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

_{Thomas Cudworth
July 9, 2011

Intelligent Design

6}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Nick Matzke:
If you aren’t convinced by these works, please come up with a better explanation for the evidence when you write your rebuttal.
Thanks Nick, I just ordered Prothero's book. 1-3 weeks delivery. I don't need an alternate theory. What I need is an argument and evidence for why I should believe yours. The fact that I can't explain something doesn't mean your theory is correct, or that it's even coherent. Heck, my theory is God pops everything into existence every second tuesday including fossils. According to that theory fossils don't tell us squat about common descent. Can you come up with a better theory than that?Mung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

CLASSIFICATION, groups subordinate to groups - Natural system - Rules and difficulties in classification, explained on the theory of descent with modification Oh my. In his own words even. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter13.htmlMung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth Liddle:
Mung – there’s always Darwin’s
Do you've changed your mind? Darwin's book did contain a theory of common descent?Mung_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

William. Stop. Breathe. Reread.Upright BiPed_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

Dr Matzke: Dismissive, jaundiced rhetoric that fails to seriously address on merits. As for thermodynamics issues, it seems you have not attended carefully to the question being highlighted then and now: energy conversion to do constructive counter-flow work, and the means by which this is done. Tag and dismiss tactics -- which you (sadly, predictably) used -- do not answer to that. FYI, as the just linked notes on Clausius point out, an open system that imports raw energy tends to INCREASE its entropy. It is coupling to an energy converter that does interesting things, and this brings up front centre the issue of the origin of complex functionally specific converters. And if Judge Jones' blind copying of NCSE/ACLU submissions, gross errors and all, is anything to go by, under current circumstances, too many judges may not be neutral observers in the relevant sense. (Something my ancestors would doubtless find quite familiar.) Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Upright,
How much more satisfying would it be if you didn’t have to tip toe around the evidence against you.
Then summarise this evidence, provide support for your theory and publish! What exactly is stopping you Upright? If this evidence is so persuasive and so available and so against Nick then why don't you hit him where it hurts with it? I.E. his peer group! Were you to publish a paper that used this claimed evidence and provided a counterpoint to Nick's claims then how is that not a very desirable thing from your (or ID's) point of view? If you are concerned about academic suppression, then don't worry. There is no single documented example of a paper being refused solely on the basis that it supports intelligent design! Not a single rejection letter! So have no fear on that regard! I look forwards to reading about how the evidence is in fact against Nick and how very wrong Nick is, but all in a nice peer reviewed format where your claims have been put to the test before being allowed to represent "science", as best as we poor mortals have found to do it as yet.WilliamRoache_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

114 kairosfocus 07/12/2011 5:58 am Dr Matzke: Above, despite abundant opportunity to do so [and even a link to the book in question], you again have refused to read the context to see how the words you view as red flags, are working in context.
And you are just putting on rosy-colored glasses in your interpretation of MLO, and ignoring all of the inconvenient evidence in favor of the position that it is a creationist work. Even if you could convince a neutral observer like a judge that creationists talking about "special creation" and "intelligent Creators", who clearly favor the creator-beyond-the-cosmos idea (citing the proposal of cranks like Hoyle & Wickramasinghe that INSECTS were the intelligent designers? C'mon, this is just interference thrown up to muddy the waters a little bit, no one takes it seriously, and neither did Thaxton et al.), there is yet more evidence that has to be considered by a fair observer. Bradley was, at the very time that book was being written, contracted as a creationist expert witness to defend Louisiana's "creation science" law, which would eventually be overturned by the Supreme Court in 1987. Kenyon, who wrote the forward to MLO, was also. Thaxton was, in the early 1980s, defending the "two-model approach", which was the strategy & language adopted by the creationists in that very Louisiana bill. Why does MLO cite and agree with, at the very end, an article by ultra-YEC creation scientist Jerry Bergman, endorsing the creation-science two-model approach? And finally, Bradley's informational thermodynamic argument in MLO and other places in the 1980s was quite clearly just an attempt to revive the long-discredited (well, except on UD) Second Law of Thermodynamics argument used by the YECs in slightly different form.NickMatzke_UD_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT}

Convinced about what Nick? Convinced that lifeforms change over enourmous periods of time? It must take a delicate personal and professional balance to remain so immodest when the support for your worldview can be reduced to such trivial observations. How much more satisfying would it be if you didn't have to tip toe around the evidence against you. Pity.Upright BiPed_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

It seems as if much of your argument is based on the assumption (albeit a shaky one) that the flagellum evolved via a Darwinian mechanism. Is there any phylogenetic evidence that indicates that a T3SS-like common ancestor preceded the flagellum and the modern T3SS? Evidence that is, that does not rest on the assumption that the flagellum evolved? Thanks.
Phylogenetics doesn't assume evolution through lineal descent, it tests it. If you end up with no statistical support for a tree structure, then you have no evidence of lineal descent. If you do, then you do. It is so incredibly common to see tree structure that most people don't mention the testing nature of it most of the time.
Incidentally, given that the modern T3SS is definitely not ancestral to the flagellum, you are left without any evidence as to where FliF, FliP, FliM, etc., might have come from.
In actual fact, phylogenetically we have, as further and further out sister groups: the "classic" flagellum of e.g. E. coli the spirochete and gram-positive flagella, which work but are missing some parts that are "crucial" in other flagella (~20 shared proteins, ~10 of them are axial filament proteins homologous to each other) the T3SS, which is either sister to flagella or right near the base of the divergence of the bacterial phyla (sharing ~10 proteins that are not axial filament proteins) a system in the bacterial phylum Chlamydiales that shares ~5 proteins with the flagellum and T3SS; probably some kind of intracellular transporter; this consistently branches very deeply even more deeply is the F1Fo-ATPase and relatives which is homologous to at least 3 flagellum proteins (it used to be 1, it increases every few years, this is what impressed Mike Gene) the core shared ATPase protein has many more even more remote homologs ...and lots of other individual flagellum proteins have known nonflagellar homologs, e.g. the motor proteins MotA and MotB, the muramidase, etc.NickMatzke_UD_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

Hi Nick, I’m one of those agnostics. Direct me to a good book, the best one you know of, that lays out the case for common descent. I’ll read it. So far no one has been able to direct me to any such book, so I remain agnostic. And I don’t mean they’ve directed me to a book and I disagree with the book. I mean, no book. Yet.
Well, how could you have missed these? 1. Prothero's book: Evolution: What the Fossils Say ...and... 2. Doug Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ If you aren't convinced by these works, please come up with a better explanation for the evidence when you write your rebuttal.NickMatzke_UD_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke: Again, you are not thinking phylogenetically. If the flagellum and T3SS are sister groups, then we have evidence that the common ancestor preceded both systems, and had all of the parts which the two systems share (which are all of the core parts of the secretion system, so probably we would call that ancestor a T3SS if we saw it). The relative ages of the flagellum crown group and the T3SS crown group are irrelevant, if the two groups are sister groups. It seems as if much of your argument is based on the assumption (albeit a shaky one) that the flagellum evolved via a Darwinian mechanism. Is there any phylogenetic evidence that indicates that a T3SS-like common ancestor preceded the flagellum and the modern T3SS? Evidence that is, that does not rest on the assumption that the flagellum evolved? Thanks. Incidentally, given that the modern T3SS is definitely not ancestral to the flagellum, you are left without any evidence as to where FliF, FliP, FliM, etc., might have come from.LivingstoneMorford_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

F/N: Bradley's presentation is now here on the wayback machine.kairosfocus_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Dr Matzke: Above, despite abundant opportunity to do so [and even a link to the book in question], you again have refused to read the context to see how the words you view as red flags, are working in context. Words do not carry a free-floating meaning, they draw meaning from usage in context; and they evolve. You know, or should know that c. 1985, there was no generally accepted terminology for what is now known as design theory, and so when:
1: TBO spoke of intelligent creators within the cosmos -- in a context explicitly citing Hoyle and Wickramasinghe [with INSECTS in the star role], 2: juxtaposed this with another alternative of a Creator beyond the cosmos, and 3: Explicitly acknowledged that:
The above discussion is not meant a s a scientific proof of a Crea-tor, but is merely a line of reasoning to show that Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is a plausible view of origin [as opposed to operations] science [211 - 12]
4: Also reasoning thusly:
Special Creation (whether from within the cos-mos or beyond it) differs from abiogenesis in holding that the source which produced life was intelligent.
5: Further arguing:
But does creation employ cause-effect and the principle of uniform-ity? Yes. In fact, it appeals to them a s the only way we can plausibly reconstruct the past. [--> Morris et al probably had a collective head shaking at this point, cf the key creationist premise here, from Job 38: those who were not there but speculate on projecting from present to past "darken counsel with words without knowledge" . . . ] Consider, for example, the matter of accounting for the informational molecule, DNA. We have observational evi-dence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical path-ways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had a n intelli-gent cause a t the beginning? Usually the answer given is no. But theoretically, at least, it would seem the answer should be yes in order to avoid the charge that the deck is stacked in favor of naturalism. [ --> a la Lewontin et al] We know that in numerous cases certain effects always [--> i.e. per massive observation, a well supported induction] have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects also have intel-ligent causes. For example, after looking up to see “BUY FORD” spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywrit-er even if we heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity [--> so close to the later terms] were we to come upon a n elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest. I n like manner a n intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed a s evidence of a n intelligent source. Why then doesn’t the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for a n intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a mes-| sage sequence such a s Morse code, it is such a message sequence.76 The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally to the genetic code and to the Morse code. True, our knowledge of intelli-gence has been estricted 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 why not in the sense of an intelligent being before biological life existed?77
. . . we are plainly seeing a fresh departure, something that is clearly not parallel to either Paley's Natural Theology, nor to biblical creationism's then strong tendency to present the evidence of design of life as pointing necessarily to the God of the Bible -- who was there and so tells us accurately what happened (more or less literally), on the typical pattern of creationist thought -- as creator of life on earth. The core concepts are plainly in place, what would be refined would be the distinct terminology that best communicates those concepts. Remember, too, this discussion is not in a context of debates over earth dating and flood remnants, but on the atmospheric composition of the early earth on the conventional timeline, on the interactions that would have deposited how much of what in the primordial oceans, and on the resulting thermodynamics of monomers in solution. That might be a theistic evolutionary context, related to the co-founder of modern evolutionism's thought [cf. here Wallace's The World of Life and intelligent evolution], but it is not Biblical creationism. The operative terms in TMLO -- one would hardly expect this in a high school supplementary text -- are entropy, enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, Brillouin's negentropy formulation of information [which has now been given significant support by the emergence of t6he informational approach to thermodynamics as a viable school of thought] and reaction kinetics for severely endothermic polymer molecules, on an adaptation of diffusion in light of the state not path function nature of entropy. The sharp contrast to say Morris' The Genesis Flood or his later Scientific Creationism COULD NOT BE more obvious. We find nowhere a trace of Gish's debate points over fossils and the like. This is very different, as in its own way another key ID foundational work of that era was, Denton's Evo, a Theory in Crisis. I put it to you, sir, that your refusal to acknowledge such major and patent conceptual and analytical distinctives speaks a lot, and not in your favour. As at now, you come across as a very familiar type to one such as the undersigned, who cut his intellectual eye-teeth on communist radicals. Namely, pardon a few plain words, as a closed minded, indoctrinated radical ideologue pushing favourite talking points regardless of evidence to the contrary, and in particular using the snipping of words out of their proper context to score debate points with those who do not know enough of the context to spot that this is a wrenching of ideas out of context. Since you have been corrected by several people from several perspectives, but insist on deceptively twisted debate points, I have but little choice other than to highlight that willful suppression of evident facts. And, to point out that this accords exactly with the sort of ruthless amoral factionism that Plato warned about as a typical characteristic of self-important evolutionary materialism 2350 years ago. An attitude I am all too familiar with from the communists of my youth. So, please stop dancin' wrong but strong. Now, of course, Dr Cudworth is correct to highlight that the current shape of design theory is distinct again from the way things were formulated in 1985 or so (and popularised in 1989 or so). Across the 1990s, the key issue that the real proper focus for scientific investigation was not on the agent that may be implied in a design event but on the empirical evidence that points to design as causal process. That tweredun, not whodunit. But even in 1985, it is plain that TBO realised this, as we can see from their observations above, which you chose to ignore. Similarly, it was recognised that thermodynamics was not he best way to address the signs of intelligence in what are credible artifacts of design [cf Bradley later, here], but to go direct to information theory and build on Orgel's concept of complex, specified information, in the context of the known empirically warranted source of such and the linked infinite monkeys analysis that highlights that beyond a certain threshold of complexity, observed specified and complex events E that jointly constitute a target zone T that is UN-representative of a wider space of possible configs, W, will not plausibly be reached by blind chance and mechanical necessity on the gamut of our solar system [500 bits] or our observed cosmos [1,000 bits]. This for the same reason why it is hard to find a small needle in a very large haystack if we are only able to make one small sample. Also, we would see that when we deal with multi-part, co-ordinated functionality it is not plausible that the parts would spontaneously be just right and in the just right organisation per a wiring diagram, by chance, mechanical necessity and blind co-option. When your car engine breaks down, you want specific parts, installed the right way int eh right place, or the whole will not work. Just a tiny misfit is often enough to break the whole down. On massive observation and related analysis, the only empirically well warranted source for such is the act of intelligent design. Indeed, on simple induction, the CSI and IC as just described are well-warranted, inductively strong signs of design as causal process. Onward they point to intelligent, choosing agents as the most credible cause. You may reject this, and you may provide arguments to substantiate that rejection, but one thing that is not legitimate, is to pretend that this is not a serious argument and a historic live option for serious scientific thinkers. But, consistently, I find, sir, that you and your ilk try to do just that which is illegitimate, and that too often you resort to illegitimate steps in logic and much more than logic. Multiply that by the sort of internet thuggery I have just experienced -- to the applause of too many of your party, sir -- and you will understand why I take an exceedingly dim view of such tactics. Cho man, do betta dan dat! GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

Mung - there's always Darwin's :)Elizabeth Liddle_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke, You still do not have a testable hypothesis nor any supporting data for the claim the T3SS and the flagellum evolved via accumulations of genetic accidents. Strange that for all of your bloviating you still refuse to address those facts.Joseph_{July 12, 2011
July
07
Jul
12
12
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT}

Nick Matzke (108): It's absolutely irrelevant whether Thaxton, Bradley, etc. were at one time creationists or are now creationists. That has nothing to do with the truth of falsehood of ID, which as a theoretical position has nothing at all to do with creationism. You're wasting your life trying to score debating points on the internet about historical trivia. If this is how you intend to spend your career as a scientist, I predict that your accomplishments in evolutionary biology will be few.Thomas Cudworth_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
Second, (a) the vast majority of ID guys constantly dispute macroevolution, on this blog and elsewhere; (b) disputing common ancestry is so scientifically ridiculous and in the face of so much scientific evidence that even being agnostic on macroevolution indicates massive problems with the scientific capacity of anyone who holds those positions
Hi Nick, I'm one of those agnostics. Direct me to a good book, the best one you know of, that lays out the case for common descent. I'll read it. So far no one has been able to direct me to any such book, so I remain agnostic. And I don't mean they've directed me to a book and I disagree with the book. I mean, no book. Yet.Mung_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT}

Well, if we define the flagellum as something along the lines of “a motility organelle composed of ~21 proteins (at minimum) which are known as MotA, MotB, FliG, FliF, etc. etc.” then, per that definition, it would seem that the flagellum is older than the T3SS. In other words – and I think this is the main point I am trying to make with regards to the age of the flagellum and T3SS – the actual protein FliF is older than its homologous counterpart YscJ. FlhA is older than YscV, FliP is older than YscR, etc. The implication of this, of course, is that for many of the flagellar proteins you have no homologous counterparts that could have served as precursor proteins in the distant past.
Again, you are not thinking phylogenetically. If the flagellum and T3SS are sister groups, then we have evidence that the common ancestor preceded both systems, and had all of the parts which the two systems share (which are all of the core parts of the secretion system, so probably we would call that ancestor a T3SS if we saw it). The relative ages of the flagellum crown group and the T3SS crown group are irrelevant, if the two groups are sister groups.NickMatzke_UD_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:57 PM
8
08
57
PM
PDT}

This — as the highlights show — clearly documents a process of thought that is building on the past and moving towards a new frame, what we now call Intelligent Design. On the strength of this and its wider context, I can see the terminology in Pandas and its evolution against the backdrop of the conceptual development. Once I do that, I see that the sort of jaundiced, well-poisoning approach taken by Matzke and ilk is unwarranted and unfair.
Your very quotes of Thaxton et al.'s "Mystery of Life's Origin" explicitly endorse "special creation" and "intelligent Creator" -- the very language used by Paley himself! How can this not be considered creationism? How can Pandas be creationism, a position even Thomas so clearly acknowledges, and an earlier book on the same topic by the same authors, who at the time in the mid-1980s were explicitly defending creationism in various publications, not be creationism? MLO began as a book project at *Probe Ministries*, for goodness' sake. Have a look at what Thaxton and Bradley were doing in the early 1980s, just as they were starting the MLO project: http://www.icr.org/article/creation-science-korea/NickMatzke_UD_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:44 PM
8
08
44
PM
PDT}

Dr Cudworth: It is sad that you too have had to turn aside to answer a willful misrepresentation based distraction from the main point of the thread. But, you needed to set a point on record. And, while I think Pandas is more in the lines of an emergent work at the time when modern design theory [so far as life origins issues are concerned -- cosmological ID is significantly older . . . ] was in gestation, and point to the ways that "creator" was used in TMLO as material context, I can understand your own view. I think something more needs to be said; for, this is all about a new, evolutionary materialist magisterium dressed in the holy lab coat imposing their ideological will due to disproportionate cultural power. (And, I should note that for me, once I saw the sort of mafioso implied threat made against my family, I have had to take a far more stringent view of the sort of behaviour you very properly censured above.) Let us never forget what Lewontin had to say, in that infamous NYRB article in January 1997:
To Sagan, as to all but a few other scientists, it is self-evident [[actually, science and its knowledge claims are plainly not immediately and necessarily true on pain of absurdity, to one who understands them; this is another logical error, begging the question , confused for real self-evidence; whereby a claim shows itself not just true but true on pain of patent absurdity if one tries to deny it . . ] that the practices of science provide the surest method of putting us in contact with physical reality, and that, in contrast, the demon-haunted world rests on a set of beliefs and behaviors that fail every reasonable test [[i.e. an assertion that tellingly reveals a hostile mindset, not a warranted claim] . . . . It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes [[another major begging of the question . . . ] to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute [[i.e. here we see the fallacious, indoctrinated, ideological, closed mind . . . ], for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door . . . [Fuller excerpt and discussion here. (If you want to complain that the onward remarks JUSTIFY such a priori censorship and turn this into an out of context quote, kindly read there, and then reflect on how your own side has so willfully and consistently distorted those who have thought differently, i.e reflect kindly on the double-standard tactics implicit in such.)]
We could add here citations from the US NAS and NSTA -- read onwards at the linked -- to show that this is indeed dominant among such elite circles. And yet, it is a patent betrayal of the sacred charge of science, that -- however provisional and limited its methods and degree of warrant possible on inductive reasoning -- it should always prize and seek the truth about our world. Materialist ideology in a lab coat is a betrayal of the lab coat. I therefore find it utterly hypocritical for those who live in a materialist glass house, to be casting stones at those who are indeed trying seriously -- however imperfectly -- to genuinely discover what science can teach us about origins based on tested, empirically reliable signs. Philip Johnson's rebuke to such imposers of a priori materialist ideology, in First Things, later on in 1997, is apt:
For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]
Now, can we return to the focal topic for this thread? I would indeed like to find out the actual balance on the merits on the subject of being actually current -- per participating actively in current professional discussions -- on technical evolutionary biology issues. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
08:28 PM
8
08
28
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke: “(a) that by itself provides no evidence the T3SS *descends* from the flagellum, which was the original contention.” Actually, my original contention was that “I am convinced that the T3SS is almost certainly younger than the flagellum,” irrespective of the contentions of other individuals debating here. “Also, the ‘age to the last common ancestor of (currently living, sampled) flagella’ is not going to be the same as the ‘age to the first thing that we would describe as a flagellum.’ Ditto for the T3SS.” Well, if we define the flagellum as something along the lines of “a motility organelle composed of ~21 proteins (at minimum) which are known as MotA, MotB, FliG, FliF, etc. etc.” then, per that definition, it would seem that the flagellum is older than the T3SS. In other words – and I think this is the main point I am trying to make with regards to the age of the flagellum and T3SS – the actual protein FliF is older than its homologous counterpart YscJ. FlhA is older than YscV, FliP is older than YscR, etc. The implication of this, of course, is that for many of the flagellar proteins you have no homologous counterparts that could have served as precursor proteins in the distant past.LivingstoneMorford_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

And as Mike Gene correctly notes in "The Design Matrix" Intelligent Design can trace its roots back to Aristotle, Plato, Socrates & Diogenes- the teleologists vs. the non-teleologists- namely Democritus, Leucippus of Elea, and Epicurus of Samos- Geez Nick do a little research.Joseph_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT}

Nick Matzke:
That’s what ID was initially conceived as — basically a compromise where the young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists would stop arguing about the age of the earth and instead focus on bashing “Darwinism”. Young-earth creationism + old-earth creationism = still creationism.
I would say, and judging by Anthony Flew's change of mind, ID was conceived as an a-religious approach to the origins and evolution/ development questions. ID does not have anything to do with the Bible and all formal definitions of Creationism require the Bible as the sole authority. Nick Matzke:
Second, (a) the vast majority of ID guys constantly dispute macroevolution, on this blog and elsewhere; (b) disputing common ancestry is so scientifically ridiculous and in the face of so much scientific evidence that even being agnostic on macroevolution indicates massive problems with the scientific capacity of anyone who holds those positions
The premise still remains untestable Nick, therefor it is out of the realm of science. Heck you can't even produce positive evidence for genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to give rise to new, useful and functional multi-part systems. Evo-devo hasn't shed any light on what makes an organism what it is. What I am saying Nick, is it is just good scientific sense to challenge the concept of universal common ancestry. But then again you don't seem to care about that...Joseph_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: I agree that Darwinists should stop calling ID proponents creationists, and that ID proponents should stop calling chemical origin of life theories Darwinist. But Matzke and Co. will never stop calling ID "creationist," because their interest is not in representing ID proponents as they wish to be understood, but in slanting the public image of ID so that it appears anti-scientific, anti-intellectual, connected with backward religion, etc. So take it up with Nick.Thomas Cudworth_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT}

Elizabeth: 1. Since you and Nick don't seem to understand a point that is obvious to all ID people and to all impartial observers, let me state it in large letters: OF PANDAS AND PEOPLE WAS NOT AN ID BOOK. IT WAS A CREATIONIST BOOK. IT HAS NO STATUS, ABSOLUTELY NONE, AMONG SERIOUS ID THEORISTS. In case that is not clear enough, I will elaborate. Yes, Behe endorsed *parts of* that book -- mainly the parts that he wrote. He showed discomfort with other parts of it, as the Dover Trial testimony plainly shows. Nick Matzke knows this, but conceals it from the public, because he wants to paint Behe as a creationist. This is part of what I mean by an unconcern with the truth. Nick is quite willing to lead people to believe what he knows not to be true, i.e., that Behe is a creationist. Behe is in fact an unapologetic evolutionist. Yes, the same publisher later *radically* revised Of Pandas and People (to the point where it was a in reality a new book), and the new book is not creationist in any sense of the word. Not one argument, not one sub-argument, depends on a prior assumption of the truth of creationism. If you don't know that, you haven't read the book. (I have.) And if you (and/or Nick) haven't read the book, you have no business talking about it. In sum: it doesn't matter if Of Pandas and People was the most blatant piece of creationism ever written. Its flaws, whatever they may be, have no bearing on what ID proponents contest for today. Anyone who raises *Of Pandas and People* is not concerned with the truth of ID, but is just trying to score debating points. 2. You may have great expertise in science (though I don't know that), but clearly you have no training in logic. I said that Nick's comment was puerile. It was. You protested that ID people, too, have made puerile comments. That is irrelevant to my charge against Nick. It like arguing that it's OK for a student to cheat on an exam if other students have cheated. The point is that Nick, after five years or more in this business, still hasn't learned to argue like a grown-up. This constitutes a case of arrested intellectual development. Other cases of this arrested development include Abbie Smith, P. Z. Myers, Larry Moran, and Jeffrey Shallit, all of whom typically argue like know-it-all teen-agers rather than earnest, dignified researchers and teachers. 3. "We are all concerned with the truth". For you, that may be a correct statement. For certain others, it is definitely false. Not all pro-Darwinists and anti-ID people are concerned with the truth, either about ID or about evolution, at all times. Many of them are animated by a desire to believe that there is no God; this causes them to wish to block any inference of a designer, because if a designer exists, that designer might be God. That is, many pro-Darwinist ID critics are motivated by an a priori commitment to atheism and all that follows from it (materialism, etc.). And this is plain from the way they argue. They do not politely rebut; they rage. They sneer. They frequently openly attack not merely ID arguments, but religion itself, the notion of objective morality itself, and so on. They have tipped their hand. They are not neutral. Others are determined to defend classic neo-Darwinism out of professional ego. If you have committed yourself to a theory, and had ridiculed all challenges to that theory, and slowly the evidence for the theory erodes, and the evidence for the challenger (e.g., Margulis's view, or self-organizational views) starts to look better, the pure scientist would simply abandon his old theory and embrace the new. But scientists are human, with egos, and they often stick to their guns, and even resort to underhanded means to try to stangle the new truths in their crib. This can be done in all kinds of ways, e.g., through hiring new faculty who support the old view rather than the new one, by denying tenure and grants to those who support the new view, etc. If you think that scientists never engage in such activities, if you think they are all pure seekers of knowledge who have transcended egoistic motivations, you are completely naive about what goes on behind the scenes in a modern university. There is further evidence against your claim. Someone who is totally open to truth argues in this way: "I grant you point A, but I still disagree with B" "Good point! I never thought of that. I can't think of a good rebuttal today, but give me a couple of weeks to mull it over, maybe do some research..." "I admit you are right that the precision of evolutionary models is not even close to the precision of models in chemistry and physics, though I still think evolutionary modelling is reasonable because..." "I admit that many on my side loudly proclaimed for an overwhelming preponderance of junk DNA, and I admit that the Darwinian side greatly erred in championing that, and I admit that design people were less hasty and more prudent on that point" Etc. Elizabeth, have you ever heard Nick Matzke or Larry Moran or P. Z. Myers argue in the above way against an ID proponent? No, that's not the way the culture-war Darwinists argue, Elizabeth, and if you are awake, with your eyes open, you know this. They *never* retract a point. They *never* grant that an ID theorist has a good point. All ID theorists are "IDiots", bad scientists, lack peer-reviewed publications, etc. Read the book reviews of Behe. I've been in the academic game a long time, likely longer than most readers posting here, and I know what book reviews written by honest academics look like. They engage in intellectual conversation with the spirit of the book. They mention not only bad points but also good points of the book they are reviewing. They don't motive-monger. They don't utter ad hominem arguments. Yet all the reviews of Behe's books by Darwinsts read like this: "Behe is wrong on Page 1. He's wrong on Page 2. He's wrong on Page 3. He's a creationist. He's wrong on Page 4. He's wrong on Page 5. Even a first-year biology student wouldn't have made so stupid an error. The Discovey Institute plans a secret theocracy. He's wrong on Page 6..." Repeat as desired. These are not honest academic reviews by scientists open to learning anything from Behe. These are diatribes written by people who decided Behe was wrong before they opened the front cover. (And on Amazon, we've *literally* had book reviews trashing ID books where the reviewer hasn't opened the cover.) And when ID proponents ask not for ID in the schools, but only for criticism of Darwinian mechanisms in the schools -- and not criticism based on religion, but based on *peer-reviewed scientific literature*, the NCSE uses all its resources, financial and rhetorical, to stop this. Those aren't the actions of an organization devoted to truth. An organization devoted to truth would say: "If there are criticisms of Darwinism in the scientific literature, then by all means let these criticisms be taught to high school biology students." But Eugenie doesn't want any doubts about Darwin in the high schools. That could give comfort to creationists, and we can't have that, can we? Even if the criticisms of Darwin are legitimate. So, Elizabeth, many ID critics and Darwin-defenders are governed by prejudice, metaphysical prejudice, professional prejudice, and prejudices springing from tactical needs, and that prejudice does affect the direction and quality of their science. It blinds them to certain possibilities, and it causes them to argue with gross unfairness, dishonesty and violence against other possibilities. So Elizabeth, maybe you are animated by a pure concern for the truth. But don't try to tell us that this is true of all the people you are defending. We all have the scars here to show otherwise. I am not of course saying that there are no evolutionary biologists who are concerned with the truth. I expect that many are. But they are not the ones who savage ID people daily; they are not the ones trying to control the school system so that it teaches exclusively neo-Darwinism. We ID supporters have no problem with evolutionary biology as such. We have objections to neo-Darwinian dogmatism, especially when it is accompanied by lies, insults, and deliberate misrepresentations. And many of the people I have named above have willfully perpetrated or at least condoned such lies, insults, and misrepresentations. These are not people who are concerned with the truth. Even if you are.Thomas Cudworth_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT}

Flannery: very well said.kairosfocus_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

PS: I see some further loaded conspiracy theorist speculation just above. I think that Dr Matzke should be called upon to answer to the fact that the foundational technical book for ID -- Thaxton et al's TMLO -- was a work as just clipped from in its epilogue, one that focussed its main effort on an analysis of the prebiotic environment, abiogenesiss theories and the issues connected to the thermodynamics of abiogensis. Indeed as the book bridged from surveying the relevant thermodynamics [ch 7] to address the origin of life in light of the entropy challenges implied [ch 8], its authors argued:
While the maintenance of living systems is easily rationalized in terms of thermodynamics, the origin of such living systems is quite another matter. Though the earth is open to energy flow from the sun, the means of converting this energy into the necessary work to build up living systems from simple precursors remains at present unspecified (see equation 7-17). The “evolution” from biomonomers of to fully functioning cells is the issue. Can one make the incredible jump in energy and organization from raw material and raw energy, apart from some means of directing the energy flow through the system? In Chapters 8 and 9 we will consider this question, limiting our discussion to two small but crucial steps in the proposed evolutionary scheme namely, the formation of protein and DNA from their precursors. It is widely agreed that both protein and DNA are essential for living systems and indispensable components of every living cell today.11 Yet they are only produced by living cells. Both types of molecules are much more energy and information rich than the biomonomers from which they form. Can one reasonably predict their occurrence given the necessary biomonomers and an energy source? Has this been verified experimentally? These questions will be considered . . .
I would think a discussion that pivots on entropy, Gibbs free energy, enthalpy and the like, and uses these to set up Chemical kinetics equilibrium calculations is not at all to be recognised in the above references to:
ID was initially conceived as — basically a compromise where the young-earth creationists and old-earth creationists would stop arguing about the age of the earth and instead focus on bashing “Darwinism”. Young-earth creationism + old-earth creationism = still creationism.
Frankly, Dr Matzke either knows better than this distortion, or he should (in the DUTIES OF CARE sense) know better. So -- pardon, but directness is called for at this point -- he is plainly being willfully misleading and distorted, in service to a rhetorical agenda long since addressed in the UD Weak Argument correctives top right this and every UD page, which he should read and take to heart, then amend his ways. Which takes us right back to the force of Plato's caution about the amorality of evolutionary materialism and its tendency to lead to ruthless amoral abusive facitonalism. We have been warned 2,350 years ago now.kairosfocus_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

To get back to the main point, I think the real lesson here is that for all the bombast and posturing by these "culture-war defenders" (an apt phrase), neo-Darwinism is far less crucial to biology than one might think. Steve Fuller updated Nicolas Rasmussen's 1994 study and found that of the 1,273,417 articles published from 1960 to 2005 and indexed in the two leading biology databases, only 12% contained "evolution" and its variants in the keywords and abstracts; "natural selection" was even scarcer at a paltry 0.4%. Fuller's conclusion seems ineluctable, "neo-Darwinism could be abandoned tomorrow, and most research programs in genetics - and other biological disciplines - would continue apace." (See his Science vs Religion?, 2007, pp. 131-132.) All truth claims aside, in actual practice Darwinism and its modern synthesis is simply not the indispensable paradigm in biology its greatest defenders would have us believe. "Although Darwin's theory is very often compared favorably to the great theories of mathematical physics on the grounds that evolution is as well established as gravity," David Berlinski wryly notes, "very few physicists have been heard observing that gravity is as well established as evolution. They know better and they are not stupid."Flannery_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

Nick you state: (b) Also, the “age to the last common ancestor of (currently living, sampled) flagella” is not going to be the same as the “age to the first thing that we would describe as a flagellum.” Ditto for the T3SS.' But yet you have ZERO evidence of any precursor: 'Since the flagellum is so well designed and beautifully constructed by an ordered assembly pathway, even I, who am not a creationist, get an awe-inspiring feeling from its 'divine' beauty.,, if the flagellum evolved from a primitive form, ...where are the remnants of its ancestor? Why don't we see any intermediate or simpler forms of flagella than what they are today? How was it possible that the flagella have evolved without leaving traces in history? - Shin-Ichi Aizawa - What Is Essential for Flagella Assembly? - 2009 - Pili and Flagella - Chpt. 6 i.e. Nick you assume the conclusion into the very question being asked!!! i.e. how did the flagellum arise?? By design or by chance??? seeing that you have no solid evidence to back up your allusions to ancient mystery precursors should not, if you trying to be honest, send up a huge red flag as to the point you wish to make??? The whole thing is begging the question Nick!!! Moreover Nick since you cannot make this 'trivial' transition from T3SS to Flagellum with any kind of empirical certainty, what in the world makes you think you can extrapolate the much more complex changes witnessed in the 'hypothesized' lineage of Homo from your non-existent empirical evidence for T3SS to Flagellum?? It simply does not follow for you to make such unfounded leaps!! ================ Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.htmlbornagain77_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

Dr Cudworth: Pardon an aside, I do think that the loaded claims being advanced above need a measure of correction for record where they are being made, and so following up from my earlier remarks at 46 above. Do forgive me. I do think your main point is being well made, and the issue of a self-serving double standard on the part of the evolutionary materialism advocates needs to be faced on this front also. If necessary, I am amenable to set up a branch thread to further discuss these issues. So, to the aside, with a clip from TMLO, 1985, and I address Dr Liddle precisely because she has been reasonable: ++++++++++++++++ Dr Liddle: I do ask you to read the actual text of the rough drafts here [as previously linked], and note that in the 1980's the terminology we are now using did not exist as a standard. But, the line of thought that led to how we now speak and think was clearly being pioneered by that Cancer Survivor Chemist and his colleagues. I think you are making the error of seeing the word "creation" as a well-poisoning red flag, when in fact the usage of the terms and the context shows something sharply distinct from Biblical creationism and from traditional natural theology was coming about. And, the just made reference in TMLO shows plainly that this predates the 1987 decisions that were made so much of. In fact, we are looking at people who pioneered in developing the concepts and terms, and who as I noted earlier right from TMLO -- have you read e.g. the Epilogue in TMLO? -- were moving in a fresh direction:
Intelligent contrivances harness a portion of the energy flow for work in the human world. How some energy converting/coupling means might arise without intelligence in the inorganic world before life is difficult to say [p. 191] . . . . We cannot disagree that there is need for a n alternative to chemi- cal evolution. In recognition of the fact that Panspermia offers no theory of origins, it must implicitly assume chemical evolution on some other locale in the cosmos, where conditions are more favor-able than on earth. Many of the objections raised concerning terres-trial chemical evolution must, however, apply to other planets by the principle of uniformity. In any setting it comes down to the fact that natural forces acting alone must be capable of supplying the neces-sary configurational entropy work of building the protein, DNA, etc., and then assembling the cell. We know by experience that intelligent investigators can synthesize proteins and build genes. | We still have no evidence it can be done by unassisted abiotic means [193 -4] . . . . An adequate theory of origins requires a n information source capable of generating chemical complexity. Hoyle and Wickrama- | singhe argue that the evidence is overwhelming that intelligence provided the information and produced life . . . . Hoyle and Wickramasinghe deny the creator is the traditional supernatural God. They envision a creator within the total cosmos [196 - 7] . . . . In agreement with views of abiogenesis, and the foregoing view of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos holds there was once a time in the past when matter was in a simple arrangement, inert and lifeless. Then at a later time matter was in the state of biological specificity sufficient for bearing and sustaining life. Special Creation (whether from within the cos-mos or beyond it) differs from abiogenesis in holding that the source which produced life was intelligent. Throughout history, many writers have attempted to describe the work of the Creator. What they all seem to hold in common is the idea that a n intelligent Creator informed inert* matter by shaping it a s a potter fashions clay. Some representations are quite anthropomor-phic, others less so. But there is considerable agreement that some-how a n active intellect produced life [200] . . . . It is doubtful that any would deny that an intelligent Creator could conceivably prepare earth with oxidizing conditions and create life. And, of course, the data discussed above are consistent (and compati-ble) with this view of Special Creation. What we would like to know,of course, is whether a n intelligent Creator did create life. The ques- tion, unfortunately, is beyond the power of science to answer. Another question which can be answered, however, is whether such a view as Special Creation is plausible [210] . . . . But does creation employ cause-effect and the principle of uniform- ity? Yes. In fact, it appeals to them a s the only way we can plausibly reconstruct the past. Consider, for example, the matter of accounting for the informational molecule, DNA. We have observational evi-dence in the present that intelligent investigators can (and do) build contrivances to channel energy down nonrandom chemical path-ways to bring about some complex chemical synthesis, even gene building. May not the principle of uniformity then be used in a broader frame of consideration to suggest that DNA had a n intelli-gent cause a t the beginning? Usually the answer given is no. But theoretically, at least, it would seem the answer should be yes in order to avoid the charge that the deck is stacked in favor of naturalism. We know that in numerous cases certain effects always have intelligent causes, such as dictionaries, sculptures, machines and paintings. We reason by analogy that similar effects also have intel-ligent causes. For example, after looking up to see "BUY FORD" spelled out in smoke across the sky we infer the presence of a skywrit-er even if we heard or saw no airplane. We would similarly conclude the presence of intelligent activity were we to come upon a n elephant-shaped topiary in a cedar forest. I n like manner a n intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed a s evidence of a n intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for a n intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a mes-| sage sequence such a s Morse code, it is such a message sequence.76 The so-called Shannon information laws apply equally to the genetic code and to the Morse code. True, our knowledge of intelli-gence 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 why not in the sense of an intelligent being before biological life existed?77 We believe that if this question is considered, it will be seen that most often it is answered in the negative simply because it is thought to be inappropriate to bring a Creator into science. The above discussion is not meant a s a scientific proof of a Crea-tor, but is merely a line of reasoning to show that Special Creation by a Creator beyond the cosmos is a plausible view of origin [as opposed to operations] science [211 - 12] . . . . When we are asked to consider "far out" or "strange" ideas such as Special Creation, a s were the authors just a few years ago, typically the response is exactly that mentioned by Bohm a s cited earlier. "His first reaction is often of violent disturbance." This was our reaction, too. However, as Bohm goes on to say, if one is willing to "stick with the inquiry rather than escape into anger or unjustified rejection of contrary ideas ... he becomes aware of the assumptive character of a great many previously unquestioned features of his own thinking." The process as Bohm described it can sometimes be painful (it was to one of the authors) but the quest for truth has never been easy, and has on more than a few occasions been known to make one unpopular. [213]
This -- as the highlights show -- clearly documents a process of thought that is building on the past and moving towards a new frame, what we now call Intelligent Design. On the strength of this and its wider context, I can see the terminology in Pandas and its evolution against the backdrop of the conceptual development. Once I do that, I see that the sort of jaundiced, well-poisoning approach taken by Matzke and ilk is unwarranted and unfair. Multiply that by Judge Jones' decision to exclude the publishers of Pandas from the trial, so the people who knew the most about the book used as the wedge to drive in the imposition of a priori materialism were no6t allowed to speak for themselves. This is an extreme form of the strawman tactic and it is a shameful moment in American jurisprudence. Surely, we can do better. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{July 11, 2011
July
07
Jul
11
11
2011
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 12 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply