parents. Discovery Institute—a non-profit, non-partisan educational and research organization—is certainly happy to act as a resource in the defense of academic freedom in Louisiana and other states. But it is Louisiana’s own citizens who have made academic freedom proposals a priority. Moreover, opponents of academic freedom like Forrest are completely hypocritical when it comes to complaints about “out-of-state” groups, showing no similar qualms about involving national pro-evolution groups in Louisiana. Indeed, Forrest herself repeatedly refers citizens in Louisiana to “out-of-state” and “national” organizations for help, so long as the organizations are pro-evolution, such as the National Center for Science Education, formerly based in Berkeley, California, or the nationally-based group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Ironically, Forrest is a leader in both national organizations, and she has actively participated in public policy debates in other states. For example, she testified as an expert witness in the Dover lawsuit against a small rural school district in Pennsylvania—a lawsuit that cost the district over 1 million dollars. In short, the concerns expressed about “out-of-state” groups are a sham.
Louisiana House Education Committee Unanimously Passes Academic Freedom Bill
Baton Rouge, LA – Yesterday the Louisiana House Education Committee unanimously passed SB 733, an academic freedom bill. The bill requires that Louisiana schools shall "create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." The passage followed testimony from four Ph.D. scientists, including three biologists, who testified in favor of the bill.
One biology professor from Louisiana College, Dr. Wade Warren, testified about how during his graduate studies at Texas A & M, the dean ordered him cease discussing scientific problems with students. Another biochemist, Dr. Brenda Peirson, testified about how random mutation and natural selection cannot produce many of the complex biological systems we see in the cell.
One of those scientists, Dr. Caroline Crocker, testified about her experience losing her job at George Mason University after she taught students about scientific arguments against neo-Darwinism. Southern University law professor and constitutional law expert Michelle Ghetti also testified that the bill was “perfectly constitutional.” After the scientists and other educators testified about the scientific problems with neo-Darwinism and the need to protect academic freedom, one LSU Darwinist biologist, Dr. Bryan Carstens, who opposed the bill had the temerity to claim: “let us be clear that there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution.” The glaring weakness in his false argument was not lost upon members of the legislature: he was immediately pressed by one legislator on the committee who asked the following:
In the document you just read and gave to us, in bold print it says, ‘let us be clear there is no controversy among biologists about the fact of evolution.’ Did you hear the testimony of the other professors we had here that were speaking before this committee?
Dr. Carstens then showed his intolerance towards professional biologists who were Darwin-skeptics. Carstens refused to admit their existence and in fact only admitted that faculty who testified against evolution had Ph.D.’s in “chemistry.” Of course only one of the Ph.D.’s was a chemist, and three of them were professional biologists. The truth of the matter is that Dr. Carstens’ entire statement shows the intolerance towards Darwin-skeptics in the scientific community: Not only was he unable and unwilling to admit, under oath, the existence of the three professional biologists who had just testified against evolution before the committee, but his statement asserted the blatantly false claim that “there is no controversy among professional biologists about fact of evolution.” It’s tough to convince people of that claim when three professional biologists testified otherwise.
Of course Dr. Carstens has every right to testify in favor of evolution. But to testify that there is “no controversy” among “professional biologists” implies that scientists who doubt Darwinism do not exist. Imagine you are an LSU biologist with fundamental doubts about Darwinism and you see your colleagues signing a statement asserting that your views don't exist. Would the declaration of the LSU biologists that there is “no controversy” over evolution make you confident that you have the academic freedom to express such dissenting views in the laboratory or the classroom? Of course not. In fact, Dr. Carstens’ testimony, and his intolerant behavior, validate the need for this academic freedom bill.
It was clear from the hearing that Louisiana Darwinists are growing more and more desperate. Like their dogmatic compatriots in Florida who still proudly proclaim that academic freedom is “smelly crap” Darwinists are making absurd claims in their desperation to keep anyone from questioning Darwinian evolution as taught in public schools. American’s United for Separation of Church & State is now attacking home-schoolers:
Yesterday’s hearing was packed with home-schoolers wearing stickers in support of the bill. Home schoolers won’t be affected by the measure, of course, so it doesn’t take much analysis to see what’s going on here. (Kids, you may have learned something about politics, but you flunked science. Be sure to tell your momma when you get home so she can change your report cards.)
AUSCS then concludes:
SB 733 is a step backward, dragging science education in Louisiana toward the medieval swamp of theocracy.
Theocracy? We shouldn’t be too surprised, by their own admission their testimony to the Louisiana State House Committee on Education was “frantic.” Yet ironically, Barbara Forrest’s testimony was especially conspiratorial when she warned legislators that “Discovery Institute is watching your every move”! What Darwinists always fail to point out is that the testimony legislators heard supporting the evolution academic freedom view was from scientists, including professional biologists, not-home schoolers.
Louisiana One Step Closer to Instituting Evolution Academic Freedom Act
In Louisiana, a state legislative committee unanimously has passed to the full state house a bill that will protect the rights of teachers to present scientific evidence both for and against modern evolutionary theory. A slew of local scientists were on hand to support the bill, along with educators and students. It's not hard to understand why when you know what the bill actually says:
"teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught."
The next step is for the House side of the legislature to vote on the bill, which has already passed the Senate with a 35-0 vote, and that could happen as early as next week. Because of a new amendment allowing for the state board of education to have final say on supplemental texts used the bill will still have to go back to the Senate for final ratification.
After the clock ran out in Florida and Alabama, it seems that Louisiana might actually take a big step forward and send an evolution academic freedom act to the governor. Bills are still alive and under consideration in Michigan and South Carolina, as well.
A design must be considered improbable if it is highly functional and durable yet too complex to have come about spontaneously or by intermediate steps. Think of the subway system in any large metropolitan area. Could the combination of tracks, stations, tunnels, signs, vending machines, stairwells, lighting, trains, billboards, ticket booths, turnstiles, benches, platforms, security measures, and restrooms have happened all at once or did it come about by stages? If these commuter systems were to follow the tenets of the theory of evolution, the tracks going off in every direction might be called links to the stations called species. How does one get from station to station without the tunnel, train, and tracks? In the theory of evolution, these kinds of intermediaries are abundantly missing.
The wombat has an upside-down pouch. Scientists presume, and it makes sense, that position prevents dirt from entering the pouch when the wombat is digging in the ground. Could there have been transitional species with pouches situated sideways, or did the first wombats have to scoop dirt out of their pouches every day?
Washington Post Editorial Page on Evolution: Fact-Free and Proud of It
Last week, I talked at length with a Washington Post editorial writer named Jo-Ann Armao. Ms. Armao said she was working on a possible editorial about the academic freedom bills on evolution currently being considered by legislatures of various states. I gave Ms. Armao a lengthy interview, providing a lot of background information and correcting various errors that have appeared in news coverage of the bills. The Post has now published its editorial on the topic, and it’s now evident that Ms. Armao simply didn’t care about facts. Ms. Armao had her spin, and even though the facts didn’t substantiate it, she was going to stick to it.
Predictably, the Post asserts that the academic freedom bills are about “inviting creationism back into the classroom.” Except that they aren’t. In fact, the bills repeatedly and explicitly state that they only protect the presentation of scientific information, and that they don’t authorize the promotion of any religious doctrine. I pointed this out to Ms. Armao in some detail. But it now turns out that the actual language of the bills didn’t matter to Ms. Armao. She already had the line she was going to take, and if the facts didn’t substantiate it, she obviously didn’t care.
The Post also absurdly claims that offering criticisms of Darwinism is tantamount to “question[ing] the existence of gravity or… suggest[ing] that two plus two equals anything but four.” Tell that to the more than 700 Ph.D. scientists at institutions such as Princeton, MIT, Ohio State, and the University of Georgia who have expressed their skepticism of the central tenet of Neo-Darwinism. Or to National Academy of Sciences biologist Lynn Margulis (no friend of intelligent design!), who has written that “Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity change shows unambiguous evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations leads to speciation.” (Acquiring Genomes [2003], p. 29). I gave Ms. Armao an entire list of scientific controversies involving key aspects of biological and chemical evolution, including the origin of the first life, the role of mutations, the limits of natural selection, and the origination of animal body plans during the Cambrian Explosion some 500 million years ago. Such controversies are already discussed in the mainstream scientific literature—but teachers are being forbidden in many places from telling students about them.
I guess facts just don’t matter when the issue is evolution and you’re a writer for the Washington Post editorial page. After all, Post editorialists have a proud history of producing fact-free editorials on the topic (see here, here, and here). And the big media wonder why many citizens are turning to alternative sources for news and commentary?
Are Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway Morris Creationists?
Of course not, as we all know. But someone forgot to tell Hector Avalos, a critic of my role in the movie “Expelled.”
In a radio debate with me on WHO in Des Moines this morning, Avalos (religion professor at Iowa State University) claimed that Hitler was a creationist. I objected to this ridiculous claim. I countered that Hitler may have believed in a God of some sort who created natural laws, but one of the laws he thought God had created was the law of evolution by natural selection and the struggle for existence. I then quoted from Hitler to demonstrate that he did indeed believe in human evolution. In an extended conversation about evolution on October 24, 1941, Hitler lambasted Christianity, claiming that evolutionary science showed the poverty of the church’s dogmas. Hitler then stated, “There have been humans at the rank at least of a baboon in any case for 300,000 years at least.”
Bizarrely, Avalos in his closing remarks then thanked me for conceding that Hitler was a creationist, because, he said, anyone believing in a God who created natural laws is a creationist by definition. Well, then Darwin must have been a creationist, too, when he wrote in The Origin of Species about “the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.” (p. 458 of the Penguin edition) So, according to Avalos, Darwin was a creationist, as is anyone who claims to believe in a God that created natural laws. Francis Collins in his book, The Language of God, makes clear that he believes in a God who created natural laws. Avalos, then, thinks Collins is a creationist.
Does Avalos really not understand the distinction between theistic evolutionism and creationism? Does he really not understand that Collins and other theistic evolutionists are not considered creationists by most people’s definition of the term? Does Avalos think he can just make up his own definitions during a debate?
Our debate was over the question: “Was Darwinism MORE significant than Christian anti-Judaism in explaining Nazi ideology?” In the course of the debate Avalos showed little understanding of German history or Nazi ideology. He never addressed the major aspects of Nazi ideology that were heavily influenced by Darwinism, but on which Christian anti-Judaism had no influence. I listed seven such features of Nazi ideology:
1. Nazi eugenics policies, which led to the compulsory sterilization of 200,000 disabled people, forced abortions for disabled, and in 1939 killing the disabled (about 200,000 disabled people were murdered).
2. The drive for population expansion (Darwin claimed in Descent of Man that the birthrate should not be limited, because a higher birthrate was advantageous for evolution). Hitler often expressed the same view.
3. The need for living space (this was one cause of World War II, not just a minor feature). Hitler often expressed the need for living space in evolutionary terms.
4. Racial inequality – Darwin and Haeckel argued for human inequality on the basis of Darwinian evolution.
5. Anti-Marxism – The leading German Darwinist Haeckel argued that Darwinism disproved Marxism.
6. History as a racial struggle for existence.
7. The evolution of moral traits – Hitler believed that Jews had evolved bad moral traits, while Aryans had evolved good moral traits.
All these views were all upheld by prominent Darwinists on the basis of Darwinism. They permeated racial ideology in the pre-Nazi period. Hitler also upheld them and made clear they were central aspects of his ideology. Avalos completely ignored most of these points (many of which I had already made in my book, From Darwin to Hitler, so he should not have been surprised that I raised them).
Avalos focused all his attention on Nazi anti-Semitism. Fair enough. He showed that Luther made horrible remarks about Jews. However, Avalos claimed falsely that Luther’s anti-Judaism was essentially the same as Hitler’s. This not only shows that Avalos does not know how to properly make distinctions, but it shows complete ignorance of the history of anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. Avalos did not distinguish at all between Luther’s stated reasons for persecuting the Jews—their religion, and Hitler’s stated reason for persecuting the Jews—their racial characteristics. He didn’t distinguish between Luther’s idea of killing rabbis who continue to illegally teach Judaism, and Hitler’s idea to kill all the Jews of Europe, men, women, and children, no matter whether they believed in Judaism or not. He didn’t distinguish between Luther’s desire to convert Jews to Christianity, and Hitler’s opposition to converting Jews to Christianity. As distasteful, shocking, and repugnant as Luther’s anti-Semitic views were, they were not simply the same as the Nazis (I ran out of time in the debate or I would have mentioned many other aspects of Hitler’s anti-Semitism that had nothing to do with Luther’s anti-Judaism, e.g., the idea of a Jewish world conspiracy; Hitler’s linking Jews with communism; the idea that Jews were sponsors of internationalism; the idea that Jews promoted liberalism and parliamentary democracy; Jews as controllers of the press and theater; etc., etc.).
I will leave it to listeners to decide who won the debate, but I left the debate doubting that Avalos knows much about German history, which was the major field of my Ph.D.
Feeling primitive? Unevolved? Inorganic? Then try a bowl of Primordial Soup! What’s Darwin Got To Do With It? is an illustrated friendly conversation about evolution and what science can explain about life. Aimed at younger students, this comic-book style work helps students understand if finch beaks really prove Darwinism is true or if the encoded message in DNA implies an intelligent designer.
The book opens by helping students to understand important terminology. What does evolution mean? Some people say evolution just means change through time. But simple evidence of change does not necessarily mean that new phyla can emerge or new body structures can evolve. Thus, we have microevolution and macroevolution.
The book explains in illustrated form why intelligent design is the best explanation for life. When we see letters on a hillside spelling out “Welcome to Victoria,” we have a valid rationale to believe that that the letters were designed. Similarly, if a radio signal from outer space said “hello earthlings,” we would have good reason to infer design. But what about when we find an encoded sequence in our DNA which, using a complicated sequence of biochemical commands, creates miniature motors which resemble human-designed engines? This and other topics concerning intelligent design are presented in clear language with a wealth of illustrations.
This book is a must read for young students who are still learning the basics of science but want to understand evolution and design. As Phillip Johnson wrote when he reviewed the book, it’s “more fun than a barrel of Australopithecines.”
That's the most charitable conclusion I can come up with after reading The List Universe's "10 Books that Screwed Up The World." (Catchy title, huh?) There are other conclusions, of course... but I'll leave those to the reader.
Besides taking Wiker's title and repeating 5 of his selections (Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa, Machiavelli's The Prince, Hitler's Mein Kampf, Sanger's The Pivot of Civilization, and Marx/Engels' The Manifesto of the Communist Party), as one commenter at The Point astutely observed, they may have plagiarized Wiker's list.
Take these extracts from the amazon site for Dr. Wiker's book:
* Why Machiavelli's The Prince was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)
* Why Marx and Engels's Communist Manifesto could win the award for the most malicious book ever written
* How Hitler's Mein Kampf was a kind of "spiritualized Darwinism" that accounts for his genocidal anti-Semitism
* How the pansexual paradise described in Margaret Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations
And now from the listverse site:
9 Coming of Age in Samoa
Margaret Mead, 1928
On the list because: it turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations
8 The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli
On the list because: it was the inspiration for a long list of tyrannies (Stalin had it on his nightstand)
7 Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, 1925
On the list because: it helped spread Hitler’s genocidal anti-Semitism
2 The Manifesto of the Communist Party
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, 1848
On the list because: it could win the award for the most malicious book ever written
While Wiker's work recommends actually reading each screwy book in order to understand its malice, the people behind this list remain strangely ignorant of Behe's work. Their explanation for why this belongs at the top? They're under the impression that Behe is a 6-day literal creationist.
This book has helped to fuel (through pseudo-science and untruths) the idea that evolution is false and that a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is the only possible manner in which the earth was created.
This right after they point out that The Communist Manifesto "could win the award for the most malicious book ever written"! It never ceases to amaze or amuse, but the threatiness of ID must be overwhelming to all faculties of reason when you're a Darwinist.
Letter Sets Wall Street Journal Straight on Teaching Strengths and Weaknesses of Darwinian Evolution
HIgh school biology teacher Doug Cowan has a letter in today's Wall Street Journal responding to a recent article which misreprsented his comments on the debate over how to teach evolution.
Science Looks at All the Evidence
May 17, 2008
Your article "Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools" (Currents, May 2) claims that I would "like a legal guarantee [so I] can teach as I see fit." Actually, I believe in teaching the prescribed curriculum, and I do so. But I don't think a teacher should be penalized for exploring required topics in greater depth, especially in cases where scientists have different views. One should have the freedom to pursue and teach all the evidence even if it leads to disturbing conclusions.
I teach students the evidence both for and against Darwin's theory, with the goal of fostering critical thinking, allowing them to arrive at informed conclusions. The core of evidence I teach that supports evolution is derived from fossil succession, anatomical and molecular homologies, natural selection-mutation, embryology, artificial selection and real-time observations from microbes and sickle-cell disease.
Evolution Academic Freedom Bill Submitted in South Carolina is Sixth this Year
South Carolina Senator Mike Fair has submitted an Academic Freedom Bill into the South Carolina State Legislature. This is now the sixth academic freedom bill submitted this legislative session, as other bills have been submitted in Florida, Missouri, Michigan, Alabama, and Louisiana. The text of Senator Fair’s bill would require that, “The State Board of Education, superintendents of public school districts, and public school administrators may not prohibit a teacher in a public school of this State from helping his students understand, analyze, critique, and review the scientific strengths and weaknesses of biological and chemical evolution in an objective manner.”
Meanwhile, like other commentators, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) cannot admit that South Carolina's state science standards require critical analysis of evolution. The NCSE recently reported that Senator Fair lost his push in 2006 to include an indicator requiring critical analysis of evolution into the South Carolina State Science Standards. But in fact he didn’t lose, for the South Carolina Science Standards now state, students will learn to “Summarize ways that scientists use data from a variety of sources to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory.” What part of “critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory” does the NCSE thinks doesn’t mean “critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory”?
As Senator Fair stated regarding his present bill, “The very nature of science is to ask questions and to go where the evidence leads.” If the evidence is on the side of evolution, then the NCSE has nothing to fear from this bill.
In this short video clip, CSC fellow Dr. Dean Kenyon answers a series of questions about his interest in biological origins and the ideas he expressed in his book Biochemical Predestination, and his skepticism of Darwinian theory.
Missing Links: What Happened to Dr. Steven Novella's Blog Posts?
Dr. Steven Novella and I have been engaged in a vigorous blog debate (here,here,here,here,here,here,here, , and here,) about the mind/brain problem and about intelligent design. Dr. Novella, who presents himself as a pro-science 'skeptic' (he's president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society), is a passionate Darwinist and materialist. He blogs often on Darwinism, materialism, and "denialism" in science.
Monday morning I checked Dr. Novella's blog. I noticed that several (at least four) of his recent controversial blog posts were missing. The links are here, here, here, and here. I checked more closely— using my own previous links to the posts— and the posts (#165, #189, #260, and #283) were gone, without a trace and without an explanation. The blog posts dealt with his view that intelligent design wasn’t falsifiable and with the debate between materialists and dualists on the mind-brain problem. What was up?
I emailed Dr. Novella, and asked him:
Steven,
I've noticed a few missing posts on your blog. The posts were related to our on-going debate. Why are they no longer available? ...
Mike
So far, no answer. His blog posts are gone. Like they never even happened.
So I publicly ask Dr.Novella this question: what happened to your blog posts? A post on your blog NeuroLogica to answer this question would be helpful.
Are We Talking about Science, or Scientific Materialism?
"We should teach only science in the science classroom." Of course, who would disagree? The fact of the matter is, what happens in the science classroom -- as several textbooks can attest -- isn't always science, but often philosophy.
Why do so many fail to understand the difference? As Dr. Rebecca Keller, CEO of textbook publisher Gravitas Publications, explains,
The philosophical aspects of science are usually not discussed in elementary or high school grades and for that matter, neither are they taught to scientists. Most people and most scientists are completely unaware that science is any different than the philosophies that are currently masquerading as science.
So it isn't Science that we're talking about, per se, but Scientific materialism, the philosophy that groups like the NCSE want taught in science class.
Scientific materialism is the current philosophy that guides and interprets most of modern science. Most scientists are unaware that they operate from within this interpretative framework and as a result it has become science. But scientific materialism is not science. It is one way to interpret scientific information.
Keller's answer to this problem?
To get unstuck from the rut of dogmatic science, everyone should own their isms. Scientific materialism as an interpretative framework (and not defined as science itself) provides an important contribution to scientific investigation. But so do other perspectives. The controversy stirred by Intelligent Design has stimulated some fascinating research in the area of evolutionary biology, molecular biology, systems biology etc. (along with a lot of pain and suffering for those who dare challenge the dominate Darwinian paradigm).
In the end, it will be better thinking about science and philosophy that will make for better scientists all around.
Helping kids, of either perspective, sort out what is the practice of science from what is an "ism" of science, and giving them the tools to think critically about both science and philosophy liberates authentic inquiry- which is what real science is all about.
Another MCAT-Taker Weighs In on Evolution Indoctrination
Last month, I blogged about a pre-med student who recently took the MCAT and found emotionally-charged pro-evolution-biased language on reading comprehension questions. As he concluded, the MCAT exam is "just supposed to be a way to evaluate how you process information, and they don't want to influence your reasoning by making you answer emotionally charged questions. This passage was distracting while I was taking the test. It was distracting because it's about an emotionally controversial topic, and I don't agree with everything they said. This crosses the line."
Following that post, another pre-med student (who is about to matriculate into medical school) contacted me and had this to say about the distracting pro-evolution bias on the MCAT:
I sat for the MCAT 3 times over the past few years. And on every MCAT examination there was more than one occasion where the topic of evolution was stated in either passage format (for the verbal reasoning section) or in the biology section. (Note: There are only a few verbal reasoning passages on each exam, and they are pulled from innumerable potential sources. Nonetheless, on one exam the MCAT-writers found room for TWO passages on evolution in the verbal reasoning section.) In every case, Darwinian evolution was presented as non-disputed fact.
I find this not only poor science for those that are preparing to enter the medical field, but it also makes a very poor basis for assessing a person's competence in biology. Not only that, this is an incredibly stressful and tense test. I understand them testing our knowledge of evolution (as a hypothesis) on the biology section and I would not object to that. But why do they insist on using it unnecessarily in the verbal reasoning section on an exam, and always treating it as a widely accepted fact? It seems that they are using my acceptance of evolution as a measure of my competence as a doctor, and I find that to be both bad science and bad medicine. My ability to treat patients with care, compassion, and competence in no way relates to my beliefs about Darwinism.
Test me on dihybrid crosses, or the velocity of an object on an inclined plane. These are questions that have answers that are proven facts. But please don't treat speculations and hypotheses in a dogmatic fashion on an exam that bears so much weight for my future. The MCAT testers do just that with regards to evolution, exposing their agenda.
When it comes to citing examples of purposeful design, nearly every author likes to point out the hen’s egg. It’s really quite remarkable. Despite having a shell that is a mere 0.35 mm think, they don’t break when a parent sits on them. According to Dr. Knut Schmidt-Nielsen,
A bird egg is a mechanical structure strong enough to hold a chick securely during development, yet weak enough to break out of. The shell must let oxygen in and carbon dioxide out, yet be sufficiently impermeable to water to keep the contents from drying out.
Under microscopy, one can see the shell is a foamlike structure that resists cracking. Gases and water pass through 10,000 pores that average 17 micrometers in diameter. Ultimately, 6 liters of oxygen will have been taken in and 4.5 liters of carbon dioxide given off. The yolk is its food. All life support systems are self-contained, like a space shuttle.
All hen’s eggs are ready to hatch on the twenty-first day. Every day is precisely preprogrammed. The heart starts beating on the sixth day. On the nineteenth day the embryo uses its egg tooth to puncture the air sac (beneath the flat end) and then takes two days to crack through th
