Why Were So Many Darwin Defenders No-Shows at the World’s Premier Evolutionary Conference?

_{Thomas Cudworth

July 9, 2011

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often wondered whether the loudness and aggressiveness of many culture-war defenders of neo-Darwinian evolution bears any relationship at all to the actual scientific contributions of those defenders to the field of evolutionary biology. As it happens, we have at hand some evidence, albeit of a rough and ready kind, relevant to that question.

From June 17 to June 21, 2011, at the University of Oklahoma (Norman) campus, the conference “Evolution 2011” was in session. It was co-sponsored by three scientific societies – The Society for the Study of Evolution, The Society of Systematic Biologists, and the American Society of Naturalists. It was billed by its promoters as “the premier annual international conference of evolutionary biologists on the planet.”

That billing may be somewhat hyperbolic, yet two things are clear: the conference was huge, with an expected turnout of 1400-1500 people; and many of the big names of evolutionary biology were to be there. Jerry Coyne was to give an address; H. Allen Orr was to chair a session; and Gunter Wagner and Sergey Gavrilets, cutting-edge biologists from the famed 2008 Altenberg conference, were to be there as well. Hundreds of papers were scheduled, and the research contributors to the various papers and presentations, according to the index for the conference, numbered something like 2,000.

It is interesting to make a mental list of the Darwin-defenders who have been most active in the culture wars, whether by publishing popular books defending Darwin, by appearing as witnesses against school boards in court cases, by working for the NCSE, by running pro-Darwinian blog sites, or by attacking Darwin critics throughout cyberspace, and to see which of them either read papers or at least contributed to the research and writing of papers for this premier conference.

Let’s start with those Darwin defenders who are actively anti-religious or show contempt for religion in their writings and internet remarks. Conspicuously absent from the list of conference contributors were evolutionary champions Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, Larry Moran, and Eugenie Scott.

Among those who have not attacked religious belief, but have violently bashed ID and/or passionately upheld neo-Darwinian theory, Paul Gross (co-author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse) and plant scientist Arthur Hunt (who has debated ID people live and on the internet) were not listed as contributors to any of the papers.

Among those who were active in the Dover ID trial, as witnesses for the plaintiffs, the no-shows include Kevin Padian, Robert Pennock, and Brian Alters.

Among the prominent Christian Darwinists, i.e., theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists, only Ken Miller was going to be there, and not to read a scientific paper, but to issue a cultural manifesto on why evolution matters in America today. The leading figures of Biologos – Darrel Falk, Dennis Venema, Kathryn Applegate, David Ussery, David Kerk, Denis Lamoureux – who have so often been presented, explicitly or implicitly, as experts on evolutionary biology – produced no papers for this conference. British scientists Oliver Barclay and Denis Alexander, who have posted several guest columns on Biologos, are not mentioned. The frequent UD commenter and Quaker TE Allan MacNeill, who has penned hundreds of thousands of words on UD and on his own blogs, apparently couldn’t manage 5,000 or so words for an original research paper for the conference, nor could the belligerent Calvinist TE and almost as prolific anti-ID blogger Steve Matheson.

Now of course statistics of this sort don’t prove anything about the competence or incompetence of any particular individual. There are all kinds of good reasons why a competent evolutionary theorist might not contribute to a particular evolutionary conference. Maybe some of these people elected to attend another evolutionary conference later this year, or early next year, or maybe their travel budget was exhausted. Maybe personal matters prevented them from going. Maybe some of them attended the conference, to keep up with the field, even though they contributed no paper. But one wonders why such a large number of rabid pro-Darwinists would be non-contributors at the premier evolution conference in the world, if they are as competent in the field of evolutionary biology as they make out. Could it be that most of these people, though possessing degrees in the life sciences, are in fact not trained specifically in evolutionary biology, and therefore had no original work to contribute?

I would be interested in hearing from readers about this. Of the people I’ve named, how many have read a paper at, or at least co-written a technical paper for, any secular conference on evolutionary biology in the past ten years? Or published a peer-reviewed paper specifically on evolutionary biology in a secular scientific journal in the past ten years? Are many of the loudest defenders of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy in fact unqualified to talk at an expert level about the latest theoretical and experimental work in evolutionary biology? And if so, why do they set themselves up as the world’s teachers when it comes to evolution? Why do they write so many blogs, post so many comments, put up so many nasty book reviews on Amazon, participate in so many anti-ID debates on the Darwinist side, if they aren’t experts in the field? Why don’t they let the real experts in evolutionary biology – the Coynes and Orrs and Sean Carrolls – do the public cheerleading and debating for evolutionary biology, and stick quietly to their own specialties of cell biology, genetics, developmental biology, etc.?

In most scientific areas, non-experts don’t pretend to stand in for experts. You don’t see solid-state physicists rushing onto the blogosphere to defend the latest view on black holes from Stephen Hawking. They leave the defense of cosmology to the cosmologists. But for some reason every medical geneticist, soil scientist, biochemist, developmental biologist, cell biologist, anthropologist, part-time first-year biology instructor, undergrad biology teacher at a Christian college, etc., thinks himself or herself an expert on evolutionary theory, and competent to debate it with anyone, any time. Normal professional humility goes out the window when defending Darwinian theory is concerned. That’s why I think it’s important to ask the question: how many of the self-appointed defenders of Darwinian evolution have demonstrated competence, proved by research and publication, in the field of evolutionary biology?

Comments

Thomas Cudworth:
Elizabeth re 200: Regarding Dembski, you’ve made a logical slip. The fact that Dembski identifies the God of intelligent design with the God of Christianity does not prove that he improperly conflates religion and science.
You have still missed my point. I'm not sayint that the conflation is improper. I'm simply pointing out that the proportion of IDists who make a theological connection with their theory is much higher than the proportion of "evolutionists" who do.
None of his *arguments* for design depend on his belief that the designer is the Logos of John. He merely indicates that science and religion, when each conducted properly according to their own methods, meet at the highest plane. That does not indicate any improper mixing of the subjects at all.
And I did not say that they did.
This is why I asked you if you had actually read any ID books straight through, as opposed to relying on quotes you’ve picked up, out of context, from internet debates. For example, the book in which Dembski made the Logos statement, have you read it straight through, to get the context and qualifying statements? And have you read No Free Lunch straight through, which doesn’t talk about the Logos? If you had, you wouldn’t have made the invalid argument that you did.
Well, first of all you mistook the argument that I was making (which was not even an argument, just an observation, made to balance the observation that a number of vocal atheists are also "evolutionists"). Second: no I have not read any of Dembski's books, as I have already said. I have, however, read all, I think, of his online articles, in considerable depth. If there is key point in his books that he does not make in his articles, then it does not say much for his articles! But I assume that he does, in fact, make his points in his articles. And yes, I am well aware that his science does not depend on his religious stance (which was why I never said that it did - it is rather that his religious stance, in anything, draws sustenance from his science, I assume). Please do not assume that those who disagree with you have merely picked up their knowledge from secondary sources. I am a trained academic, like many here, and I try where possible to go to primary sources for my information. I also, as I said, prefer scientific papers to books, preferably peer-reviewed, but that doesn't matter in itself, what matters is that the argument is laid out in scientifical paper format, namely in such a way that the reader can independently ascertain the validity of the conclusions.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT}

Thomas: As I’ve argued repeatedly, in its theoretical purity, ID must stop after settling the question of design vs. chance. The next question, how did design get into nature, raises the natural vs. supernatural question. But that question is not about design, and therefore is not part of ID’s mandate. It belongs to philosophy or theology. As you may know, I have a position which is slightly different. While I agree with you that there are certainly many aspects on the problem of the designer which are of pertinence of philosophy and theology, I b elieve, and have always stated here, that ID must not necessarily stop at the design detection, but has the possibility and the duty, as a scientific paradigm, to go beyond as much as possible. I will be more clear. Once we infer design, the design can be observed, analyzed and evaluated. ID gives us a way to identify, as much as it is possible with present data, specific deseign inputs (for instance, the emergence of protein superfamilies). There are many aspects, observabble aspects, facts, about design input which are in the range of science. Those aspects can certainly give at least some information about: a) The nature of the designer b) If only one desiner ot many designers can be reasonably inferred c) The nature, structure, and possibly some of the pusposes of the design (while the whole purpose of biological design is probably a philosophical subject, specific sub purposes and strategies can certainly be inferred form the observed design). d) The modalities of implementation of design in natural history, such as cronological properties (gradual, sudden), and possible implementation strategies (guided mutation, intelligent selection, direct writing, etc.) All these things, and probably others, are IMO perfectly in the range of ID as science. It is true that the existing data can shed only a very partial light on these problems, but data are increasing, and our scientific mind must be open and try to build reasonable inferences and explanations whenever possible.gpuccio_{July 17, 2011
July
07
Jul
17
17
2011
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

Nick, here's the last: “It’s not lying that motivates me — that’s absurd anyway. What would be the point? It’s knowledge and experience.” The point would be that lying or misrepresenting via exaggeration or strategic omission gives your side a huge advantage in the culture-war situation, and therefore you have a natural motive to do so. If the NCSE had nuanced its attack on ID, and if the ACLU lawyers had nuanced their attack, saying things like “A lot of ID people are really creationists, but there are a few people like Behe who aren’t, and gee, Scott Minnich seems to be doing genuine empirical lab work, knockout experiments, not Biblical exegesis, and a lot of the ID arguments come from Denton who isn’t a creationist, and of course many of their arguments go back to ancient Greek philosophers who couldn’t possibly have been creationists because they’d never read the Bible, etc.” – the Dover Trial would have been a lot harder to conduct, wouldn’t it? Your side -- the lawyers and expert witnesses -- deliberately fed the judge a skewed and distorted vision of ID. They did not tell the judge the whole truth. They felt that a few little white lies and strategic omissions were permissible for the greater good of keeping ID out of the schools. (They also fed the judge a sanitized version of Darwinian theory, failing to mention Darwin’s religious anguish over the implications of his theory -- and Darwin surely knew the implications better than Miler does -- and making sure they didn’t call Dawkins or Coyne or Myers or Provine as witnesses to say what *they* thought were the implications of evolution for religion. But that’s another issue.) The point is that lying, or misrepresenting, or strategically omitting important parts of the truth, has always been advantageous for your side, and so your side has often done it. And by “your side” I don’t just mean the atheists and agnostics, but the TEs; Biologos willfully misrepresents ID people and writings all the time (which is, I suppose, just the sort of thing that Jesus Christ would want them to do.) Thus, your side keeps saying that Behe supplements natural processes with miracles even though he has repeatedly denied that his argument requires that. How many times have you guys shouted "God of the Gaps," knowing full well that Behe denies the charge and that it doesn't apply to Denton? But hey, why spoil a killer argument by putting in those awkward little qualifications? (And *you* complain when people misrepresent Gould. Sheesh.) A genuine philosopher, a genuine scholar, a genuine scientist, always represents his opponent’s argument at its strongest. He doesn't strategically omit. He doesn't impute arguments that people haven't made. He doesn't say "all" when facts support only "most". He separates alleged motives from the substance of arguments. Your side has not done any of this with ID. You have tried to smear ID from the beginning with guilt by association -- the “creationism” charge -- before the argument can even begin. And you personally have not only condoned this behavior but actively participated in it from the beginning. And you were doing it again here on my thread. That’s why I jumped in. If you are going to continue poisoning the well, do it somewhere else. I'll summarize: many ID proponents, the majority of the leaders and probably the majority of the rank and file, are personally creationists. But ID as a theory is not creationism. Its data and its arguments and its methods (probability theory, information theory, engineering concepts like irreducible complexity, etc.) are completely separable from creationism. And its truth or falsity as an explanation for living systems has nothing to do with Dover School Board, the Kansas hearings, Pandas, or any of the other irrelevancies you have brought up on this thread.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Nick, almost done: “Then ID advocates started pushing ID in the state science standards in Kansas and elsewhere.” I wasn’t there. Don’t blame me. And anyhow, since then, Discovery’s policy has been very explicit: No mandated ID in the schools; but teach *more* neo-Darwinian theory, including scientific criticism of neo-Darwinian theory. And no, not non-refereed criticism coming from ID proponents. Criticism coming from *the existing peer-reviewed scientific literature*. There lots of it. There’s Margulis. I’ve read peer-reviewed papers by paleontologists and botanists expressing doubt whether macroevolution can be explained simply by microevolution writ large. There’s the Altenberg group. None of these people are ID proponents, and many of them hate ID, but they are very critical of Darwinian theory. Yet Eugenie and the NCSE have thrown all their money and influence into blocking these proposals. How can it hurt students to hear that maybe, after all, Mayr, Dobzhansky and Gaylord Simpson, whose word was like Gospel 50 years ago, were very wrong on some very major things about evolution? That maybe chance plays a much lesser role, and maybe self-organization a greater one? That maybe evolution can make leaps that the older theory doesn’t allow? That maybe the purely gene-focused theory of evolution is in deep trouble? Why doesn’t Eugenie want students to hear about intra-scientific criticism of the Darwinian model? The motive can’t be anything but political. She wants to present evolutionary theory as a "united front" in order to fend off creationism. But in doing so she falsifies the scientific process, giving the very wrong impression that there is this huge consensus about evolutionary mechanisms and we're just twigging the details a bit to polish things off, and then it will be a done deal. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolutionary theory is in a major transition period right now, with major tenets up in the air, and it's not doing the students any favor to conceal that from them. But she'd rather present this myth of invincible, unified "science." She wants to protect the students from any doubts about the received wisdom. That's not education, that's propaganda. The current Discovery policy is exactly the right one, if science and not ideology is what we are supposed to be teaching. “And then I started reading more ID literature — not just “Darwin’s Black Box” and the like, but JP Moreland’s “The Creation Hypothesis”, Phillip Johnson’s numerous works which all phrased the debate as supernaturalism vs. naturalism, etc.” I don’t agree with those ID proponents who cast ID as supernaturalism vs. naturalism. It shows category confusion. The question of supernaturalism vs. naturalism is important, but it’s separate from the question of design vs. chance. As I’ve argued repeatedly, in its theoretical purity, ID must stop after settling the question of design vs. chance. The next question, how did design get into nature, raises the natural vs. supernatural question. But that question is not about design, and therefore is not part of ID’s mandate. It belongs to philosophy or theology.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

Continuing, Nick: "There are a handful of evolution popularizers, and some of them are atheists and some aren’t. It is regrettable, in my opinion, that some have chosen to try and promote atheism via the science of evolution." But we haven't heard you stressing that very loudly, have we? How often are you on record saying this right in the heart of the atheist territory? "... most importantly, as mentioned above, those who even kinda-sorta accept common ancestry are a tiny minority in the ID movement. It is very widely rejected, by 95% or more of the major figures. You don’t get to portray the tiny minority position as being representative of the movement." First of all, I never did any such thing. I didn't claim that any group within ID represented the "movement" (a vague sociological term). I’m not interested in who represents ID as a “movement.” That's a matter of politics. I'm interested in promoting ID as a theoretical perspective to explain biological systems. And regarding that question, if IDers are only 5% evolutionists -- though that's an underestimate, because the rank and file has a higher percentage that is evolutionist than the leaders -- that makes no difference to me. The ID argument, their core theoretical argument, isn't about evolution, anyway. It's about whether chance (even aided by natural selection) can produce complex integrated organic structures. If chance can't do it, then either you have to have direct creation, or some kind of guided or planned evolutionary process, or a combination ot the two. As to how ID people split up over those possibilities, that's sociologically interesting, but has nothing to do with the chance/design arguments. "Look. Back in the late 1990s I first heard of ID. At the time, it was being advertised as a revolutionary new scientific movement, and definitely not creationism. Reading the ID guys seemed like a refreshing change from the older creationist works, since they did have less Bible and seemingly more science. But once I learned more science, it became clearer and clearer to me that the ID arguments were just the same old creationist arguments but with more science-y sounding technical language covering them up." What “old creationist arguments”? Like, the argument that the formation of a protein-DNA system without intelligent guidance is vanishingly unlikely? How is that a creationist argument? It’s a perfectly good theoretical and empirical argument. It may one day be disproved; but it’s got no special connection with religion. So is Meyer not allowed to use a modern version of that argument, just because Duane Gish used it? That’s ridiculous. If I drive a car that Ken Ham used to own, am I a creationist? If the argument is separable from the creationism assumptions, the fact that creationists used it earlier is irrelevant.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT}

Nick, more comments: "In reality, ID, right now (and in the past) is dominated by conservative evangelicals and a few other types of conservative theists, all of them doing straight-up conservative theist apologetics (again, dominated by conservative evangelicals) and culture-warring in support of their supernaturalist, interventionist view of God. It has a literal handful of people that kinda-sorta don’t meet this description, maybe, although sometimes they deny being IDists (e.g. Berlinski) or have drastically retreated from their former positions (e.g. Denton)." Behe doesn't do apologetics. And when Dembski does them, he does them in books which he identifies as explicitly as books written for Christian purposes. He doesn't do them in No Free Lunch, for example. I don't see apologetics in Meyer's Signature in the Cell. I don't see apologetics in The Design of Life. Whether Meyer and Wells do apologetics in religious settings I don't know. But if they do, it's irrelevant to their claims for detecting design in nature. They've asked to be criticized for their science, not their private religious views. "You are expecting me, the media, society at large, etc., to exhibit extreme gullibility and pretend that the composition of the ID movement is the reverse of the above." NO. I never said that. Never implied it, either. I said that you were wrong to identify ID with creationism, since that implies that all (not most) ID proponents are creationist. I said you were wrong not to specifically exempt all ID proponents whom you knew not to be creationists. I said you were wrong to deliberately leave the public with the impression that all ID people were creationists, and I said that you and the NCSE did this for deliberate tactical reasons even though you knew it was less than the whole truth. I still stand by that judgment. Will you admit that you and your allies have consciously bypassed hundreds of opportunities to "nuance" your statements? And that the repeated use of "ID Creationism" by your camp was deliberately intended to conflate the two in the public mind, against the express wish from the ID camp that the two terms be distinguished?Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
10:15 PM
10
10
15
PM
PDT}

Continuing interspersed comments, Nick: "It’s still a violation of conservation of mass/energy, and it’s still just inserting God into the gaps in our understanding" No, for reasons given above. "Until miracles are abandoned by the ID movement, ID will be just a form of creationism." There is no need to abandon miracles because miracles are not part of ID. ID detects design. It does not detect the means of insertion of design. It's theoretically neutral between miraculous and non-miraculous means of insertion. And I'm talking about ID as it currently stands at its theoretical purest and best. If Johnson or anyone else 15 years ago said or implied that ID required miracles, that tells us one person's view back then; it's not part of formal ID theory now. ID now speaks of intelligent causes, not supernatural causes; it has ways of testing for intelligent input, but no way of testing for supernatural input.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT}

Nick, more interspersed comments: "Even the mildest forms of ID depend on insertion of miracles into biological history, even if it’s just to tweak the DNA a little bit." False. That is not true of Denton (who is small-id even if you don't call him big-ID). His account of evolution is wholly naturalistic. It is also not true of Behe. You guys keep trying to make out that Behe insists on miracles, but you've been challenged on this on virtually every web site on the planet, and have never been able to show it from his text. You've sloppily inferred it. In fact, whenever he has been asked directly about it, he's said explicitly that while ID is compatible with "tweaking," it doesn't inherently require it. This of course fits in with the rousing endorsement he gave to Denton's second book. Denton's account was wholly naturalistic and Behe knew that. Behe recognizes that "built-in evolution" or "programmed evolution" is one option within an overall ID framework. Is it the one he holds to personally? I don't know. He hasn't said. But we are talking about the definition of ID, what it is as a theory, not which version of it various ID proponents subscribe to personally. And Behe, Dembski, and Meyer all agree that it is conceptually possible that macroevolution could be driven by a built-in design rather than by miraculous interventions. (Whether they think such programming is scientifically feasible or not is another matter. I think that both Meyer and Dembski, at least, might see insurmountable practical problems. But the general concept doesn't violate their understanding of what ID is. And it's the definition of ID, the theoretical essence of ID, that we should be talking about here.)Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT}

Nick, comments interspersed. "It was pro-ID people on the thread that brought up Mystery of Life’s Origin, not I! Your argument is with your own side, I’m afraid…" I never brought up that book, or Pandas, and never undertook to defend either book. Don't expect me to argue for others. My point was against your claim that ID was creationism. You didn't say: "ID used to be creationism" or "ID was partly inspired by a creationist book of the early 1980s" or "ID uses some arguments that creationists use" or "Many ID proponents are creationists" or even "Most ID proponents are creationists". You equated ID with creationism without qualification, and wouldn't cede an inch of ground, despite repeated evidence from me that it wasn't. That was the issue between us. "C’mon, even old-earth creationism doesn’t depend on the *literal* truth of Genesis, yet no one has a problem calling old-earth creationism creationism." If you read my original comments, far above (to which you didn't respond), you will see that I provided nuance with "literal or near-literal" and granted the existence of old earth creationism as well, and explained what it was. The point is that both young-earth and old-earth positions reject macroevolution, that both require discrete acts of creation, and that both apply the Bible to set limits to what science is allowed to conclude. That's why they're both forms of creationism.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PDT}

207: Where is the real Nick Matzke, and what have you done with him? The Nick Matzke ID people know and love responds to any criticism by avoiding the central question and mechanically spewing out pre-rehearsed NCSE talking points. The real Nick would never actually try to respond in a direct and orderly way the substantive criticism. So who is this that I'm talking to? Come to think of it, it doesn't matter. If it's a new and improved Nick, congratulations, Nick. And if it's an impostor, I'll answer the points anyway, and the real Nick can read them from his cyberspace hideaway. I'll split the answer over a few posts.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT}

I’m always amazed that people can get a Ph.D. in the natural sciences, and yet be so dense when it comes to registering simple, everyday reasoning. Let me say this plainly, so you won’t waste more time writing long diatribes about old books: THE THAXTON BOOK IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. THE MOTIVES OF THE WRITERS OF THESE BOOKS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. ANY BIBLICAL REFERENCES THAT MIGHT BE IN THOSE BOOKS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND.
But your claim is in stark contradiction to what the leaders of the ID movement say, and even what many pro-ID people on this very thread say! It was pro-ID people on the thread that brought up Mystery of Life's Origin, not I! Your argument is with your own side, I'm afraid...
THE DEBATE AT HAND IS WHETHER *CURRENT* ID THEORY IS CREATIONIST. THAT IS, WHETHER CURRENT ID THEORY DEPENDS ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LITERAL TRUTH OF GENESIS, AND INTRUDES RELIGIOUS CONTENTS INTO ITS SCIENTIFIC REASONING.
C'mon, even old-earth creationism doesn't depend on the *literal* truth of Genesis, yet no one has a problem calling old-earth creationism creationism. Even the mildest forms of ID depend on insertion of miracles into biological history, even if it's just to tweak the DNA a little bit. It's still a violation of conservation of mass/energy, and it's still just inserting God into the gaps in our understanding -- or really, more commonly, gaps in the ID movement's understanding, because often biologists know the answers to how X or Y evolved, and the ID folks just haven't done the literature search to find the answers. Until miracles are abandoned by the ID movement, ID will be just a form of creationism.
CURRENT ID THEORY IS FOUND IN THE TECHNICAL OR SEMITECHNICAL, NON-DEVOTIONAL WRITINGS OF DEMBSKI, BEHE, MEYER, WELLS, DENTON, ETC. AND ITS ARGUMENTS DO NOT PRESUPPOSE ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH AT ALL, LET ALONE A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. THEY ARE THEREFORE BY DEFINITION NOT CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS. Are you able to grasp that, Nick? Did your profs in biology train you to read and comprehend English prose on matters pertaining to evolution and design?
Really? Take off the rose-colored glasses. By this argument, "creation science" magically became science as soon as they dropped explicit mention of the Bible and claimed they were arguing that scientific evidence supported "catastrophism" and "sudden emergence." In reality, ID, right now (and in the past) is dominated by conservative evangelicals and a few other types of conservative theists, all of them doing straight-up conservative theist apologetics (again, dominated by conservative evangelicals) and culture-warring in support of their supernaturalist, interventionist view of God. It has a literal handful of people that kinda-sorta don't meet this description, maybe, although sometimes they deny being IDists (e.g. Berlinski) or have drastically retreated from their former positions (e.g. Denton). You are expecting me, the media, society at large, etc., to exhibit extreme gullibility and pretend that the composition of the ID movement is the reverse of the above. And, since you like to bring up the atheism of various evolution popularizers, (a) there are theist popularizers of evolution as well, and (b) much more importantly, evolution is dominated by scientific publishing. There are a handful of evolution popularizers, and some of them are atheists and some aren't. It is regrettable, in my opinion, that some have chosen to try and promote atheism via the science of evolution. But there are, literally, tens of thousands of evolutionary biologists around the world, publishing tens of thousands of articles and books on the science of evolution every year. And there are hundreds of thousands more scientists that use evolution in their work on a day-to-day basis. With ID, we've got the opposite. The movement is dominated by popularizers with culture-warrior and apologetics goals, and the scientific production of ID ranges between tiny and nonexistent, depending on how generous one wants to be.
Do you keep harping on Thaxton and Pandas because you don’t want to admit that you and your friends have been lying to the public for six years (since the Dover Trial) in saying or implying that Behe, Sternberg, Denton and many other ID proponents are creationists when they are in fact evolutionists?
Even if it were true that Behe, Denton, and Sternberg all clearly accepted common ancestry (where's the clear statement from Sternberg? I've never seen one), (a) Denton is pretty much nonexistent in the ID movement, and has given up on all of the "evolution is a theory in crisis" claims that he made in his 1985 book; (b) even Behe has hedged his bets on evolution -- as I co-wrote in 2007:
The denial of common ancestry is unsurprising in creation science, but it is a common misconception that ID advocates accept common ancestry and “macroevolution.” In fact, the vast majority of ID proponents deny the common ancestry of humans and apes. Behe is the only significant exception, although he is much-touted by those who wish to portray ID as a moderate position. Even Behe's support is lukewarm; in 2005, he wrote that “my Intelligent Design colleagues who disagree with me on common descent have greater familiarity with the relevant science than I do” (66). Dembski's position is typical, accepting “some change in the course of natural history,” but believing “that this change has occurred within strict limits and that human beings were specially created” (67). This is the standard position of an ID advocate. In May 2005, ID supporters on the Kansas Board of Education held hearings to support ID-friendly science standards. Mainstream scientists boycotted the hearings, but a series of pro-ID witnesses, mostly teachers and academics (but few professional biologists) testified in support of the standards. During cross-examination, only 2 of 19 witnesses accepted the common ancestry of humans and apes. One was an independent scholar who clarified that although he supported the Kansas standards, he was not an ID advocate; and the other was Behe. The rejection of evolution by the vast majority of ID witnesses at the Kansas hearings parallels the rejection of evolution by ID proponents in general.
and (c) most importantly, as mentioned above, those who even kinda-sorta accept common ancestry are a tiny minority in the ID movement. It is very widely rejected, by 95% or more of the major figures. You don't get to portray the tiny minority position as being representative of the movement. Well, actually you can do whatever you want, but you won't convince any well-informed observers.
Why do you lie, Nick? And how can you live with yourself when you do? You said you weren’t an atheist? Well, whatever your religion is, doesn’t it include an injunction not to lie to people? Not even for the “good end” of keeping ID out of the schools?
Look. Back in the late 1990s I first heard of ID. At the time, it was being advertised as a revolutionary new scientific movement, and definitely not creationism. Reading the ID guys seemed like a refreshing change from the older creationist works, since they did have less Bible and seemingly more science. But once I learned more science, it became clearer and clearer to me that the ID arguments were just the same old creationist arguments but with more science-y sounding technical language covering them up. Then ID advocates started pushing ID in the state science standards in Kansas and elsewhere. And then I started reading more ID literature -- not just "Darwin's Black Box" and the like, but JP Moreland's "The Creation Hypothesis", Phillip Johnson's numerous works which all phrased the debate as supernaturalism vs. naturalism, etc. And I read more about the history of creationism, and it was extremely clear that ID was basically just another expression of the decades-old creationist movement, with the same arguments, same basic tactics, and same goals, just with new terminology. Only years later came the Kitzmiller case and the "smoking guns" proving direct transition of a creationist text into the first ID textbook. It's not lying that motivates me -- that's absurd anyway. What would be the point? It's knowledge and experience.NickMatzke_UD_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Nick: I'm always amazed that people can get a Ph.D. in the natural sciences, and yet be so dense when it comes to registering simple, everyday reasoning. Let me say this plainly, so you won't waste more time writing long diatribes about old books: THE THAXTON BOOK IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. THE MOTIVES OF THE WRITERS OF THESE BOOKS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. ANY BIBLICAL REFERENCES THAT MIGHT BE IN THOSE BOOKS IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DEBATE AT HAND. THE DEBATE AT HAND IS WHETHER *CURRENT* ID THEORY IS CREATIONIST. THAT IS, WHETHER CURRENT ID THEORY DEPENDS ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE LITERAL TRUTH OF GENESIS, AND INTRUDES RELIGIOUS CONTENTS INTO ITS SCIENTIFIC REASONING. CURRENT ID THEORY IS FOUND IN THE TECHNICAL OR SEMITECHNICAL, NON-DEVOTIONAL WRITINGS OF DEMBSKI, BEHE, MEYER, WELLS, DENTON, ETC. AND ITS ARGUMENTS DO NOT PRESUPPOSE ANY RELIGIOUS FAITH AT ALL, LET ALONE A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. THEY ARE THEREFORE BY DEFINITION NOT CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS. Are you able to grasp that, Nick? Did your profs in biology train you to read and comprehend English prose on matters pertaining to evolution and design? So why do we all have to keep repeating these statements for you? Do you have a reading disability that you've kept hidden from your supervisors? Or is the problem one of honesty? Do you keep harping on Thaxton and Pandas because you don't want to admit that you and your friends have been lying to the public for six years (since the Dover Trial) in saying or implying that Behe, Sternberg, Denton and many other ID proponents are creationists when they are in fact evolutionists? Why do you lie, Nick? And how can you live with yourself when you do? You said you weren't an atheist? Well, whatever your religion is, doesn't it include an injunction not to lie to people? Not even for the "good end" of keeping ID out of the schools? Nick, to paraphrase a book for which you and most of your evolutionary biology friends have contempt: We know thee who thou art. We know that you are lying, and you know that we know that you are lying. Why prolong the agony. Why not either admit you are lying, and leave this thread with a clean conscience, or do what your mentor Eugenie did when she was clearly losing the argument to David Berlinski -- fly into an uncontrollable rage at us for exposing the truth? Either option would produce catharsis. The course of action you've chosen here -- studied evasion -- is just wasting your time and everyone else's. Good-bye, Nick. If you were a true scientist, a true thinker, or an honorable man who could admit a fault, I'd continue debating with you. But you are none of the above.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth re 200: Regarding Dembski, you've made a logical slip. The fact that Dembski identifies the God of intelligent design with the God of Christianity does not prove that he improperly conflates religion and science. None of his *arguments* for design depend on his belief that the designer is the Logos of John. He merely indicates that science and religion, when each conducted properly according to their own methods, meet at the highest plane. That does not indicate any improper mixing of the subjects at all. This is why I asked you if you had actually read any ID books straight through, as opposed to relying on quotes you've picked up, out of context, from internet debates. For example, the book in which Dembski made the Logos statement, have you read it straight through, to get the context and qualifying statements? And have you read No Free Lunch straight through, which doesn't talk about the Logos? If you had, you wouldn't have made the invalid argument that you did.Thomas Cudworth_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Here's some more history that Mike Gene, Thomas, etc. don't take into account. Again, it's from the actual relevant time period, not retrospective apologetics done with rosy glasses to make ID appear cleaner than it is.
Thaxton, Charles, and Buell, Jon (1983). "Why All the Fuss About Evolution And Creation?" The Foundation Rationale, 1(1), 1st edition, pp. 1-3. Published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. THE FOUNDATION RATIONALE Vol. 1, No. 1 © by Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1983 Price $1.00 [pp. 1-2 have a discussion of morality in the public schools, the Arkansas trial, the alleged metaphysical naturalism of evolution, etc. The conclusion is on pp. 2-3: ] As unpalatable as this Darwinian perspective may be to some of us, it is fair to ask if there isn't room for it to be expressed and taught in public education? In general, our society has answered yes, condoning the expression of naturalism and many of its companion ideas. We are not in conflict with this. We are opposed to the censorship of ideas. But here is the crux of the present problem. Though our U.S. Constitution provides for free expression of ideas -- even those diametrically opposed such as naturalism and theism -- it seems that the champions of naturalism want to take that Constitutional freedom of expression away from theists instead of allowing the ideas of each view to coexist in an academically free system. This is why there is a conflict between naturalism and theism, between evolution and creation in the public schools. It is the intent of a relative few naturalists to supplant theism through the exclusive teaching of evolution in our schools. Most naturalists lend only passive influence -- chiefly by ignoring theism. But many theists have supported the efforts to exclude creationism from the classroom as well. Many theists resist what they consider too narrow a form of creation and some react to individual personalities rather than to the ideas presented. Unfortunately, too little attention is given the end result -- that naturalism has gained a favored status, with the effect that Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are exiled as irrelevant to our time. In a court of law, witnesses are sworn in with the oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". This wise convention was established in the understanding that often partial truth can masquerade (even if unwittingly) as whole truth. It is our opinion that the exclusive teaching of evolution in the public schools is part of an overall process that removes theistic thought from the public sector. Some have rightly called a world view a "world and life view". This is certainly appropriate, since our actions express our thoughts. Unfortunately, the effects of the shift from theism to naturalism aren't abstract. They burst from the classroom into society as a whole. The new naturalistic consensus translates directly and energetically into people's [page 3] self-images, into how employers and employees respond to one another, into how we try to solve man's problems and specifically into the issues of child abuse, abortion, euthanasia and the many other pressing matters with which parents are concerned. A major problem is that no one has provided a naturalistic ethic with teeth in it; no attempt to logically support a moral lifestyle on an evolutionary base has demonstrated any compelling moral force on the societal level. That's clear from looking at how far civilization has declined in just the last hundred years. Thomas Huxley, the staunch "Darwinian bulldog", agreed: he once asserted that although evolution is true, it leads to bad ethics. Thus if Christians make their peace with the monopolistic teaching of evolution, they cannot justifiably complain that students reject Judeo-Christian values and principles. That's why Christians -- in fact all theists -- must insist that whenever origins are discussed, public schools allow the teaching of the evidence for creation alongside instruction in the naturalistic concept of evolution. If the scientific rationale for both creation and evolution were taught, there would be an equality demanded by the symmetry of the two metaphysical views, theism and naturalism. If both are not taught, it is not just the subject of origins that is affected. The whole of naturalistic thought is given privileged status by the state, with the de facto result that young minds are prepared to reject theistic approaches to morality and religion. At the same time, they are prepared to receive both moral relativism and the various naturalistic religions, such as Unity, Buddhism, Scientology and Religious Humanism. In summary, we discern the primary conflict in the public schools to be in the realm of metaphysics, between theism and naturalism. The concern about origins and moral values should not lose sight of this. The exclusive teaching of evolution is a major force of modern naturalism which, if not checked, will remove every trace of theistic thought from the public sector. Therefore, we should recognize that even if we are not individually interested in the origins question, the creation issue touches us all. The exclusive teaching of evolution ushers in moral relativism and inclines young minds toward naturalistic religions. But a call for censorship is not appropriate. Instead, the emphasis in our efforts to counter the naturalistic indoctrination in the public schools and public sector should be to restore balance in the free expression of ideas. Let us remember that Jesus also told us to be "wise as serpents but innocent as doves". -- Charles Thaxton, Ph. D. -- Jon Buell
NickMatzke_UD_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

F/N: MikeGene weighs in on the Pandas talking point (HT: Wayback Machine):
...and he completely ignores what was going on legally at that exact time, and which Thaxton, Bradley, etc. were deeply involved in. Why, for the love of the IDer, would someone attempting to start a "revolutionary new scientific movement" make their 2nd book, and their first book using the "intelligent design" terminology, a high school biology textbook?NickMatzke_UD_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

Mung, why don't you read my posts in their entirety? Immediately before the sentence you just quoted, I wrote: "So let’s make a very simplified model:" I was trying to explain something to you which you seem determined not to understand. I'm not trying to persuade you that evolutionatry theory is true, merely what it is. But if you want to stick with your straw man version, feel free. It's just you'd have more success attacking evolutionary theory if you actually knew what evolutionary theory was. I was trying to help.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Life starts with a single living cell. That cell divides into two, almost identical cells. Those two divide into two each, making four.
Is that what you really believe? What's your evidence?
So we have a tree that bifurcates with every cell division.
But you're not equivocating, are you. You wouldn't do that. You're assuming what you need in order for your claim to be true. So you're begging the question. You're equivocating over the type of tree that was in the original discussion. You only bring in HGT when you think it can't harm your story, which is completely ad hoc. Do you just type the first thing that you can think of that you think will make the last thing you wrote make you look less foolish? There's a reason people are frustrated with you Lizzie, and it's not because they disagree with you. If you think that's what it is then you're lying to yourself.Mung_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

gpuccio:
That’s not fair from you! Dembski is a mathematician “and” a theologian. As far as I can say, he keeps the two things strictly separate. I have not found theologic arguments in his scientific books. Are you saying that a scientist cannot have a religious or theologic activity in his life?
Not at all. It was in response to the challenge that lots of evolutionists are vociferous atheists. My point was that the proportion of evolutionists that are vociferous atheists is much smaller than the proportion of IDists who are vociferous theists. And if a theologian isn't a vociferous theist, I'm not sure what a theologian is :) But no, he doesn't keep the two things strictly separate - he has specifically identified his Intelligent Designer with the God of the gospels (IIRC, specifically the God of John I). And nor do people here. Evolutionary theory seems very much less closely entwined with atheism than ID is with theism. I know there are some atheist IDists (well, I know of a couple, I guess) but I know of countless evolutionary scientists who don't have much in the way of a view on religion at all, and a large number of theists who are perfectly happy to accept evolutionary theory.Elizabeth Liddle_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

How, in the name of Aristotle, did a “true” statement become a false one?
Had me rolling.Mung_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT}

And as for the alleged "tree" of life: Charles Darwin's tree of life is 'wrong and misleading', claim scientists:
Dr Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said: "For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life. We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality."
Now what?Joseph_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT}

Ooops- Here is the link: Nested hierarchy- see potential falsificationJoseph_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle @ 177- <a href=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchyDr Theobald says- in potential falsifications of nested hierarchies:
It would be very problematic if many species were found that combined characteristics of different nested groupings.
and:
A mix and match of characters like this would make it extremely difficult to objectively organize species into nested hierarchies.
That said a mix of characteristics is the very definition of a transitional. Do you understand that? The point being is we may expect a Venn diagram- in which there is overlapping. But a nested hierarchy cannot have any overlapping. Also we do not observe a nested hierarchy for the bulk of the biomass- prokaryotes. Does that mean the theory is falsified?Joseph_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT}

H'mm:
Dembski teaches in a seminary!
'E baane expelled -- twicet! Gkairosfocus_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

Mung:
Elizabeth Liddle:
There are a couple of interesting violations, however: one is horizontal gene transfer, which makes bacterial lineages much less of a tree and much more bushy and tangled.
HGT between bacteria is irrelevant Lizzie. Pick a story and stick with it please. Less of a tree? Yet elsewhere you have claimed repeatedly that these organisms don’t speciate at all. So no, not less of a tree, no tree. I thought you were all about being completely honest?
Yes indeed I am Mung, but your skill in placing yourself in positions where the trees obstruct the forest is formidable. Let's unpack: What do we mean by a tree, in phylogenetics? Well, we mean inheritance of traits down a lineage. Right? So let's make a very simplified model: Life starts with a single living cell. That cell divides into two, almost identical cells. Those two divide into two each, making four. So we have a tree that bifurcates with every cell division. Now, let's say that some of the daughter cells of a parent cell are slightly different from the parent cell. Those changes will be inherited downstream from the variant daughter. And so we can simplify our map of the tree, by plotting not every cell division event, but only those cell divison events that result in a daughter cell that differs from the parent. So we might go for, say 20 generations before we find a mutant daughter. Now we have a branching point - a lineage of cells descending from that daughter, and a lineage descending from the rest. Then another mutant daughter occurs, perhaps in the original mutant daughter's lineage, perhaps in another. And so, even in a cloning population we have a tree. We won't call the branches "species" though, because normally that word is reserved for populations that don't interbreed, and our clones don't interbreed anyway. But we still have a tree. However, we also have HGT, apparently. So our tree, at this point starts to look tangled. Let's say we have a clean tree up to the millionth generation, at which point we have, say 50 "twigs" - fifty types of cell, each with their own lineage, and tracing their origin back to a first mutant daughter. Now the first great HGT day dawns: an individual from twig 3 bumps into an individual from twig 29, and gains some genetic material. When the twig 3 individual divides into two daughters, we have another mutant, another branch of the tree. But this branch is no ordinary branch, because if we trace its origins backwards, it does not simply lead to a mutation event at the millionth generation on twig 3; it also leads to some mutation event in the ancestry of twig 29. So while up till now we had "nested hierarchies (namely, a tree) now we have a tangle. Now, fast forward a bit, to the first multicelled organisms, and the beginnings of sex. Sex, of course, is just a very specialised example of HGT (sorry about that), in which the HGT happens regularly between pairs of individuals. Now we need to simplify the tree description still further, in order to see the forest, not by grouping populations by their genetic identity, but by their genetic similarity. Humans are not genetically identical, but they are genetically similar. Now, what defines our bifurcations is lack of between-branch HGT (although this occasionally occurs, and we call it "hybridisation"). But we still have nested hierarchies. Plus of course, our single celled cloning populations are still cloning away, branching away, and doing their HGT thing from time to time. So the "forest" we can now see is: Individual cell spawns a tree lineage where each branch is consists of identical individuals. This tree acquires tangles from time to time as genetic material crosses from branch to branch. One branch becomes multicellular, and continues to clone itself, producing further branched descendent lineages. One of these branches starts to do within-branch HGT more systematically (because ones that do do rather well), between pairs of individuals. This branch produces a branched descendent lineage, in which there is a large amount of HGT within each branch, and very little between branches. Meanwhile, co-existing are cloning unicellular branches of the Big Tree in which the HGT is more haphazard, although it will tend to happen more between neighbouring branches (who occupy the same environment) than more distant branches (who have adapted to very different environments.
And since a nested hierarchy is not predicted for the most basic and fundamental forms of life known, from which forms supposedly all other life arose without speciation, your claim is clearly false.
Yes, a nested hierarchy is predicted for the most basic and fundamental forms of life, it's just that we don't call the branchings "speciation" because they are not defined by the capacity to interbreed, and that HGT means that there are crosslinks of genetic material between branches, which happens only rarely in sexually reproducing populations (leaving aside viruses, of course, but I'm trying get the view of the forest clarified here - and it turns out to be a tree!)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Elizabeth: Behe doesn’t, much, but Dembski teaches in a seminary! That's not fair from you! Dembski is a mathematician "and" a theologian. As far as I can say, he keeps the two things strictly separate. I have not found theologic arguments in his scientific books. Are you saying that a scientist cannot have a religious or theologic activity in his life? As for me, I have never used any religious argument in my scientific debates here. And never will. Not only that, but unlike, say Shapiro, who thinks about intelligent systems, whenever I ask here about possible design mechanisms I’m told that’s not what ID is about – it’s just about detecting design! I don't agree with you. This is a commonly misunderstood point. Whe we say (including me) that design detection does not need understanding the mechanisms of design, we are saying a very simple truth. That's exactly the way it is. That does not mean, however, that ID cannot make models of possible design mechanisms. It certainly can, as much as current data allow. Some ID proponents will discuss those models, other will not, and will just stick to the design detection point, which is however very important. But the point that design detection does not need understanding of the mechanisms of design is irrenounceable. As for me, I have many times discussed here my idea about possible mechanisms for design of biological information, usually in response to objections like yours. I can do that again, if you are interested. For starters I’d like to know what this “neo Darwinian” part of evolutionary theory is that is supposed to be shaky. Can you tell me? I genuinely want to know. And I genuinely give you my answer: a) Universal common descent is controversial, but IMO reasonable. I I accept it, like many other IDists (Behe, for instance), as a viable hypothesis. Other IDists definitely refute it. I don't agree with them. b) The causal mechanism for the generation of biological information proposed in classical neodarwinism, instead, is completely wrong and unsupportable. It has no empirical support nor logical consistency. I am speaking, obviously, of the concept that a mixed algorithm, including a random part (Random Variation) and a necessity part (Natural Selection) can effectively create complex functionally specified information. c) There are obviously various forms of neo-neo darwinism, attempting alterbative "explanations". IMO, they are worse than classical neo darwinisms. Indeed, classical neo darwinism at least proposes an explanation, although wrong. Many of these "new" forms of theory do not even try to really explain anything at the causal level. As such, they are not even scientific theories. Neutralism is interesting (I do believe that almost all mutations are negative or neutral), but as I have tried to explain it does not add anything at the level of causal explanation. Vague references to ill defined concepts, like self organizing systems and emerging properties, are only confounding and flawed, and have no explanatory power (I am ready to discuss each of these points in detail). Classical neo darwinism has potentially explanatory power: its mechanism of variation (RV) is well defined, and so is its necessity mechanism (NS). The problem is that the RV part, the random part, has not the probabilstic power to generate complex information selectable by the necessity part (NS). I have affrimed many times explixitly, and I repeat it here, that if complex fucntional information were deconstructable into simple selectable steps, the classical neo darwinian model "could" work, at least in principle. But that premise is not true, never has been. There are lots of logical and empirical reasons to be certain of that. In practice, the only viable theory to explain biological information (which is a fact) is the design theory.gpuccio_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

PS: In a separate thread I have been documenting Dr Matzke's record on what now has to be called a willful side tracking of an issue over the serious -- and patently scientific -- issue of the origin of FSCO/I in biology, through the trifecta fallacy, back to 2007 and beyond to at least 2005. There is some serious explaining to do here on NM's part.kairosfocus_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Jekel's review of TMLO when it came out: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2589926&blobtype=pdf __________ >> THE MYSTERY OF LIFE'S ORIGIN: REASSESSING CURRENT THEORIES. By Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, and Roger L. Olsen. New York, Philosophical Library, Inc., 1984, $14.95. Most non-scientists who read the popular press, and probably even most scientists, believe that recent work demonstrating the production of essential amino acids by the action of energy on gases assumed to be in the primordial atmosphere has solved most of the problems of abiogenesis, the idea that living organisms arose from non-living chemicals by the action of natural laws that can be observed today. In particular, the work of Miller and Urey, using electric spark, and that of Harada and Fox, using thermal synthesis, are well known. Others have used ultraviolet light alone or in combination with heat as the energy sources. To all who share the comfortable assumption that the scientific problems of abiogenesis are mostly resolved, this book will come as a real surprise. The authors have developed a critique of current hypotheses that is a synthesis of the concerns of many working in the field, combined with their own additional contributions. The essence of their critique is that
... in the atmosphere and in the ocean, dilution processes would dominate, making concentrations of essential ingredients too small for chemical evolution to be significant [p. 42].
The dilution processes referred to here include both the diffusion of small created quantities into the vastness of primordial seas and the action of destructive processes on those amino acids that are created. The special problems leading to the conclusion of dilution include: (1) evidence that life appeared very early in the earth's history, providing only a relatively short time for chemical evolution; (2) the fact that destructive processes would tend to dominate over creative processes; (3) the possibility of thermal decay in the oceans, and (4) the presence of various chemical decay processes. The latter include: the hydrolysis of hydrogen cyanide to formic acid, the reaction of carbonyl groups with amino acids, various reactions with the many non-proteinaceous amino acids that would also have been formed, and the termination of growing polypeptides and polynucleotides by reactions with a variety of chemicals or by hydrolysis. The authors say, ". . . survival of proteins in the soup would have been difficult, indeed" (p. 55) and "As with proteins, it is difficult to conceive of a viable nucleic acid existing in the primordial soup for more than a very brief period of time" (pp. 55-56). One of the most striking concepts to this reviewer was the emphasis that most of the proposed creative mechanisms would, in fact, be both creative and destructive to abiogenesis and that the estructive actions would tend to dominate. For example, some theories postulate that ultraviolet light would also have been destructive to many of the early chemicals. If one postulates a different energy source (problematic in itself) and enough oxygen-ozone to prevent ultraviolet-induced chemical decay, there would have been enough oxygen to be destructive to many primordial chemicals through oxidation processes. As a proposed solution to dilution-destruction problems, various concentration mechanisms are proposed, such as small concentrating ponds in areas protected from ultraviolet light with a heat source to speed up evaporation. However, such unlikely settings have problems of their own, and there is, apparently, no geological evidence for an organic prebiotic soup, either generally or locally (although evidence for such localized areas could easily have escaped detection to date). Some of the most fascinating chapters are those on the thermodynamics of abiogenesis, which is probably not surprising, given the fact that the first author's doctorate is in physical chemistry (the other two authors have doctorates in materials science and geochemistry). They state the results of the estimates of the required energy input per mole and conclude, "This trivial yield emphasizes the futility of protein formation under equilibrium conditions" (p. 142). They conclude that open system energy sources might be sufficient ".... for doing the chemical and thermal entropy work, but clearly inadequate to account for the configurational entropy work of coding (not to mention the sorting and selecting work)" (p. 165). They believe there is a need to postulate some sort of a coupling mechanism, or the thermodynamic laws alone would probably rule out abiogenesis along the lines of any of the current theories. The volume as a whole is evastating to a relaxed acceptance of current theories of abiogenesis. It is well written, and, though technical, much of the book is within the reach of the informed on-scientist. The book apparently has been well received by many who are working in the field of abiogenesis, such as Dean Kenyon and Robert Shapiro. The volume, however, has still another surprise for the reader, a philosophical epilogue in which several general theories of origins are considered: new natural laws, panspermia, directed panspermia, special creation by a creator within the cosmos, and special creation by a creator beyond the cosmos. This section was interesting, and provided information new to this reviewer, such as the strong position of Hoyle that ". .. Darwinism has failed to account for the origin of life and the development of terrestrial biology" (p. 196). Whether such a philosophical epilogue is appropriate or not must be left to the reader to decide, but, in any case, the philosophical questions are not introduced into the science portion of the text (which is 187 out of 217 pages). This book is reasonably priced and is strongly recommended to anyone interested in the problem of chemical and biological origins.>> _____________ Plainly, we can see the lines of thought that would come out more and more in the next 15 years emerging. Lines that are also developed at popular level in Pandas, whatever its defects may be. Some rethinking is in order, NM. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
02:56 AM
2
02
56
AM
PDT}

F/N: MikeGene weighs in on the Pandas talking point (HT: Wayback Machine): ___________ >> . . . The pivotal point for ID then came in 1984, when Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen published their book, The Mystery of Life’s Origins: Reassessing Current Theories. Since the book was not poofed into existence, the ideas contained within must have been developed in the early 80s. Thaxton et al.’s book was significant for many reasons. First, it was not a typical ‘creationist’ book coming from the Institute of Creation Research. On the contrary, the book received praise from Robert Shapiro and Robert Jastrow. Second, the book did not deal with evolution or its mechanism, but instead focused entirely on abiogenesis. Third, the authors were clearly influenced by Yockey: “As was pointed out, Yockey has noted that negative thermodynamic entropy (thermal) has nothing to do with information, and no amount of energy flow through the system and negative thermal entropy generation can produce even a small amount of information.” (p. 183) The Epilogue of Mystery is the most significant, as Thaxton et al. are clearly moving in the direction of ID as a response to abiogenesis. In this chapter, we find the other influence on the birth of ID: “Hoyle and Wickramasinghe argue that the evidence is overwhelming that intelligence provided the information and produced life.” (p. 197) Hoyle’s stuff was published in the late 70s and early 80s. This is a theme Thaxton et al. would repeat several times in the Epilogue:
If an Intelligent Creator produced the first life, then it may well be true that this observed boundary in the laboratory is real, and will persist independent of experimental progress or new discoveries about natural processes. Also an intelligent Creator could conceivably accomplish the quite considerable configurational entropy work necessary to build informational macromolecules and construct true cells. (p. 210)
and
The failure to identify such a contemporary abiotic cause of specified complexity is yet another way to support our conclusions that chemical evolution is an implausible hypothesis. (p. 211)
and
True, our knowledge of intelligence has been restricted to biology-based advanced organisms, but it is currently argued by some that intelligence exists in complex non-biological computer circuitry. If our minds are capable of imagining intelligence freed from biology in this sense, then who not in the sense of an intelligence being before biological life existed?
One year later, an even more influential book was published – Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. It’s easy to view Denton’s book as the crucial half-way point between creationism and intelligent design. Like Thaxton et al, Denton was not a member of the ICR. Yet he presented a typological view of life that played extremely well among the creationists. But more significant, in my mind, is another chapter near the end of the book, one entitled, “The Puzzle of Perfection.” In this chapter, Denton turns to the issue of design and includes a section that is almost poetic and inspiring. He writes, “Aside from any quantitative considerations, it seems intuitively impossible that such self-evident brilliance in the execution of design could have ever been the result of chance.” (p. 327) Denton then takes his readers on a walk-through of the cell, writing, “We wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around is, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines….We wonder even more as we watch the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that is one single functional protein module – would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century.” (p.328-9) [As an aside, I just noticed that it was Denton who introduced the term ‘molecular machine’ in 1985.] Then comes 1986, where Robert Shapiro publishes, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth. Although this book runs independently of the ID stream, it’s a powerful book that appears to confirm much of Thaxton et al.’s book. Anyway, from here we know that Denton’s book influenced Behe, Thaxton’s book influenced Kenyon, and that Thaxton, Kenyon, and Behe worked on Pandas. So there seems to be a more accurate, although less sensational, explanation for the birth of ID. In the 1950s, researchers such as Sanger, Watson, and Crick brought sequence to the center stage of molecular biology. In the 1960s, the genetic code was worked out and Michael Polanyi began to explore the implications of such things. In the 1970s, Hubert Yockey would consider sequence and begin to make arguments that would resonate among the creationists. Such resonance was then amplified by Fred Hoyle in the late 70s and early 80s. Along came Thaxton et al’s book in 1984, providing a powerful critique of abiogenesis and ends with tantalizing ideas about intelligence, specified complexity, and design. A year later, 1985, Michael Denton puts Darwin in the cross-hairs and ends his book with an inspiring section on design. In 1986, abiogenesis researcher Robert Shapiro gives abiogenesis a stinging criticism. The arguments from Hoyle, Thaxton et al., Denton, and Shapiro were all laid out from 1978-1986 and it’s safe to say that the authors of Pandas, Thaxton and Kenyon, were well immersed in them . . . . So there is no reason to invoke any form of marketing or political conspiracy. The authors of Pandas had begun to sincerely express a new argument, that while loosely fitting within the creationist context, was never dependent on such a context. Since 1987, intelligent design has continued to develop and I have already spelled this out . Both Behe and Dembski have contributed essential steps in developing intelligent design into a serious method to explore nature. And today, as you can see from this blog, there are ID evolutionists [--> Of course, Behe is a leading example]. Who knows what the future may hold? >> ___________ Until this came up in a web search, I did not know the above existed. But, my own reading of TMLO and Denton definitely pointed in this direction as the best historical explanation of the rots of modern ID. Design thought, in general, was by Plato's day, long since a serious option. NM has some serious explaining to do. For, it is a moral duty that when an innocent explanation is accessible and covers the material facts, a decent person will prefer it to an accusatory one. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 16, 2011
July
07
Jul
16
16
2011
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT}

"When did it become not true? How recently?" How, in the name of Aristotle, did a "true" statement become a false one?Ilion_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
There are a couple of interesting violations, however: one is horizontal gene transfer, which makes bacterial lineages much less of a tree and much more bushy and tangled.
HGT between bacteria is irrelevant Lizzie. Pick a story and stick with it please. Less of a tree? Yet elsewhere you have claimed repeatedly that these organisms don't speciate at all. So no, not less of a tree, no tree. I thought you were all about being completely honest? And since a nested hierarchy is not predicted for the most basic and fundamental forms of life known, from which forms supposedly all other life arose without speciation, your claim is clearly false.Mung_{July 15, 2011
July
07
Jul
15
15
2011
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply