Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

McGrew makes an apology, but Myers has not

Salvador Cordova
November 3, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Yesterday I reported statements by Professor Tim McGrew, Chair of the Philosophy of Science Department at Western Michigan University. Here are some updates as more information has rolled in.

I posted excerpts and links to McGrew’s statements yesterday here at: More antics from PZ Myers?. My only major comment was, “you be the judge.”

In brief, PZ Myers was accused by McGrew of lying and fabricating quotes and attributing them to Jonathan Wells. It appears some of the accusations by McGrew were inaccurate, and McGrew has detailed the issues where he felt he was hasty in making judgments about PZ Myers:

My Denver Post Review of Two New Books on Darwinism and Intelligent Design

my original charge of outright fabrication was careless and arose from my reading of the text actually written by Wells rather than of the callouts written by some editor…I’ve apologized to PZ. But PZ needs to apologize to Wells.

–Tim McGrew

McGrew reports apologizing to Myers, but there is no report of Myers giving an apology or explanation to Wells even though I and others have presented evidence from PZ’s writings that PZ has misrepresented Wells.

Myers claims what Wells did regarding Ballard’s comments on the gastrula stage was to:

pretend it applies to the pharyngula stage

Myers has not responded to querries that he clarify that claim especially in light of the fact that it has been pointed out here and on his weblog that Wells used the word “gastrulation” three times in his book (and not pharyngulation or pharyngula) on pages 30-31 when referring to Ballard and other’s work.

Myers has provided no response to justify his claim Wells was pretending Ballard’s comments on gastrula stages were comments on pharyngula stages. Myers further uses this claim to argue that Jonathan Wells lied.

Myers has given no indication of giving a clarification, explanation, correction, retraction, or apology to his fellow scientist, Jonathan Wells.

However, if Myers does offer any apology, the commeters are invited to post it or links to it here.

(Have a nice weekend)
Update 11/6/06: Dr. Jonathan Wells Responds to Critics

Comments
*Sigh.* Well, I see the way the games works, at least. You are deliberately misunderstanding me, although I think that you know quite well what I've said. But as Bill O'Reilly likes to say about his realm, UD never apologizes (an appropriate quip in this context). First of all, I was referring to Well's "citation," not yours. "This is a blog not a journal." It sure isn't a scholarly journal, we agree on that. But therefore, not being one, I don't know how anyone can say with a straight face this blog is an authoritative resource on science. "I don’t see any evidence that you understand the science being discussed here or have bothered to read Ballard’s paper." I have read it. You are toying with me. Well, go toy with an amateur. "Ballard does not explain what 'early' means at each stage." Now, that is just stupid. You know perfectly well that Ballard made it clear to which stage he referred when discussing development at each point in his article. This is just childish. Sayonara.kharley471
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
Ballard never contradicted ToE and you know that. Or are you going to tell me that Wells never argues against it now or misuses Ballard to do so? Unbelievable. Is that the depth of your analysis? Ballard believed in ToE and Wells doesn’t, therefore, Wells must be misusing Ballard? That is the level of your understanding? Jehu, panda thinking is that if one believes in ToE any references to that individual's statements about a specific related issue are out of bounds and likely to incur the quote mining charge. It is as if any criticisms that could be turned against ToE are unfair when the source is a ToE advocate.pk4_paul
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
kharley471, your wrote
Ballard never contradicted ToE and you know that. Or are you going to tell me that Wells never argues against it now or misuses Ballard to do so?
Unbelievable. Is that the depth of your analysis? Ballard believed in ToE and Wells doesn't, therefore, Wells must be misusing Ballard? That is the level of your understanding? Well, the answer is no. Wells uses Ballard as support for the fact that the early embryonic stages of vertebrate development are not similar. A fact that Ballard clearly supports. So Wells does not misuse Ballard.
I could never get away with that Dadaist “citation” method in any scholarly journal or white paper, so don’t lecture me on science or methodology.
So what? This is a blog not a journal. My citations are easy enough to find if you want to. I don't see any evidence that you understand the science being discussed here or have bothered to read Ballard's paper.
Ballard made himself clear at what points “early” meant at each stage that he discussed. Wells is deliberately vague for a general unschooled audience.
What? Again, you obviously haven't got a clue of the science being discussed here and haven't read Ballard's paper. Ballard does not explain what "early" means at each stage. Ballard maintains that all of the early embryonic stages of the different classes of chordates are distinct and cannot be compressed into a single account. Wells is exactly right in his use of Ballard and that is why PZ Myers is a liar.Jehu
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
Jehu, Ballard never contradicted ToE and you know that. Or are you going to tell me that Wells never argues against it now or misuses Ballard to do so? Wells is slippery and his books are slippery, and so are his definitions, deliberately so, precisely in order for you to be able to make the "argument" that you do. That is how the ID movement works. By the way, I could never get away with that Dadaist "citation" method in any scholarly journal or white paper, so don't lecture me on science or methodology. Sure, even Ballard could define "early" as anything before 3:00 p.m. and then say, "I'm an early riser" if he were to get up at 2:59 p.m. That would not be exactly a lie, but would it, with knowledge of the full implication of what "early riser" means to people, be the truth? Context is all. Ballard made himself clear at what points "early" meant at each stage that he discussed. Wells is deliberately vague for a general unschooled audience. Come on. You know better. And if you knew me you would soon see that I cannot be hypnotized by anyone, not even by someone I admire.kharley471
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
kharley471 and edwinhensley Are you two daft? Are you so completely hypnotized by PZ Myers that you cannot comprehend the facts? edwinhensley, you wrote,
The book was written by Wells and had a quote in it attributed to Ballard that was either inaccurate or edited.
That is completely false. If you believe that you either have not been paying attention or you just believe the lies of PZ Myers wholesale. kharley471, you said,
So yes, Wells acknowledges the hourglass while shifting the word “earlier” like sand through it, speaking out of both sides of his mouth as always, and that’s not a distortion?
No, it is not distortion. Even Ballard uses the word "early embryonic" to describe the egg, cleavage, blastula and gastrula phases. All of which Ballard argues are morphologically unique in the different taxa. Wells has accurately represented Ballard. But neither of you seem to understand the science here at all, rather you appear to be gleeful echo chambers for the lies of PZ Myers.Jehu
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
^ I let kharley471's comment through so everyone could see an example of the level of "reasoning" employed by ID opponents. The other comments I deleted were rants.Patrick
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
You have a feeling, Jason? "All emotions and no argument." So yes, Wells acknowledges the hourglass while shifting the word "earlier" like sand through it, speaking out of both sides of his mouth as always, and that's not a distortion? PZ tries to pin the guy down as to what he's really saying, and Wells has squirm room as always, playing the "I didn't say that" game until, once again, we see that he's not really saying anything because he's acknowledging the evidence that contradicts his view as supporting his view. Well, yes, I guess refuting this is a waste of time. Nobel prizes in fifteen years for ID. I was promised.kharley471
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
Objectivity is not exactly the strong suit of PZ and/or other militants at Pharyngula. My latest post on the "Visit to Downe" blog, was picked off: "Thank you for commenting. Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner" I'm a great admirer of many prominent ID thinkers. But I have to think that their rationale is best going to be advanced, not in encounters with people like Myers, but rather by reasonable questions being posed by students in j-high and high school classrooms. Most kids won't read technical blogs, or remember them if they do. But they will never forget seeing a biology teacher completely off-balance when simple but profound questions are posed which can't be dismissed by standard evolutionary jargon.txpiper
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
I have a feeling kharley471 completely skipped over comment #2...or worse, read it and simply ignored it. From what I can tell- PZ did, indeed, blunder on attacking Wells. I don't see where Wells has distorted Ballard at all.JasonTheGreek
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
I agree with Touchstone. When your life becomes the culture war, you can develop an itchy trigger finger. Sometimes it's better to hold your fire. I'm no fan of PZ Myers.bj
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT
All emotions and no argument. Don't forget, we're not allowed to respond to accusations that Well's "lied out his teeth". I'd stick with McGrew's original statement that PZ did just that (just not literally, like he thought).Ben Z
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
What is up with you, Sal? You're just digging yourself in deeper, and it's embarrassing. Wells distorted that article and PZ called him on it. McGrew was hasty and got egg on his face. Anybody can see that. Is this the "research" we've been promised over and over? "Evolution dead in 10 years," huh, Bill D.? I've seen women on the bus having fights over earrings that were more persuasive. You guys need to show me something good. You're better than Dawkins at making atheists.kharley471
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. Why would it not matter?tribune7
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
There is no reason for Myers to apologize since he was accurate in everything he wrote. The book was written by Wells and had a quote in it attributed to Ballard that was either inaccurate or edited. McGrew had to apologize because his charge the Myers is a liar proved to be wrong. Since Myers is not a liar, he is telling the truth. Changing the words of a "quote" is obviously wrong. It is just as wrong to pull quotes out of context and change the meaning and intention of the original researcher and call that science.edwinhensley
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT
Lawyering equivocations just make the blunder worse; it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. True or no, it doesn’t change the fact that McGrew’s accusations, as offered, were baseless. The fact that the landscape can be scrounged for some other complaint against Myers doesn’t mitigate the original problem.
It is not a matter of scouring the landscape. The entire premise of PZ's accusation against Wells was fabricated wholesale. PZ deliberately mischaracterized the context of Wells' statement. PZ lied and said that Wells tried to claim the gastrula stage was the pharyngula stage. Wells made not such claim and gave full mention of the hourglasss theory, which even PZ admits is dubious. To direct attention away from his lie, PZ makes up another false statement and claims Wells mischaracterized the content of Ballards 1976 paper, claiming that Ballard's paper stresses the similarity of embryos across the subphyla. The statement from Ballard's paper to which PZ refers is not a conclusion or finding of the paper, it is an aside or dicta. Therefore, PZ's claim is pure nonsense. If you actually read the paper, as I have, you will see that the main point of the paper is a refutation of the idea that the cleavage, bastula, and gastrula stages are not conserved developmental stages, refuting Van Baer.
Thus, the energy of investigators and particularly students is diverted into the essentially fruitless 19th century activity of bending the facts of nature to support second-rate generalities of no predictive value. Though enthusiasm for Haeckel’s (1900) recapitulation ‘law’ died out, unfortunately the popularity of Von Baer’s ‘laws’ of 1828 was renewed. ... The plain fact is that evolutionary divergence has taken place at every stage in the life history, the earliest no less than the latest. To bolster the partial truths in Von Baer’s generalities by insisting that the eggs of vertebrates are more like one another than their ‘blastulas,’ the blastulas more like one another than their ‘gastrulas,’ and to homologize all theoretical ‘functional blastopores’ where ‘invagination’ is taking place would be running the risk of assuming what is not yet demonstrate - that the genetic physiologic, and cell-behavior processes going on are the same in time and nature.
The whole article is along these lines. As for PZ's little tiny snippet that he falsely claims represents the article. PZ is full of it. Here is the real context of PZ's snippet.
from very different eggs the embryos of vertebrates pass through cleavage stages of very different appearance, and then through a period of morphogenetic movements showing patterns of migration and temporary structures unique to each class. All then arrive at a pharyngula stage, which is remarkably uniform thoughout the subphylum, consisting of similar organ rudiments similarly arranged (though in some respects deformed in respect to habitat and food supply). After the standardized pharyngula stage, the maturing of the structures of organs and tissues takes place on diverging lines, each line characteristic of the class and further diverging into lines characteristic of the orders, families, and so on.
This is exactly the "hourglass" that Wells describes, yet PZ claims that Wells mischaracterized Ballard. PZ is a liar. It gets worse because Ballard goes on to say,
Von Baer's generalities only apply to the second half of this, and even then there are many exceptions in the literature (De Beer 1958), limiting their predictive value. Before the pharyngula stage we can only say that embryos of different species within a single taxonomic class are more alike than their parents. Only by semantiv tricks and subjective selection of evidence can we claim that "gastrulas" of shark, salmon, frog, and bird are more alike than their adults.
How much does Ballard even believe that embryos are alike in the pharyngula stage? Here is what Ballard wrote in Comparative Anatomy and Embryology (1964, p. 69)
Some of these actual pharyngulas have a tailfin and some do not. Those which are tetrapods have lung buds, the fish pharyngulas lack them. They all have a liver, to mention an organ at random, but the livers of fishes, birds and mammals are interestingly different in detail even at the pharyngula stage. Arteries can be compared easily but there is little uniformity in the veins. Most conspicuously, the circumstances and needs for respiration, nutrition, and excretion at this stage have been met by a good many structures of a temporary nature, aptly referred to as scaffolding tissues, which are in bold contrast in the different classes of vertebrates.
So even at the pharyngula stage, the notion that there is a conserved stage is not accurate and has no predictive value. PZ himself acknowledges this stating,
serious embryology (none of which seems to be done by “intelligent design” proponents) demonstrates that there is a significant amount of variation within the phylotypic period.
So in the end, even PZ admits that his opposition to Wells' point is meaningless, sound and fury signifying nothing. Don't get lost in PZ's rhetorical house of mirrors; PZ has no point, only distortion.Jehu
November 4, 2006
November
11
Nov
4
04
2006
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT
Touchstone, fair enough but do you intend to ask PZ to do the same about his attribution of pretense with respect to the application of the gastrula stage? Noone is fooled either by PZ's motives in ignoring the issue. The original problem entails PZ's excesses against Wells about whom you devoted no attention. Does PZ get a pass on frankness and humility?pk4_paul
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
I think it's quite disingenuous to hide behind "You be the judge". No one is confused or fooled as to why McGrews allegations received attention (albeit without diligence) here. When allegations you broadcast or publicize end up being false witness, the right thing to do is be upfront about it: Whoops! Myers was right, we were wrong. I know that hurts for the folks here, but it's the Moral Thing(tm). Lawyering equivocations just make the blunder worse; it matters not if Myers *did* make spurious claims with regard to gastrula stages etc. True or no, it doesn't change the fact that McGrew's accusations, as offered, were baseless. The fact that the landscape can be scrounged for some other complaint against Myers doesn't mitigate the original problem. Speaking frankly and humbly about this will go much farther in building up the credibility of this blog than pointing to "unanswered queries" as your defence, or worse, hiding behind the skirt of "You be the judge." McGrew did the right thing (mostly), and UD should, too. -TouchstoneTouchstone
November 3, 2006
November
11
Nov
3
03
2006
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply