Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Calling Nick Matzke’s Bluff

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In the comments of this UD post from yesterday, (comment #21) I referred to Nick Matzke’s rant over at the Panda’s Thumb yesterday as yet another illustration of the double standard’s Matzke’s has when it comes to his critiques of anyone who dares challenge Darwinian Orthodoxy.  In my comments yesterday, I gave an example of Matzke being guilty of the very same thing he (falsely)accuses Meyer of doing.  Today, I want to call out Matzke on another of his famous ploys: the bluff!  In earlier days, before he gained his current status among the defenders of the Darwinian Faith, Matzke posted and commented on various ID sites under various pseudonyms.  His favorite ploy was to use what we came to refer to as the “literature bluff”, wherein he would post long lists of references to research studies that were supposedly definitive refutations of some point being made by someone questioning evolution or promoting ID.  To someone unfamiliar with the literature, it could easily appear as if Matzke gained the upper hand and that the poor critic of evolution was just too uninformed.  However, when anyone took the time and trouble to actually peruse his lists looking for articles addressing whatever matter was under discussion it became immediately clear that hardly if ever at all did any of the citations have anything whatsoever to do with the point at issue.  It was all a bluff.

Well, sad to say, Matzke is still master of the bluff…only now in addition to the literature bluff, he’s moved to the diagram bluff.  In the rant referenced above, Matzke whines that Meyer is guilty of over-simplification because he opted to use simple, hand drawn diagrams to illustrate his point that the there simply are no evident ancestral organisms anywhere to be found in pre-Cambrian strata.

A. THE “EXPLOSION” TOOK AT LEAST 30 MILLION YEARS, AND WAS NOT REALLY “INSTANTANEOUS” NOR PARTICULARLY “SUDDEN”

Darwin’s Doubt is festooned with illustrations, mostly redrawn from other sources in a rather strange cartoon-like format also found in other recent ID books. However, there is never an illustration like these:

Instead, we are treated to ultrasimple figures of the times of origin of “phyla”, which date back at least to the 1970s, although they’ve been endlessly copied by creationists/ID proponents and remain current in those circles because they convey the impression of “sudden” origin. Figures resembling this:

These diagrams (the 2 bottom one’s above) are in Chapter 2 (page 35 figure 2.7 ) of Meyer’s book.  The context is that Meyer, correctly notes the following in a section entitled “The Missing Tree”:

Figures 2.7  and 2.8 [not shown here] illustrate the difficulty posed by the first two of these features sudden appearance and missing intermediates.  These diagrams graph morphological change over time.  The first shows the Darwinian expectation that changes in morphology should arise only as tiny changes accumulate.  This Darwinian commitment to gradual change through microevolutionary variations produces the classic representation of evolutionary history as a branching tree.

Now compare this branching tree pattern with the pattern in the fossil record.  The bottom of figure 2.7…show that the pre-Cambrian strata do not document the expected transitional intermediates between Cambrian and Precambrian fauna.  Instead, the Precambrian-Cambrian fossil record, especially in light of the Burgess Shale after Walcott, points to the geologically sudden appearance of complex and novel body plans.

Matzke will have none of it.  First he complains that the two diagrams are just too simple, even though Meyer makes it quite clear that they represent the “classic” (read – often used, widely known) representation of what one would expect to find if Darwin’s hypothesis was correct.  The second illustrates what we actually find in the fossil record – a fact no one actually disputes – and remains stylistically like the first.  Matzke’s real complaint is that Meyer should have used something like the diagram he includes in his rant which I cited above.  This diagram comes from this 2004 study in PNAS by K.J. Peterson, et al. on page 6539 as part of the “Discussion” section.  Here’s what the authors say:

Rate Heterogeneity Between Vertebrates and InvertebratesOur data suggest that, inconsistent with most molecular clock estimates but consistent with paleontological predictions…bilaterans do not have a significant precambrian evolutionary history. [emphasis mine]

Note that Peterson et.al.‘s point is exactly the point that Meyer is making with the diagrams he used.  The bilateran body plans found in the Cambrian fossils appear to have no evolutionary history.  That is Meyer’s main point in this section of the book.  So all of Matzke’s moaning about Meyer’s “oversimplified” diagram is just bluffing on his part. Somehow he thinks that the fancier more detailed diagrams refute Meyer, I guess, when in fact, they’re making the exact same point.

Even worse for Matzke’s whining is the fact that the Peterson et.al. study from which he borrowed the diagrams is an article using a refined technique for getting better results using molecular clocks.  The article is entitled “Estimating Metazoan Divergence Times With a Molecular Clock”  The first sentence reads, “Accurately dating when the first bilaterally symmetrical animals arose is crucial to our understanding of early animal evolution.”  In other words, the study is a primary example the very thing that Meyer talks about later in the book of evolutionary biologists just assuming evolution so there just has to be nodes on the tree to date!

Now let’s look at the other diagram of Matzke’s bluff, the top one above.  Notice that the precambrian Ediacaran biota line leads to precisely nothing in the Cambrian above it.  Again, this is exactly Meyer’s point.  Notice the blue dotted lines as well in the precambrian area where it says “Phylogentic uncertainty of many taxa makes counting number of classes genera difficult”, which is a fancy way of saying “there ain’t nothing down here we can actually count!”  Meyer made this abundantly clear in his discussion using the two “oversimplified” diagrams.  Meyer didn’t need to color plates and fancy charts because they added nothing to nor took anything away from his main point!

But for Matzke, using these charts to try to say that Meyer is just too, well, “simple” in his approach…in other words, doesn’t really have an in depth knowledge of what he’s writing about…is just a complete bluff because neither one refutes anything Meyer wrote and both support what he actually said!  Matke’s bluff is complete!  Needless to say, the rest of his rant is of the same cloth.  He comes across like Oz the Great and Terrible, but he’s just the little man behind the curtain!

Comments
The interesting thing about Meyer's book is that the vast majority of the studies he cites come from the evolutionary biologists themselves. In other words, the death of Darwinism is coming mainly from friendly fire.DonaldM
June 26, 2013
June
06
Jun
26
26
2013
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
From ENV Calling Nick Matzke's bluff :) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/rush_to_judgmen073791.htmlAndre
June 25, 2013
June
06
Jun
25
25
2013
11:09 PM
11
11
09
PM
PDT
These are my reactions after reading about 30% of the book. The evolutionary biologists pretty much admit the fossil evidence undermines the Darwinian framework. Only die hards will not admit this and anyone who claims it is not conclusive is a true believer of which I am sure there are many. Am currently on the chapter discussisng molecular clocks as the Darwin supporters try to save the ship through genetic analysis. Somehow all these life forms existed in the deep Pre Cambrian but managed to evade the fossilization process. Meyer discusses the fossil sampling issue and how it vitiates claims that the fossils are there but were just not discovered yet. Always a possibility just like 500 consecutive heads. So far the book has not really presented anything of substance that was new to me, just assembled all the research and summarized it better than any other place. There are a lot of new facts I was not aware of which is always welcome. The book is very valuable. However, by this point into the Edge of Evolution Behe had presented several innovative ways to look at the evolution question. A lot of the book is to still to come so we will see what is next. A great and fairly easy read. Would be interested in other's comments when they finally read it.jerry
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT
Jerry in #70
So Matzke’s claim means he didn’t read the book completely or like Prothero he willingly distorted the published research to make a false claim. This is not the only book on the Cambrian Explosion this year as James Valentine and others have provided another detailed discussion in a book published in January which Meyer quotes frequently. Does Matzke use anything in Valentine’s book to dispute Meyer since this book is the latest and I assume the most inclusive discussion of the Cambrian?
I suspect he didn't read the book, but just skimmed sections of it. Matzke has for years been the master of the bluff game, as I said in my OP. He think if he throws pretty diagrams around and cites this or that evolutionary biologist or some textbook, that equates to certifying his credentials and qualifications to make a critique. He's done it for years. This one is no different than all the rest.DonaldM
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
This may be mentioned somewhere but Matzke could not have read the book. I am sure he has a copy but that may be the most of it. So he can cherry pick the odd chart and criticize it but not the content. Meyer in the first part of the book has provided a review of known Cambrian and pre Cambrian research of fossil discoveries with quotes from the actual researchers. On top of this review of the research he provides a framework on how to evaluate the findings in terms of Darwinian theory. So far in the first few chapters he does not discuss non-Darwinian explanations. Others have realized that what was found does not sync with Darwinian explanations and speculate on other mechanisms. The first part thus covers in detail the timing of the Cambrian Explosion by quoting others who are definitely not ID friendly. I have been through the first 3 1/2 chapters and in the 3rd chapter he spends a fair amount of time discussing the actual timing. Meyer discusses how some Darwinist try to dispute the timing and mentions specifically Prothero who said it was 80 million years. Prothero willingly distorted the information to make his claim which was part of a bluff he did at a conference. Meyer then quotes others which say it probably happened within a 6 million year period. Thus, the explosion happened in a small part of the Cambrian so including the entire period of a geological period and associating that with the actual events is not what the researchers have concluded. Meyer also show how others falsely report what is actually published in order to say that there were precursors in the Pre Cambrian when there are at best some limited very limited findings. So Matzke's claim means he didn't read the book completely or like Prothero he willingly distorted the published research to make a false claim. This is not the only book on the Cambrian Explosion this year as James Valentine and others have provided another detailed discussion in a book published in January which Meyer quotes frequently. Does Matzke use anything in Valentine's book to dispute Meyer since this book is the latest and I assume the most inclusive discussion of the Cambrian?jerry
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
jondo_w, If you notice Nick did NOT provide any evidence that darwinian processes could produce the diversity observed in the cambrian nor any other strata. Nick can't even produce a testable hypothesis wrt darwinian processes. The point being is if he wanted to refute Meyer that is what he needed to do.Joe
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT
Earlier I posted this question:
I read Matzke’s post through and on the face of it, he knows his stuff – that’s not to say that his stuff is correct, but he knows a lot of it. I was curious what your thoughts were about his comments on the 3 stages of learning about evolution, and that he even basically dated Dawkins and co saying even they were a little out of date. He lists points 3a-g. Is he accurate in his comments there? Do many ID assumptions come from pre-1980?s facts? Has a lot changed? I’m very much a layman, so appreciate more learned insight on that bit.
It probably got lost in the ensuing discussion but I'm curious as to the validity of Matzke's points there. Anybody care to comment?jondo_w
June 24, 2013
June
06
Jun
24
24
2013
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
Nick might lie, but he would never bluff.Mung
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
08:55 PM
8
08
55
PM
PDT
Alan "Desire for something does not give it reality" I assume you mean the desire for undirected, natural causes to be capable of producing CSI. You're quite correct, desiring that doesn't make it reality...or wishing doesn't make it so.DonaldM
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Well, actually, Alan is correct on this point, Barb didn’t actually show that a designer existed.
Thanks for clearing that up, Donald.
Given that history and that we know that undirected, natural causes can not produce CSI, the need for intelligent cause is a straightforward inference.
Desire for something does not give it reality.Alan Fox
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
RodW in #53
That’s a shame. I’d much prefer it if we could sit around a huge table in the coffee shop and discuss/debate this. The conversation would be faster and more efficient but would necessarily remain superficial. Writing for me is slow and painful and plodding but the advantage here is you can dig deep into topics. I think that rarely happens and people mostly exchange jabs. I’ll comment on your other points later.
Oh, I don't know, Rod. I've had lots of deep, meaningful conversations over coffee on this stuff at different times over the years. It's not impossible...just not always easy!DonaldM
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Alan in #62
Barb said: “We just did show that a designer exists.” I’m still wondering where and how she just did that.
Well, actually, Alan is correct on this point, Barb didn't actually show that a designer existed. Rather, she, and most of the others have shown that the evidence of biological systems points strongly to the need for intelligent cause, inferring a designer. More to the point of this entire thread (and I should know, since I started it!) nothing...and I mean absolutely nothing...from evolutionary biology in anypeer reviewed research study has shown how the undirected natural process we call evolution has produced the complex specified information we find in the biological systems represented in the Cambrian fossils. And there are no research studies showing the necessary sequence leading from the pre-Cambrian forms to the Cambrian either. Given that history and that we know that undirected, natural causes can not produce CSI, the need for intelligent cause is a straightforward inference. Nothing unscientific about any of that.DonaldM
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
Barb said: “We just did show that a designer exists.” I’m still wondering where and how she just did that.Alan Fox
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I’m still wondering where and how she just did that.
Mankind has done that throughout our entire history. It's called a consilience of evidence- along with the total lack of evidence in support of any alternatives.Joe
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Alan Fox:
I’m an observer of UD, not a polemicist for evolutionary theory.
IOW you just like to poke at IDists and ID. That's very cowardly of you, Alan.
I do think it is wrong when people are misled or lied to, of course.
And yet that is exactly what this alleged evolutionary theory does.Joe
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Just how did your position show that natural selection could produce anything? Why do YOU always avoid supporting your position’s claims?
I'm an observer of UD, not a polemicist for evolutionary theory. I wouldn't want to insist on anyone having to conform to any dogma. People are free (or should be) to make up their own minds on issues. I do think it is wrong when people are misled or lied to, of course.Alan Fox
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
Barb said: “We just did show that a designer exists.” I'm still wondering where and how she just did that.Alan Fox
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
re-write- LoL! I still can't type without looking at the keyboard!Joe
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT
I have a re-wtie: If you want a book on macroevolution, just get several books on microevolution and put them together, because we all know macroevolution is just microevolution, microevolution and more microevolution! That's better. ;)Joe
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Earth to Alan Fox: Just how did your position show that natural selection could produce anything? Why do YOU always avoid supporting your position's claims?Joe
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Of related note to the Stapp lecture at post 44: How observation (consciousness) is inextricably bound to measurement in quantum mechanics:
"We wish to measure a temperature. If we want, we can pursue this process numerically until we have the temperature of the environment of the mercury container of the thermometer, and then say: this temperature is measured by the thermometer. But we can carry the calculation further, and from the properties of the mercury, which can be explained in kinetic and molecular terms, we can calculate its heating, expansion, and the resultant length of the mercury column, and then say: this length is seen by the observer. Going still further, and taking the light source into consideration, we could find out the reflection of the light quanta on the opaque mercury column, and the path of the remaining light quanta into the eye of the observer, their refraction in the eye lens, and the formation of an image on the retina, and then we would say: this image is registered by the retina of the observer. And were our physiological knowledge more precise than it is today, we could go still further, tracing the chemical reactions which produce the impression of this image on the retina, in the optic nerve tract and in the brain, and then in the end say: these chemical changes of his brain cells are perceived by the observer. But in any case, no matter how far we calculate -- to the mercury vessel, to the scale of the thermometer, to the retina, or into the brain, at some time we must say: and this is perceived by the observer. That is, we must always divide the world into two parts, the one being the observed system, the other the observer. In the former, we can follow up all physical processes (in principle at least) arbitrarily precisely. In the latter, this is meaningless. The boundary between the two is arbitrary to a very large extent. In particular we saw in the four different possibilities in the example above, that the observer in this sense needs not to become identified with the body of the actual observer: In one instance in the above example, we included even the thermometer in it, while in another instance, even the eyes and optic nerve tract were not included. That this boundary can be pushed arbitrarily deeply into the interior of the body of the actual observer is the content of the principle of the psycho-physical parallelism -- but this does not change the fact that in each method of description the boundary must be put somewhere, if the method is not to proceed vacuously,,," John von Neumann - 1903-1957 - The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp.418-21 - 1955 http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/neumann/
bornagain77
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
DonaldM. You write:
You also said “I think your initial point is valid…” Rod, in over a decade of having these sorts of discussions in various online forums and blogs, you are the very first I’ve seen say that a critic of evolution had a point! Thank you for that! That is how dialogue happens!
That's a shame. I'd much prefer it if we could sit around a huge table in the coffee shop and discuss/debate this. The conversation would be faster and more efficient but would necessarily remain superficial. Writing for me is slow and painful and plodding but the advantage here is you can dig deep into topics. I think that rarely happens and people mostly exchange jabs. I'll comment on your other points laterRodW
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT
BA77: Right now, I think that a deeper problem exists when design skeptics are loathe to acknowledge that it is factually and undeniably true that error exists, once they see the worldview level consequences. When one refuses to be moved by direct proof, that speaks volumes, loudest volumes. KFkairosfocus
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
Mr. Fox, don't let her get away with that! We all know that evidence doesn't really exist for God until atheists like yourself admit that evidence exists for God: "I now believe that the universe was brought into existence by an infinite intelligence. I believe that the universe's intricate laws manifest what scientists have called the Mind of God. I believe that life and reproduction originate in a divine Source. Why do I believe this, given that I expounded and defended atheism for more than a half century? The short answer is this: this is the world picture, as I see it, that has emerged from modern science." Anthony Flew - world's leading intellectual atheist for most of his adult life until a few years shortly before his death The Case for a Creator - Lee Strobel (Nov. 25, 2012) - video http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/ee32d/bornagain77
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT
What’s the matter, Alan? You can’t examine the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions?
I can manage that. You say "We just did show that a designer exists." I didn't spot where or how you did this. I doubt your assertion.
Oh, and showing my work would require that you develop an open mind. Can you do that? Oh, and if I’m to show my work, then the evolutionists should also start doing the same. Seems they’ve been quite lax in that department.
Avoiding the question? "We just did show that a designer exists."? You were making an untrue assertion, weren't you?Alan Fox
June 23, 2013
June
06
Jun
23
23
2013
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
evolve:
First of all, it is wrong to say that phylogenetic analysis assumes evolution. It doesn’t. It is a proper scientific method to study the relationship between organisms by comparing the features they share.
Common design explains that.
The fact that such studies produce trees with nested hierarchies that support shared ancestry and common descent, is a validation of the theory of evolution.
Nested hierarchies are evidence for design. Linneas constructed it that way. Gradual evolution wouldn't produce a nested hierarchy. Not only that you are still missing a mechanism.
If a designer had randomly created organisms as per his will, we wouldn’t expect to see phylogenetic trees with nested hierarchies.
Nice strawman
Next, you’re talking about evidence. What evidence can you present to show that a mysterious designer designed the cambrian fauna?
For one the total lack of evidence that natural selection could do it. And for another the same evidence that says Stonehenge was designed by a mysterious designer- ie our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. I understand that it bothers you that your position doesn't have anything. But I will let you in on a little secret- if you can produce evidence for natural selection producing a multi-protein configuration, not only will you be the first to do so, you will have put a damper on ID as ID says NS isn't up to that task.Joe
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
07:55 PM
7
07
55
PM
PDT
evolve:
The problem with intelligent design is that its proponents, like Meyer, are promoting it as science and as an alternative scientific theory to evolution.
ID is NOT anti-evolution.Joe
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Guess what came in the mail today?!!!Joe
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
Evolve @ 12 said,
Any explanation has to make sense....It’s only logical to expect such a powerful designer to have done that.
This is a fallacious line of reasoning from the get-go. You insist that any explanation must make sense to you, or to us humans in general. But then you grant that this hypothetical designer is more powerful than we are. Isn't it therefore possible that its motives/reasons/methods/etc. might be beyond us? This type of reasoning is baked into many anti-theistic arguments: - "If God is good, he wouldn't allow evil." (Assumes we are capable of fully understanding things from God's perspective, or that his perspective and ours would have to be identical.) - "If there were a designer, he would have made a particular creature more efficient in _this_ way." (Assumes that we know all the reasons why a particular creature exists, or what the creator was optimizing for.) - "There would be no fatal or debilitating diseases or birth defects, no destructive Acts of God." (Assumes that we know fully how things "ought" to be, even though we admit we aren't the creator(s).) - "...what need does an intelligent designer have of billions of years and trillions of galaxies filled with billions of stars each? That tremendous waste..." (Assumes that we know the full scope of God's intentions, etc.) - "God would have no reason to give us brains. We would not need them." You get the idea. Watch all these arguments for the assumptions being baked into them from the start. And ask how the atheist/skeptic knows so much about the nature of a superior being to know that the skeptic's answer is the only possible conclusion. What they really show is an extreme arrogance on humanity's part. The insistence that everything make complete sense to us is the crux of the issue. How could we prove that anything that is comprehensible to _any_ being always be comprehensible to us? (Many quotes from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/whynotchristian.html.)EDTA
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
of related note: The Action of Mind on Brain - Dr. Henry Stapp - video (The summary is at the 43 minute mark and then a few minutes of Q&A) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1t2dnfhpL6I#t=2593s Stapp received his PhD in particle physics at the University of California, Berkeley, under the supervision of Nobel Laureates Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain. ,, Stapp moved to ETH Zurich to do post-doctoral work under Wolfgang Pauli.,, When Pauli died in 1958, Stapp transferred to Munich, then in the company of Werner Heisenberg.bornagain77
June 22, 2013
June
06
Jun
22
22
2013
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply