Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as "intelligent design" (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?
One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful. A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper. Although citation counts are not completely reliable metrics for evaluating scientific papers, they do give some general information about what papers are considered important.
ID advocates like to point to lists of "peer-reviewed publications" advocating their position. Upon closer examination, their lists are misleading, packed with publications that are either not in scientific journals, or that appeared in venues of questionable quality, or papers whose relationship to ID is tangential at best. Today, however, I'd like to look at a different issue: the fruitfulness of intelligent design. Let's take a particular ID publication, one that was trumpeted by ID advocates as a "breakthrough", and see how much further scientific work it inspired.
The paper I have in mind is Stephen Meyer's paper “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, which was published, amid some controversy, in the relatively obscure journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington in 2004. Critics pointed out that the paper was not suited to the journal, which is usually devoted to taxonomic issues, and that the paper was riddled with mistakes and misleading claims. In response, the editors of the journal issued a disclaimer repudiating the paper.
Putting these considerations aside, what I want to do here is look at every scientific publication that has cited Meyer's paper to determine whether his work can fairly said to be "fruitful". I used the ISI Web of Science Database to do a "cited reference" search on his article. This database, which used to be called Science Citation Index, is generally acknowledged to be one of the most comprehensive available. The search I did included Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Even such a search will miss some papers, of course, but it will still give a general idea of how much the scientific community has been inspired by Meyer's work.
I found exactly 9 citations to Meyer's paper in this database. Of these, counting generously, exactly 1 is a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.
By contrast, let's compare Meyer's work with another paper, in the same field, of roughly the same length, and published in the same year:
W. G. Joyce, J. F. Parham, and J. A. Gauthier, "Developing a protocol for the conversion of rank-based taxon names to phylogenetically defined clade names, as exemplified by turtles", Journal of Paleontology 78 (5) (2004), 989-1013.
This paper has been cited 60 times since 2004, according to ISI Web of Science, by researchers writing in journals such as Systematic Biology, Journal of Anatomy, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, Proceedings of the Royal Society B - Biological Sciences, Journal of Morphology, Zootaxa, Journal of Ornithology, Naturwissenschaften, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, etc., etc. Clearly there is a substantial difference in opinion of this paper, versus Meyer's.
Now let's look at all 9 papers that have cited Meyer's work, as reported by ISI Web of Science. I have read every paper, except paper 4 (Luskin); for that paper I had to be content with an abstract.
1. J. Giles, "Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design", Nature 431 (7005) (Sept 9 2004), 114. A one-column news article in the news section of Nature about the publication of Meyer's paper. Not a scientific research paper.
2. K. M. Helgen, "Meyer paper: don't hang the Soc. Wash. out to dry", Nature 432 (7020) (Dec 23 2004), 949. A letter to the editor defending the reputation of the journal that published Meyer's article. Money quote: "Given the Proceedings’ taxonomic focus, Meyer’s ID paper is clearly out of place. Its publication represents a lapse of the journal’s usual editorial policies, and has been swiftly repudiated (www.biolsocwash.org). However, although the publication of Meyer’s paper is lamentable, it need not be used to trivialize the Proceedings’ long, respectable and ongoing tradition of cataloguing global biodiversity." Not a scientific research paper.
3. Mark Terry, "One nation, under the designer", Phi Delta Kappan 86 (4) (Dec 2004), 264. Abstract. Full paper (subscription required). This journal is a professional journal for educators. The paper's subtitle reads, "Mr. Terry alerts readers to a new, more insidious anti-evolutionist strategy. And the redefinition of science is only the first step." Meyer's paper is discussed, as follows: "The supposed "scientific revolution" is a creation of public relations. A science teacher cannot go to any major science journal or scientific organization and find out about all this new research - because there is none. In the fall of 2004 an ID article by a Discovery Institute Fellow appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Association of Washington, a venerable but formerly obscure journal dealing with subtle taxonomic issues. The flurry of responses to the article gives a good picture of the current state of ID as science: the governing council of the journal almost immediately disavowed the article's publication." Not a scientific research paper.
4. C. Luskin, "Alternative viewpoints about biological origins as taught in public schools, Journal of Church and State 47 (3) (Summer 2005), 583-617. First page. A journal of law and social science. Luskin is "Program Officer in Public Policy and Legal Affairs" at the Discovery Institute. Not a scientific research paper.
5. B. H. Weber, "Emergence of life", Zygon 42 (4) (Dec 2007), 837-856. Zygon is self-described as a journal of "religion and science", but I would consider it a philosophy journal. A review article. Of the nine papers, this is the one that is the closest to a scientific research article that cites Meyer approvingly: "The emergence and increase of novel, specified, functional information remains the crucial issue." He thinks that Meyer's questions have been answered by "the new science of emergent complexity".
6. J. Koperski, "Two bad ways to attack intelligent design and two good ones", Zygon 43 (2) (June 2008), 433-449. Again, Zygon is self-described as a journal of "religion and science", but I would consider it a philosophy journal. This article focuses on the rhetoric of intelligent design and its opponents. Not a scientific research paper.
7. Emilia Currás and Enrique Wulff Barreiro, "Integration in Europe of human genetics results obtained by Spaniards in the USA: A historical perspective", Scientometrics 75 (3) (2008), 473-493. This is the strangest paper of the nine. It purports to be about "the mobility of Spanish biochemists from Europe to the United States over the past 80 years". It cites Meyer as follows: "In the context of cancer research, the (chemical and reductionist) search for the molecular basis of cancer induction is combined with the holistic vision of the close relationship between form and function in physiology [Shimkin, 1974; Meyer, 2004; Marra & Boland, 1995]". Although it is about "form", Meyer's paper doesn't mention "cancer" or "physiology" at all. Perhaps the citation was really meant to refer to something completely different? In any event, this paper is more a historical discussion, not a scientific research paper.
8. S. L. Shafer, "Critical thinking in anesthesia: Eighth honorary FAER research lecture", Anesthesiology 110 (4) (2009), 729-737. Full paper here. An article criticizing various anti-scientific trends. Here is how he cites Meyer: "One can find many Web sites devoted to intelligent design. However, the story in the peer-reviewed literature is quite different. Of 99 articles identified by a PubMed search of intelligent design (on November 14, 2008), the majority are defenses of evolution against claims of intelligent design. Not appearing in the search is the single scientific article supporting the claims of intelligent design written by Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute. This article was published without peer review in a nonindexed journal and was subsequently retracted by the journal for insufficient scientific merit." Not a scientific research paper. [Update: Shafer's claim about "published without peer review" is not correct, and the paper was not actually formally "retracted". "Disavowed" is more like it.]
9. Juan E. Carreño, Fernando Hansen, et al., Some considerations about the theory of intelligent design, Biological Research 42 (2) (2009), 223-232. Full paper here. An article, critical of intelligent design, in an obscure Chilean biology journal. However, the topic is more about philosophy than science. Money quote: "We also reject the claim that ID is a legitimate scientific theory, because it does not exhibit the classical characteristics that a scientific kind of knowledge must have." Not a scientific research paper that cites Meyer approvingly.
The grand total: exactly 1 paper (Weber's) can be said to be a scientific paper that cites Meyer approvingly, and even that is subject to debate.* This meager record does not support the claim that ID is a scientific revolution with far-reaching consequences.
ID advocates are constantly telling us that intelligent design is a new scientific paradigm that will prove fruitful. Five years after ID's flagship "peer-reviewed" paper, that does not seem to be the truth.
* No doubt ID advocates will produce other papers, published in obscure venues, that cite Meyer, that I missed. For example, Google scholar lists a few more, including:
10. Fernando Castro-Chávez, "Hepatology Microarrays, antiobesity and the liver", Annals of Hepatology 3 (4) (Oct-Dec 2004), 137-145. Full paper here. A case of inappropriate citation. The only citation to Meyer comes in the final paragraph, which reads "... to better describe the identity and function of genes and genomes, composers of a natural, complex, and precise biological software that as a genetic program, contributes to the healthy programming and the pathological reprogramming of life." The author appears to be an intelligent design advocate. I predict that inappropriate citation -- the bogus insertion of citations to pro-ID papers in irrelevant contexts -- will become more popular in the future, as creationists attempt to bolster their case that ID is scientific.
11. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, "Mutation breeding, evolution, and the law of recurrent variation", Recent Res. Devel. Genet. Breeding, 2 (2005), 45-70. Full paper here. Lönnig is a well-known creationist. The only references to Meyer appear on pages 61 and 64: "Thus, in accord with the laws of probability, examples and cases relativizing the law of recurrent variation have not been observed so far (35, 43, 46, 65, 77, 78, 88, 95, see also note 2)." and "For an additional detailed discussion of further points and possible
objections, see (see 1-9, 15, 20, 21, 23, 27, 30, 35, 38, 39, 43-57, 61, 65, 77-80, 86, 88, 90, 91, 94, 95)".
But ISI Web of Science also misses a number of articles critical of Meyer. In any event, the citations I have found do not support the extravagant claims made for ID and for Meyer's article. So far, ID is not proving frutiful for science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
158 comments:
8. ... This article was published without peer review in a nonindexed journal and was subsequently retracted by the journal for insufficient scientific merit."...
I believe both those claims are erroneous. The investigation revealed that Sternberg did send the paper out for peer review, although the identity of the reviewers has never been made public. I feel safe in presuming that the "peers" were Creationist whack-tards, not experts on the Cambrian.
Also, I don't believe it is accurate to say that the paper was retracted; paper #3 said it better as disavowed.
"Its publication represents a lapse of the journal’s usual editorial policies"
Is that your opinion, or theirs?
Excellent. Thank you. These things need to be said.
Mark2: "Is that your opinion, or theirs?"
Mark2, I would like to tell you about a very useful punctuation symbol, the quotation mark. A quotation mark (namely, ") usually signifies that a quote is beginning, and its matching quotation mark (again, ") signifies the quote is at its end.
If you now apply this useful rule to the passage you asked about, I think you will find your answer.
Thanks for doing all this research on debunking ID. (I admire your patience!) You provide lots of rational/scientific point which one can use to argue against ID/creationists. By the way, you say "ID is not good science". I think it's not a science at all.
Bayesian:
Right you are. I was only quoting the source, but I should have made it more clear that those claims were false. I will add something to the post reflecting this.
Ahh, I had an ocular hiccup, apparently. Still, I could ask whether it was merely the letter writer who had that opinion, or did the editors of Nature agree that publishing that article was a lapse in judgment. Letters to the editor are a dime a dozen.
Google "The Fruitfulness of ID Research" : 'For Intelligent Design to be more fruitful as a research paradigm, grants need to be awarded to it, even in disregard of ID being the target of a Darwinian "witch hunt", as the equivocal statement of Shallit clearly demonstrates.'
Fernando Castro-Chávez: Nice of you to stop by, but I can't tell what it is you are trying to say.
Care to defend your bogus citation of Meyer's paper?
Mark2:
"Still, I could ask whether it was merely the letter writer who had that opinion, or did the editors of Nature agree that publishing that article was a lapse in judgment."
It's a letter to the editor, as I clearly wrote.
Takis Konstantopoulos : By the way, you say "ID is not good science". I think it's not a science at all.
Various sources have labelled ID as "bad science," "pseudo-science," or "not science," and have offered justification for their characterizations. Shallit's statement that it is "not good science" thus seems to be a good generalization of the range of opinions.
If evolutionary theory were as deeply flawed as the cdesign proponensists claim, then demonstrating this could be done on a shoestring budget. Metabolic and genomic data are available online for free.
ME: "Still, I could ask whether it was merely the letter writer who had that opinion, or did the editors of Nature agree that publishing that article was a lapse in judgment?"
YOU: "It's a letter to the editor, as I clearly wrote."
Duh. When you leave out part of my post, my question sounds silly. My point about the comment being merely a letter to the editor, is left ignored.
Mark2:
It's hard to take seriously someone who thinks that a letter being published by a respectable journal has much to do with what the editors believe. A good editor publishes letters from a variety of different perspectives.
Jeffrey,
Good article. As a layperson without much knowledge of information theory I'm finding your web site very helpful. The IDer's arguments around information and CSI etc, although incorrect, are some of the most convincing-sounding ("sciency") that they make. Lots of people are taken in by this line (including Thomas Nagel apparently...).
It's rather disturbing then to see Meyer's new book "Signature in the Cell" get such positive reviews. I noticed on Amazon that the 5-stars now outnumber the 1-stars by at least 6 to 1.
Are you therefore going to write a review of Meyer's book? (I'm sure you have better things to do with your time and money, but given your credentials and background it could be a very worthwhile endeavor - especially since so few of the 1-star reviews are really all that well-written).
CWest:
The problem is, one could spend almost all of one's time pointing out the stupidities in ID and creationist writings. But if you do, then you have no time to do real work.
I have taken a lot of notes on Meyer's book, but haven't had time to write it all down yet.
"One of the hallmarks of science is that it is fruitful."
Fruitful in what sense?, keeping in mind what Jerry Coyne wrote:
"....if truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn't evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of 'like begets like'. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all."
Miranda:
You need to improve your reading compehension.
"Fruitful" is not a synonym of "having practical applications". I gave the sense I meant right in the original post: "A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper."
Perhaps you missed that.
Anyway, I'd disagree with Coyne. Evolution has lots of practical applications. See, for example, Why We Get Sick by Nesse and Williams.
"A good scientific paper will usually lead to much work along the same lines, work that confirms and extends the results, and work that produces more new ideas inspired by the paper."
Perhaps you missed that."
No, I caught that. /Extended/ fruitlessness does not equal fruitfulness.
I'm with Coyne over Nesse and Williams. Take a look at Professor Hood here: http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/20709/page2/
"Evolution has had four billion years to figure out really clever solutions for new materials, new chemistries, new types of molecular machines, even new approaches to computing. I think by studying living organisms and deducing the mechanisms that underlie these evolutionarily sculpted solutions to complexity, those solutions can be applied to other fields. A classic example is materials science. The spectrum of different materials that organisms have evolved to make is enormous."
While he credits evolution several times, Hood feels that Systems Biology is where the fruitfulness will come from. Evolution appears only as window dressing.
Miranda:
My recommendation to you is, don't try for a career in pure research.
I recommend a career in window dressing for you.
Re Miranda:
It always amazes me how small-minded the creationists are. They dismiss the great achievements of people like Galois as "window dressing", simply because there are few practical applications.
I'm not sure you're grasping this "window dressing" comment of mine.
There are two aspects of the claims made about evolution, with regard to fruitfulness.
(A) Evolution gets the credit for /producing/ the things in nature.
(B) Evolution gets the credit for producing /insights/ into how to /improve/ the things in our lives.
In the book "Why We Get Sick" the author is attempting to get his readers to think that he's doing (B), but in reality all he's doing is (A). It's deceiving. It's snake oil salesmanship, actually. Darwin could've been 100% right, but this is wrong.
As far as Galois's work is concerned, I give him credit for his accomplishments at his young age, despite the small applicability of his work. I surely don't dismiss them, even if I don't sing their praises. My feelings on his work are unlike the 'creationist' you depict, but more like Mr. King's words, which are printed below. Here, the concept of window dressing does not apply. Only if someone tried to claim that his work deserves credit where credit is in fact not due would I accuse that claimer of engaging in window dressing, or even propaganda.
"The typical mathematician now considers himself "expert" only in some particular field of mathematics...as he ages and becomes better at the mechanics of the research game, while simultaneously losing his enthusiasm and ability to do creative mathematics, the specialization becomes even sharper until he ultimately deals only with topics like "the weak equidistribution of sequences in finite communtative groups admitting nonstationary operators." What he then produces are specialized research papers which are of interest -- if to anyone -- only to a handful of people scattered around the world." -- Jerry P. King, The Art of Mathematics
Miranda:
Your understanding is so deficient, it's hard to know where to begin. Your argument consists mostly of assembling quotations that support your position.
First, in your catalogue of what evolution gets credit for, you somehow manage to miss the most important thing: (C) evolution gives us insight of how the biological diversity we see today came to be, and in particular, how we came to be.
Second, you claim "In the book "Why We Get Sick" the author is attempting to get his readers to think that he's doing (B), but in reality all he's doing is (A). It's deceiving. It's snake oil salesmanship, actually." But this only shows you have not actually read Nesse and Williams. (Hint: in a 2-author book, refer to "the authors" if you want to pretend you have read it.) The book is about (B) and (C), and there are plenty of examples of (B).
Just to give two examples of (B) in the book: Nesse and Williams use the theory of evolution to explain why overprescription of antibiotics is useless and even dangerous, and why taking drugs to lower fever may be counterproductive. Both of these are fruitful in the sense you want -- they have genuine and significant applications to the real world.
As for the quote of Jerry King, there is some truth to it. But what truth there is applies equally well to any scientific endeavor. Research is hard, and researchers naturally focus on what they do well. It's true that most research interests only a small number of people, but that is not a goal of reseachers. Most researchers would love to find something that is widely applicable and highly cited, but it's not easy. If it were easy, everybody would be doing it.
You say, Only if someone tried to claim that his work deserves credit where credit is in fact not due would I accuse that claimer of engaging in window dressing, or even propaganda. You mean, like when the intelligent design movement claims that William Dembski is the "Isaac Newton of information theory"? Would that be an example where someone is claiming that "work deserves credit where credit is in fact not due "?
I thought we already covered (C), so I didn't bring it up again. Expanding knowledge is fruitful in its own sense, but I was talking not about expanding our knowledge, but improving our lives. (You could say that studying ID is fruitful because we expand our knowledge about the zany world of ID!)
Every (B) you can give, like the one you did, can be explained just fine without recourse to the overall theory of evolution. The author, eh authorS!, drag in the theory even though it's not needed. Like Coyne says, "Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture..." You and the authorS apparently think there IS more to say. My money's with Coyne.
The King quote I brought was actually not to argue any point, like you thought, but just to explain my feelings of certain areas of research.
I needn't address your last, diversionary, paragraph, even though it was clever.
Have you actually read the Nesse and Williams book? It sure doesn't look like it.
And when you say, "I needn't address your last, diversionary, paragraph", you miss the point. I was trying to establish whether you are a hypocrite - that is, you decry "window dressing" when it suits your purposes, but not when it doesn't. By your refusal to answer, I conclude that you are.
Jeffrey,
Do you realize that all you have to do to refute ID is to actually start substantiating the claims of your position?
If you want to talk about fruitlessness you need to look no further than your position.
There isn't any peer-reviewed articles that demonstrate that accumulating genetic accidents can do what they are claimed to have done.
And when you say that ID is a " religio-political charade" you really expose your ignorance.
What religion?
Does ID say who to worship? No.
Does ID say anything about worship? No.
Does ID depend on religious texts? No.
Does ID require a belief in "God"? No.
Does Jeffrey Shallit think his ID ignorance is meaningful discourse? Yes.
Joe G:
I can't help it if you are unable to understand my argument. So far, all you have demonstrated is your incompetence.
As for mutations, he biological literature contains many examples of beneficial mutations, and the artificial life literature contains many examples of novel behaviors and structures evolving from scratch. Start with the work of Ray, Koza, and Sims.
There's a reason why ID advocates have consistently refused to discuss the alife literature.
As for ID being a religio-political charade, just read the work of Barbara Forrest. It is simply not possible to deny this and maintain any credibility.
Miranda said: As far as Galois's work is concerned, I give him credit for his accomplishments at his young age, despite the small applicability of his work.
This is a joke, isn't it? First, why should Galois care about applications? There is a lot curiosity-driven research. Second, there are many applications in coding, geometry and other fields. (Music CD's use codes based on Galois fields. If you don't believe it, take a music CD, give it a scratch and play it again.) Third, how about applications in mathematics per se? What about answers to ages-old problems of ruler&compass constructions? Were all ancient scientists stupid in devoting their time to "non-appplicable" questions? Fourth, why do you not say the same about the millions (billions?) of people wasting their time with religious questions which, clearly, are non-applicable? Fifth, please don't patronize Galois...
Sorry. I won't intervene again in this. I just happen to have understood that we would have been much much much behind had we not Galois fields in our bag of tricks.
I don't understand why the Biological Society of Washington didn't simply retract the Meyer paper for breach of editorial policy. What other journal does a wishy-washy "disavowal?" Plus, it was a review, not an original research article. Never mind that, though, it's still up on the DI web site.
Speaking of fruitless research, the Biologic Institute hasn't published anything this year.
Takis, thanks for educating me about Galois. I simply didn't know. I assumed that his work's applicability was small because that's what Shallit had led me to believe, in the 5:42 post. (If Shallit had responded to me about my lack of knowledge about Galois, he would probably have given his classic list of options: "you are either an ignorant lady or deceptive or incompetent.")
Shallit, if you jump on your household chores as fast as you jump to conclusions, your wife must be very happy indeed. You wrote, "By your refusal to answer, I conclude that you are." It was less of a refusal, and more of a laughing at the question. But I'll answer it here, to indulge you. If someone claimed that Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory, then that person is quite mistaken.
I called that paragraph a diversionary one. I'm surprised that you didn't turn that back on me when my first post was diverting the topic from ID's fruitfulness to evolution's fruitfulness. Guilty as (self-)charged.
" Start with the work of Ray, Koza, and Sims.
There's a reason why ID advocates have consistently refused to discuss the alife literature."
Here's an ID advocate article that includes Ray's and Koza's work in their bibliography: http://www.arn.org/docs/newman/rn_artificiallife.htm (Google is amazing, isn't it?)
Like I've ALWAYS said, beware of saying 'always' and 'never'. ('Consistently' implies always.)
Joe G says: "And when you say that ID is a " religio-political charade" you really expose your ignorance.
What religion?"
Bill Buckingham said: "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"
The Discovery Institute said: "Governing Goals ... To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."
By gum, Joe has a point; they never say which specific Christian theocracy they intend to impose on the populace.
Miranda:
First, I had in mind the main ID advocates, such as Dembski, Meyer, Behe, etc., not bit-players.
Second, that paper you refer to cites Koza in the bibliography, but doesn't actually discuss any of Koza's results. It does discuss Ray a bit, but doesn't refute any of Ray's results. It doesn't mention Sims at all. All in all, not very impressive.
Considering that alife results have been around for decades, why do you think ID advocates have done such a poor job addressing them?
Perhaps because all forms of alife ("fact-free science"?) were in one way or another conceived by intelligent researchers. (Just a first stab at an answer.)
Miranda:
With all due respect, that is the dumbest argument I've ever heard.
If ID advocates like yourself were in charge of science, origins-of-life research would consist of scientists sitting around in the lab hoping a self-replicating molecule would suddenly appear spontaneously in front of them.
That's kind of funny!
Speaking about self-replicating molecules, if you could share with me research that describes -- even in theory -- what the first self-replicating form of life (or pseudolife) was doing for the millions of years /before/ it first self-replicated.
I'm not a chemist. However, there are lots of good resources online about theories of abiogenesis.
It seems clear to me that self-replicating molecules are made up simpler pieces - pieces that would have been in the environment already.
So either such a molecule wasn't "doing" anything before it replicated, because it didn't even exist until the right constituent parts came together; or it was there and not replicating because the needed resources from the environment weren't available yet.
But as I say, I am not a chemist.
By the way, Miranda, it hasn't escaped my notice that you refused to answer my question about whether you actually have read the Nesse-Williams book.
"Scientists point out, quite rightly, that the religio-political charade known as 'intelligent design' (ID) is not good science. But how do we know this?"
What do you mean "we"? Even if you can be considered a mathematician, you previously stated that you do not think mathematicians are scientists. (Although, perhaps, you think the "science" in computer science is definitive; it certainly seems like something you'd buy into.)
"'Fruitful' is not a synonym of 'having practical applications'."
If it were, I suspect Shallit's research tree would be full of dead branches.
Robert O'Brien:
I'm sorry you are struggling with reading comprehension. Perhaps it's time to buckle down and do that required junior high school reading?
"We" means the reader and I. And yes, I am both a mathematician and a computer scientist.
If it were, I suspect Shallit's research tree would be full of dead branches.
Spoken by someone with a truly impressive research record, and by someone who knows everything there is to know about the software I've written and sold.
It's an interesting thought but alas there are a few extra considerations. It might be more accurate (but probably a waste of time!) to compare the average citations of ID papers vs evolutionary papers since 60 citations is probably quite remarkable (if every paper got 60 citations, bibliographies would grow exponentially). However even that might not give a clear result -- since evolutionary papers outnumber ID papers by orders of magnitude there are likely a huge number of papers with no citations at all. So some normalisation might have to be applied.
Of course to all that, creationists have the stock-answer that their papers aren't being cited because the big bad scientific establishment is biased against them. And so their bastion remains impenetrable...
I think reading the Nesse-Williams book would fall into Mark Twain's quote:
"If you don't read the paper, you are uninformed; if you do read the paper, you are misinformed."
I, personally, do not need any practical applications in order to like a scientific fact, such as evolution. Why do we care about, say, the structure of black holes in distant galaxies? There are no practical applications. Evolution concerns us all because it concerns us. Does it not make you humble to know you are cousin of a chimpanzee? And second cousin of a lizard? I find it wonderful to share a lot with a mushroom. The unity of life, on this planet, is an amazing phenomenon. How silly it is to try to isolate humans from the rest of life forms! A religious friend once was trying to convince me that humans are above other animals because it is written in the Bible (I think the friend mentioned Noah's ark...) I'm so glad it is not true.
I spent a bit of time looking at reviews of the Nesse + Williams book. (Thanks for pointing it out!) It does sound very interesting. Unfortunately, no preview is available on google books. I read somewhere that Williams is the biologist and evolutionary theorist who was the chief proponent of the 'selfish gene' theory later famously championed by Richard Dawkins. Interesting!
By the way, the last comment,
"If you don't read the paper, you are uninformed; if you do read the paper, you are misinformed"
is funny. I'm a big fun of witticisms, of Twain or Wilde type, but they are not valid arguments for a discussion.
"I, personally, do not need any practical applications in order to like a scientific fact... Why do we care about, say, the structure of black holes in distant galaxies? There are no practical applications."
No practical applications? Why, did you not hear of the books, "What Black Holes Can Teach Us About Improving Politics" or "What Black Holes Can Teach Us About Adapting to High Pressure Situations". Why, our understanding of politics and high pressure situations would be much worse without these books.
Heh, I'm just kidding. But there are books about evolution that make these kinds of claims.
I actually agree with you, Takis. I, too, do not need any practical applications in order to like a scientific fact.
"Does it not make you humble to know you are cousin of a chimpanzee? And second cousin of a lizard?"
It can make me feel just as self-important as it could make me humble. "Those dumb life-forms can't even integrate a polynomial, but I can!" Besides, I'm not a big fan of this "humility" argument. After all, people who believe in Biblical creation can look at those animals and feel humility, too. In fact, I recently found this ancient teaching: "Why was man created last, so that if he becomes haughty, he can remind himself that even the smallest gnat was created before him."
"I find it wonderful to share a lot with a mushroom."
Yes, I was just about to say how much I think that you, me, and that portobello mushroom I had for lunch all have the same value. I had to suppress my humility in order to eat it, though.
"The unity of life, on this planet, is an amazing phenomenon. How silly it is to try to isolate humans from the rest of life forms!"
Why? Even those who isolate humans from the rest of life forms /still/ believe that humans share many of the qualities of those life forms. It's just that we humans are in the stratosphere as compared with even our closest relatives, the chimps (assuming it's still chimps).
Takis continues: "A religious friend once was trying to convince me that humans are above other animals because it is written in the Bible (I think the friend mentioned Noah's ark...) I'm so glad it is not true."
What if he simply said, "humans are above other animals because it is abundantly clear that intellectually we are!" Would you still say you're so glad it is not true?
Miranda: Great, I'm glad we agree. It's only those stupid creationists/intelligent-designists who abuse science by trying to prove that god exists or that humans were created separately from other species by a designer or that the earth is flat.
"After all, people who believe in Biblical creation can look at those animals and feel humility, too."
Exactly. The only thing these people can do (creationists) is *believe*. Of course anybody can feel humility, but for different reasons. Creationists have no means of proving anything other than closing their minds and, in the sequel, preach about their delusions.
I'm glad you are not one of them.
"...or that the earth is flat..."
Funny!
Michael wrote:
"(if every paper got 60 citations, bibliographies would grow exponentially)"
Certainly not.
In case we haven't figured it out, Fernando Castro-Chávez is a creationist. I'm sure he'd say an IDist, but I've seen his website.
Also, wasting time on Joe G is just that, wasting time. Best to just ignore him.
I'm a student and not an expert but any means. But I think the selection experiments on self splicing RNA by Ekland have shown beautifully that selection can lead to creation of self replicating molecules from simple Ribonucleic Acids.
Today I was thinking to my self what do we really need to have life? Well i thought to myself that life is nothing more than a recursive loop, and once you have two molecules that can self replicate, selection can lead to ever more complex forms of life.
Anyway, I love your blog and find it incredibly stimulating. Thanks!
Jeffrey,
You don't have an argument only bald assertions.
Artificial life does not correlate to biology.
And Barbara Forrest is a known liar on an agenda.
"You don't have an argument only bald assertions.
", said the moron who then went on to give the following two bald assertions:
Artificial life does not correlate to biology.
Why not?
And Barbara Forrest is a known liar on an agenda.
No evidence provided.
And a warning: you don't get to slander people on this blog without providing evidence. Future transgressions won't be posted. You have been warned.
1- Artificial life was made by man.
2- Anyone who says that ID is religious or ID is Creation is either a liar or on some agenda.
Want to know why?
Because they cannot support their claims. All Forrest can do is make bald assertions.
It appears that is all you have also.
ID does NOT say anything about worship- nothing about who, why, when, where nor how.
ID does not require a belief in "God".
ID does not require the supernatural.
Sure some IDists may be religious but that has as much impact on ID as Dawkins' atheism has on the theory of evolution.
Earlier you said there is evidence of beneficial mutations.
I agree.
However there isn't any evidence that any amount of mutational accumulation can give rise to useful novel protein machinery and new body plans.
Heck we can't even test the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor- no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.
Artificial life was made by man.
World's dumbest argument, Joe. Every experiment we do was done by people, but that doesn't mean that every natural event studied is the result of intelligent intervention.
Anyone who says that ID is religious or ID is Creation is either a liar or on some agenda.
Good. And now I say anyone who denies that ID is religious is either a liar or on some agenda. The reason: because any being with the causal powers to tweak the fundamental constants of nature - as ID followers claim - must be a god or have god-like powers.
You haven't been able to point to a single statement of Forrest you claim is a "lie", and I have a low tolerance for this kind of slander. You have been warned for a second time.
However there isn't any evidence that any amount of mutational accumulation can give rise to useful novel protein machinery
A lie. Go read about the Italian mutation.
That's all creationists have to offer - lies and more lies.
Heck we can't even test the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor- no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.
You really have no idea how science works, do you?
A creationist attempt to rebut the italian case:
http://creation.com/a-i-milano-mutationevidence-for-evolution
Not endorsing, just sharing.
Joe G:
"ID does not require a belief in "God"."
What? ID is a branch of creationism!
"Sure some IDists may be religious..."
Wrong: All IDists are religious. To put it otherwise, the set of IDists who are not religious is empty. Moreover, the set of IDists who are not christian is very small. (There are muslim fundamentalist IDists.) In fact, the major proponent of ID, Dembski, uses "mathematics" (in a silly way) both for ID purposes and for more mundane religious purposes (not that there are differences between the two). Look at his website and, if you know something about mathematics, you can see how shallow his writings are: http://www.designinference.com/
Takis,
ID is a branch of creationism only to the willfully ignorant.
All IDists are not religious.
I am an IDists and don't care about religion.
I said:
However there isn't any evidence that any amount of mutational accumulation can give rise to useful novel protein machinery and new body plans.
Jeffrey responds with:
A lie. Go read about the Italian mutation.
No new protein MACHINERY there Jeff. And definitely no new body plans.
Changing one protein does not create new protein machinery.
Heck we can't even test the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor- no one knows if the transformations required are even possible.
Jeffrey:
You really have no idea how science works, do you?
Unfortunately for you I do.
Ya see in science one needs to be able to test one's claims.
And to this day no one on this planet even knows whether or not the transformations required are even possible.
Joe says:
ID does not say anything about worship- nothiung about who, what, where, when nor how.
ID does not say anything about giving service.
ID is not based on any religious doctrine.
ID does not say anything about the supernatural.
ID does not require a belief in "God".
So Jeffrey responds with:
because any being with the causal powers to tweak the fundamental constants of nature - as ID followers claim - must be a god or have god-like powers.
Or just have advanced technology.
So the bottom line is ID is religious if and only if we change the definition of religion.
Got it.
Artificial life was made by man.
Jeffrey:
World's dumbest argument, Joe.
Why? It is true.
Man made artificial life and man doesn't know enough about biology in order to mirror it.
Every experiment we do was done by people, but that doesn't mean that every natural event studied is the result of intelligent intervention.
No but if man makes something then blind and undirected processes did not.
Joe G:
If you want to insist that a being that could tweak the fundamental constants of physics is not, for all practical purposes, a god, go right ahead. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
Oh - and don't forget this quote from the Discovery Institute: "[d]esign theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Ya see in science one needs to be able to test one's claims.
So it is your claim that the descent of man from earlier ape-like creatures has not been tested?
Just what do you think is being done with comparative genomics and paleontology, then?
Your claims are becoming progressively moronic.
I am an IDists and don't care about religion.
Nor English, either, it would seem.
No but if man makes something then blind and undirected processes did not.
Moronic. People can make water vapor by heating a kettle, but that doesn't mean all water vapor was made by people.
No new protein MACHINERY
Define "machinery", and then explain, in detail why the example I gave does not qualify. No hand-waving allowed.
Joe G:
Do wild mustard and broccoli have the same body plan? Yes or no - and support your answer.
Jeffrey,
The designer could be "God" and that would not mean ID is religious.
IOW Jeffrey you don't seem to understand the definition of religion.
Jeffrey:
So it is your claim that the descent of man from earlier ape-like creatures has not been tested?
How can it be tested Jeffrey?
As I said we don't even know if the transformations required are even possible.
Take that opposable big toe that the rest of the extant primates have and we do not.
Geneticists can't even account for that.
Just what do you think is being done with comparative genomics and paleontology, then?
They may be trying to test the premise but they ain't there yet.
The italian mutation just changes ONE protein Jeffrey.
Machinery consists of several proteins.
But if the italian mutation is the best you have then the theory of evolution doesn't have anything that supports its grand claims.
Joe G:
"ID is a branch of creationism only to the willfully ignorant."
Read what Wikipedia says about your "discipline":
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, but one which avoids specifying the nature or identity of the designer. The idea was developed by a group of American creationists who reformulated their argument in the creation-evolution controversy to circumvent court rulings that prohibit the teaching of creationism as science.
Intelligent design's leading proponents – all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank – believe the designer to be the God of Christianity.
IDists argue for the existence of god. Anyone who argues for the existence of god is called religious. You are IDist. Therefore you are religious. (The alternative is: The Wikipedia article is incorrect, so please modify it.)
"All IDists are not religious."
Do you mean to say "not all IDists are religious"? I just explained the opposite.
"I am an IDists [sic] and don't care about religion."
If you are an IDist (not an IDists) then you claim that some god or gods created nature and natural processes. Therefore you are religious.
Moreover, IDists are not *just* religious. They try to say that a specific god designed nature, that is, the god of christianity (and, perhaps, of a very particular branch of christianity).
Here's an ID site that explains (or explains away, depending on your proclivity) the wedge document, which says "[d]esign theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.":
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1188
Marko:
That site asks: "Isn't intelligent design just a movement trying to push a political agenda?" and gives the answer "No, definitely not".
Well, if turning into ID as an easy venue for publishing papers (because you can't write anything more serious in mainstream scientific/mathematics journals) does not constitute a political agenda, if promoting a (Christian) god by pseudo-scientific methods is not political, if creating jobs for ex-creationists by looking for funding from religious fundamentalist donors is not a political act, if the Discovery Institute is not a conservative think tank, then, yes, ID is not trying to push a political agenda.
"...replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
A science does not need any convictions. This is exactly what makes ID a religion and not a science. You said it yourself.
Also, IDists now seem to have rivals in the Muslim world who also claim to be "studying" creationism, ID, and other such futile endeavours: http://www.harunyahya.com/
I'm afraid, IDists will have to start choosing the right camp... Yahweh or Allah? Which of the two created black holes? Hm....
Dear Joe,
To throw in my 2 cents about novel protein machinery resulting from mutations. Well I am a student and currently learning about gene duplications, and if you take a look into gene duplication you find that a great deal of organisms contain gene families and protein families that are very similar. Gene duplication allows for duplication of a gene either partially or entirely which creates a new copy of that gene and renders the new copy void of any real consequence to the phenotype of the organism. Thus, this new copy can undergo MUTATIONS over time without having major selection constraints from the organisms well being. So over time this copy continues to mutate and leads to new novel genes and protein machinery which will become selectively relevant once they give that organism some selective advantage. It is fundamental to understand that new genes don't result out of thin air and that they are results of old functional genes which have selection constraints removed due to duplication or some other event. Look into the Gene Duplication experiments for Hemoglobin, and Myoglobin, or even better HOX gene duplications which have lead to extreme changes in organism body plans.
Last year I read a paper by Robert Trivers about self deception. In it I learned that in order to tell a lie sometimes you must believe in what you are selling. In another words you may not even know that you are lying, and that your unconscious motives of avoiding confrontation with truth or pain are blinding your conscious mind of seeing the truth. I recommend all IDist to read this paper and reassess their line of reasoning. I am 23 years old and I finishing my undergraduate work and attending medical school next year. How it is that at 23 I have seen more evidence for evolution and NS than some of these ignorant ID out there? I read.
Takis,
Wikipedia is not an authority and it's not relieable.
ID does NOT argue for the existence of "God".
What IDists do does not have any impact on ID.
Otherwise the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Dawkins, Provine and a host of others say it is.
milUCLA,
You are confused.
"Evolution" isn't even being debated.
As for gene duplications please read "Not By Chance" by Dr Lee Spetner.
Ya see not all mutations should be considered errors/ mistakes/ accidents.
Now even with duplication all you have is another copy of something you already have that could have gotten just by enhancing the existing gene.
So now you are churning out a protein that isn't required.
A protein that get get in the way of functioning machinery.
OK so you start mutating that protein- great but you still need it to do something.
What you don't have is any data that shows gene duplications can create novel protein machinery.
So yes there is evidence for "evolution".
There is evidence that natural selection conserves what works- the survival.
However when discussing the ARRIVAL of the fittest the theory of evolution is silent.
When discussing body FORM the theory is again silent.
And when asked for a testable hypothesis for the proposed mechansism- natural selection and genetic accidents/ mistakes/ errors, no one can produce one.
So one should ask what "fruit" has the theory of evolution produced?
milUCLA made a good statement: "In another words you may not even know that you are lying, and that your unconscious motives of avoiding confrontation with truth or pain are blinding your conscious mind of seeing the truth."
I thought I'd share a similar one by Leo Tolstoy:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Joe G:
Your arguments contain contradictions or are false or are uninformed. I shall explain.
Wikipedia is not an authority and it's not relieable [sic].
This is why I asked you to modify it. For example, many a times I have modified mathematical articles on wikipedia if they contained inaccuracies. In fact, my modifications were welcome by the scientific community. So, if you feel that the description of ID is incorrect then please go ahead and change it. (In doing so, do not forget to add references to those IDists and their works who show that god/designer is not part of ID.)
If
(i) you are correct
and if
(ii) the ID community works according to the same principles as the scientific community
then we'll soon see a new article about ID and, maybe, welcome it.
Please go ahead. And let us know when the modified article is uploaded so we can read it.
ID does NOT argue for the existence of "God".
It does: Dembski says so, Behe says so, and all other famous IDists. ID argues for a designer of nature. In other words, a god. Moreoever, the leaders of the ID religion promote a very specific god, the god of christianity, and, more specifically, the god of a particular branch of protestant christianity.
What IDists do does not have any impact on ID.
This is confusing. Let me substitute it by another word and change the sentence:
What scientists do does not have any impact on science.
Now read the sentence again. Hm...?
Otherwise the theory of evolution is an atheistic theory because Dawkins, Provine and a host of others say it is.
Dawkins et al. are by far not the only evolutionary biologists, whereas Dembski et al. are the major IDists. Evolution is what it is and has major consequences in biology, medicine, etc. If it implies that a designer does not exist, so much the better. But the concept of god/designer is not part of the theory. Whereas this concept is part of the ID religion.
Miranda:
Indeed, very good quote. This is exactly what differentiates science from pseudo-science. An example of the latter is the ID movement, a spin-off of creationism. People who are not willing to admit the inconsistencies of their religious convictions and texts are trying to concoct complicated arguments about an intelligent designer (a.k.a. god) and dress them in scientific terminology. In doing so, they are not very careful in choosing people who are real experts in, say, mathematics (can they find any?) and the results are hilarious.
"Moreoever, the leaders of the ID religion promote a very specific god, the god of christianity, and, more specifically, the god of a particular branch of protestant christianity."
Promote, or privately believe?
Takis,
ID does not say anything about the designer so it cannot be an argument for "God".
Also Dr Behe testified that ID is not about "God"- he came to the "God" inference based on his faith, not ID.
IOW Takis, you are a clueless troll.
Takis:
Evolution is what it is and has major consequences in biology, medicine, etc
Except that medicine does nit require the theory of evolution.
Biology is confused by it as it cannot account for the body plans observed via and genetic program.
Also "evolution" is NOT being debated.
The debate is all about those mecahnsims- as in are they all blind errors/ accidents/ mistakes?
OR are they directed by some built-in operating system.
For milUCLA:
Biological evolution: What is being debated
Joe G:
IOW Takis, you are a clueless troll.
Can you please clarify what IOW and troll mean? (You see, I can't find them in my dictionary and, by now, I don't trust your English.)
If I am a clueless troll [extrapolating the definition of this only by reading the adjective], this is because of what IDists have written. Why don't you modify the Wikipedia article, as I suggested, so we can become enlightened? I don't like being a clueless troll [whatever this means].
Takis,
IDists have not written that ID is an argument for the existence of "God".
Dr Behe said quite the opposite.
Guillermo Gonzalez- a leading IDist- has said that ID does not require a belief in "God".
And then there is Anthony Flew- a well known atheist who now considers the design inference because of the scientific data.
ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s).
Then again Dawkins' has said that the ToE is atheistic.
Provine has said it will errode your faith.
And it doesn't have anything to do with numbers- that is your inner moron talking.
Joe G:
I like how you avoid answering my questions and resort to expressions such as "inner moron talking". I'm sorry, but I will not engage in conversation with someone who behaves in a childish manner.
Good luck with preaching.
Dear Joe,
I have a question for you. You sound like that you're not refuting evolution but the small little insignificant details, like NATURAL SELECTION ;p Why? Sounds like you say that there is not enough evidence to convince you.
Well here is my question to you. Can you please help me understand how you're able to believe in ID. Which parts of the massive amounts of evidence that you are using is most appropriate for a layman like me to look into?
One more question, I read Descartes Foundationalism about 3 years ago, and every time I talk to an IDist I think to myself how can you think yourself even remotely logical when you are basing everything in your line of reasoning on an assumption that you have no evidence for. All ID is based on is refutation. So as Jeffery said, it is fruitless. If you're going to use cards to build a house, the slightest breeze can do you in.
And isn't ID a cyclical argument? If there was a designer who built him? And who built his designer? So it looks like you're going to rely on god at some point in that argument.
And again please look into Miller Urey Experiments on abiogenesis, and also Self Replicating ribozyme experiments which used complete random mixtures to create functional ribozymes RNAs which then undergo natural selection infront of our eyes.
As for the USE of evolution in medicine. Well have you heard of something called antibiotic resistant bacteria? Or as matter of fact any sort of resistant virus or bacteria. These little guys are masters of evolution and NS. Without understanding evolution and NS and using that understanding properly (take your meds until the effective population size is gone, or vaccinating proper proportions) there would be alot less than 6 billion of us left today.
Joe G wrote: "And then there is Anthony Flew- a well known atheist who now considers the design inference because of the scientific data."
Joe probably means 'erstwhile atheist.' Of course, since he's old, the only explanation is that he went senile. That won't happen to us /young/ atheists!
Takis,
I like how you avoided supporting your claims.
But anyway I have three words for you:
New World Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is the "National Enquire" of encyclopedias. But seeing it's nonsense supports your ignorance you cite it.
micUCLA,
What do you mean by "evolution"?
I know natural selection occurs- that is we observe differential reproduction, heredity and variation.
The evidence for intelligent design is, to me, overwhelming and it is in biology textbooks.
ID is based on observations and experience.
AND there isn't any observations or experience with genetic accidents accumulating in such a way as to do the things the theory claims they did.
So why don't you people just focus on supporting YOUR claims?
Miller-Urey failed to do anything and didn't even represent anything Earth ever had available.
Where did that "random mixture" come from?
You need to focus on reality.
What fruit has the theory of evolution borne?
Anti-biotic resitance and evolution?
Are you freakin' kiddin' me?
Is Bacterial Resistance
to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change?
Joe G:
Please parse the sentence you just wrote:
But seeing it's nonsense supports your ignorance you cite it.
Also, please clarify whether the word "Enquire" in your sentence
Wikipedia is the "National Enquire"
is, indeed, a verb.
I can't communicate if we don't communicate in English. (Unless you wish to communicate in another, mutually comprehensible, natural language.)
Thanks for pointing out the New World Encyclopedia. I didn't know of it. I just ran a quick test:
Law of large numbers
Normal distribution
Dynamical system
NP-complete
Integral geometry
Entropy
Martingale
Quadratic residue
Prime number
Maxwell's equations
Complex analysis
In all cases, the answer is:
There is no page titled "..."
In contrast, Wikipedia has articles on all of the above topics (some of which are used [=abused] by IDists).
So what is the claim about this encyclopedia?
Dear Joe,
Miller-Urey failed to do anything and didn't even represent anything Earth ever had available.
You either have not had a chance to read the experiment thoroughly or you are unable to understand it. But your claims are lies. The experimental conditions were based on available evidence that dictated the conditions of the primitive earth. Scientists use this thing called evidence.
So because Wikipedia has articles on subjects that New World doesn't means that Wikipedia is a reliable authority?
The claim about New World is that it is not biased.
The Wikipedia entry on Intelligent Design can be refuted to any ID FAQ posted on pro-ID websites.
The sworn testimony of Dr Behe and Dr Minnich also refute what that article says.
But seeing you have alreadt lied about ID proponents you would stick with the Wikipedia entry as it supports your lies.
As for changing that article- it should never have been published in the first place.
They should be sued for posting such nonsense and then perhaps they would think BEFORE they publish.
But seeing it's nonsense supports your ignorance you cite it.
should have been
But seeing its nonsense supports your ignorance you cite it.
Sorry for the typo- now parse away wayward arse...
Joe G:
I find it impossible to communicate with someone who has difficulties in handling elementary English constructs and insists in insults.
Good bye.
milUCLA,
Not only do I understand that experiment I also understand everything that has been written about it- including the fact that the conditions they used did NOT represent anything on Earth.
Miller Urey not reality
Also look up:
Marcel Florkin
Sidney Fox and Klaus Dose
Even Jon Cohen wrote about the Miller-Urey failure in 1995 in Science no less saying that "the early atmosphere looked nothing like the Miller-Urey simulation."
So go pound sand.
Also and obviously forgotten- is that the experiment produced and abundance of toxins.
Takis, you wrote to Mr. Shallit: "You provide lots of rational/scientific point which one can use to argue against ID/creationists."
Eh, that's "points." Should you and Mr. Shallit communicate in a different language?
Takis,
I find it impossible to communicate with someone who is bent on perpetuating lies regardless of reality.
As for insults no need to look any further than the host of this blog who insults away.
He has to win one way or the other.
How would one test for human/chimp ancestry?
How would an IDer test for miraculous creation, I mean, 'design', of humans and chimps separately?
Perhaps the only way is to demonstrate that every single evolutionary explanation is faulty, which would, of course, lead evolutionists to say, "wait, let's try one more. We know there's an evolutionary explanation because, well, we know there's an evolutionary explanation."
How would one test for human/chimp ancestry?
If it is science it should be able to be tested to the exclusion of any other alternatives.
How would an IDer test for miraculous creation, I mean, 'design', of humans and chimps separately?
By figuring out what it takes to get each organism.
Trevor:
Perhaps the only way is to demonstrate that every single evolutionary explanation is faulty, which would, of course, lead evolutionists to say, "wait, let's try one more. We know there's an evolutionary explanation because, well, we know there's an evolutionary explanation."
No one is wedded to evolutionary explanations. If there is another scientific explanation that is more fruitful, scientists will adopt it. But so far I haven't heard one.
However, explanations that go "everything was created by some magical being at some time in the past, I don't know when, and who knows why, and I can make no predictions based on this" aren't scientific. So it is unlikely scientists will ever adopt such an explanation.
Not only do I understand that experiment I also understand everything that has been written about it...
Hee, hee! Exposed as a lie in another thread. Joe didn't even understand that purines had good abiotic syntheses before Miller's 1995 cytosine-uracil paper.
"No one is wedded to evolutionary explanations. "
This is refuted by evolutionists much greater than you.
This is refuted by evolutionists much greater than you.
Let's have an example, rather than just vague character assassination.
"If there is another scientific explanation that is more fruitful, scientists will adopt it."
Heh, like there will ever be one by scientists? Yeah, right. You trying to even /conceive/ of a non-evolutionary, yet scientific explanation for all of nature is like a ID guy trying to conceive of a designer that is not God. It's faux-openmindedness, it is. They are just as wedded to God (as opposed to brilliant aliens) as most evolutionists are to evolutionary explanations.
Oh, and Lewontin sure seems like a likely candidate, one of the few brave enough to admit it.
Oh, and Lewontin sure seems like a likely candidate, one of the few brave enough to admit it.
Although you are sufficiently incompetent to fail to provide the quote in question, I can guess which quote of Lewontin you are referring to. The only problem is, Lewontin doesn't say anything about scientists refusing to consider a non-evolutionary explanation. He does, however, acknowledge what I said previously: an "explanation" based on the existence of some supernatural being with unlimited powers and a mind we cannot know, even in principle, is not scientific.
On the other hand, an explanation based on, say, design by aliens, is scientific - and only rejected because of the utter lack of evidence.
Shallit starwman:
However, explanations that go "everything was created by some magical being at some time in the past, I don't know when, and who knows why, and I can make no predictions based on this" aren't scientific.
No one says that.
Also there aren't any predictions to be made from the proposed evolutionary mechansisms of natural selection and genetic accidents.
And evolutionists still don't know if the transformations required are even possible.
IOW it is obvious that their "theory" cannot even muster a testable hypothesis.
Shallit exposes his ignorance:
Not only do I understand that experiment I also understand everything that has been written about it-including the fact that the conditions they used did NOT represent anything on Earth
Hee, hee! Exposed as a lie in another thread. Joe didn't even understand that purines had good abiotic syntheses before Miller's 1995 cytosine-uracil paper.
Hee, hee.
The Miller-Urey experiment didn't have anything to do with nucleotides you tard!
It was dealing with amino acids.
I said previously: an "explanation" based on the existence of some supernatural being with unlimited powers and a mind we cannot know, even in principle, is not scientific.
ID doesn't require the supernatural.
And the "evolutionary" explanation doesn't have any support other than the refusal to allow the design inference.
You put your faith in mother nature, father time and magical mystery mutations.- That and imagination.
When asked for evidence to support their claims evos always provide anti-biotic resistance and other slight modifications.
Yet nothing that supports their grand claims and they always appeal to father time.
IOW their position is "scientific" only if we bastardize the meaning of science.
The Miller-Urey experiment didn't have anything to do with nucleotides you tard!
You said you understood "everything" about Miller-Urey, so I assumed that included the follow-up experiment by Oro, which produced adenine. I apologize for assuming you actually knew something.
ID doesn't require the supernatural.
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it more true. The writings of ID proponents themselves make it clear that it does.
And the "evolutionary" explanation doesn't have any support other than the refusal to allow the design inference.
Another lie. But you can't see the evidence because you have your fingers in your ears.
When asked for evidence to support their claims evos always provide anti-biotic resistance and other slight modifications.
Another lie. Speciation has been observed numerous times.
Jeffrey,
Obviously I know enough to know that the Miller-Urey experiment was bogus for a number of reasons.
ID doesn't require the supernatural.
Jeffrey:
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it more true. The writings of ID proponents themselves make it clear that it does.
YOU are the liar Jeffrey as the writings and testimony of ID proponents makes it clear the supernatural is not a requirement for ID.
When asked at Dover both Minnich and Behe said that ID does not require the supernatural.
Only the ID ignorant people with an agenda said it does but failed to support their claims.
And the "evolutionary" explanation doesn't have any support other than the refusal to allow the design inference.
Jeffrey:
Another lie. But you can't see the evidence because you have your fingers in your ears.
Not a lie- if I was lying all you would have to do is actually produce the evidence.
That you didn't tells me that you cannot.
When asked for evidence to support their claims evos always provide anti-biotic resistance and other slight modifications.
Another lie. Speciation has been observed numerous times.
The lie is thinking that speciation is being debated.
Even YECs accept speciation.
IOW it is as I have been saying- you don't understand the debate and think your ignorance is some sort of refutation.
Obviously I know enough to know that the Miller-Urey experiment was bogus for a number of reasons.
Another lie. The experiment was legitimate and is justly regarded as one of the most famous in history.
But then, moronic creationists love to denigrate scientists who have actually achieved something.
The lie is thinking that speciation is being debated.
Speciation has been observed. Speciation is not "slight modifications", as you have claimed. Speciation is denied by many creationists. Congratulations! You lied in three different ways.
When asked at Dover both Minnich and Behe said that ID does not require the supernatural.
And Behe told me in person that the Designer is the Christian God. You lose.
YOU are the liar Jeffrey
On my blog, you don't get to accuse me of lying without damn good evidence. This is your last warning.
"When asked at Dover both Minnich and Behe said that ID does not require the supernatural.
your reply: And Behe told me in person that the Designer is the Christian God. You lose. "
You don't see that as a non sequitur?
Miranda:
If the designer is the Christian God, then ID is religious.
Why is that so hard to understand?
And what if an ID guy says that the designer is a space alien? Does that make ID Romulan?
Behe told you his personal opinion, not any official ID position. The fact that his personal opinion happens to be the personal opinion of the vast majority of ID folks is irrelevant.
My charge of non-sequitur stands.
And what if an ID guy says that the designer is a space alien?
Then at least we'd have a hypothesis that would be susceptible to proof or disproof.
The fact that his personal opinion happens to be the personal opinion of the vast majority of ID folks is irrelevant.
Sure, keep repeating that. But Judge Jones wasn't fooled and neither am I.
My charge of non-sequitur stands.
"It's just a flesh wound!"
Jeffrey:
The experiment was legitimate and is justly regarded as one of the most famous in history.
The experiment was legit.
It just didn't represent anything on the primordial Earth.
Speciation has been observed. Speciation is not "slight modifications", as you have claimed. Speciation is denied by many creationists.
Speciation isn't being debated and it is nothing more than slight modifications.
Present the examples and it will be easy to demonstrate.
As for species- well back in the 1700s there was this guy named Karl von Linne- Carolus Linneaus- who was searching for that elusive "Created Kind".
At first he thought that it was each species that was specially created. But later he repositioned that saying that the observed species are the result borne from the originally created kinds.
See:
Current Status of Baraminology
The fact is no one has argued for the fixity of species in almost 300 years.
It is a lie being perpetuated by those on an agenda.
Answers in Genesis on speciation
And Behe told me in person that the Designer is the Christian God.
Yes he has said that.
He has also said that it wasn't ID that led him to that inference.
You just can't get it through your thick head that what people believe personally doesn't have any bearing on their scientific inferences- that is until it interferes with with their work- as it has with those with an atheistic bend.
Dembski, Minnich, Behe, Gonzalez, Axe- not one has said that ID requires the supernatural.
Dembski, Minnich, Behe, and Gonzalez, are on record saying that ID does not require the supernatural.
It is also obvious that your position regresses to the SAME point as ID.
Always avoiding that topic says quite a bit about your position.
If the designer is the Christian God, then ID is religious.
So if in reality the designer is the Christian God then science is religious?
I say that because science is only about the reality behind the existence of what it is we are observing- it is about our never-ending quest for knowledge.
Great minds like Newton and Kepler understood science to be a way of understanding/ uncovering God's handy-work.
But all that is moot as Intelligent Design is NOT about the designer.
Intelligent design is about the design as in detecting and understanding.
So what, if we run with the design inference and it turns out that after decades of research that the designer is that God- does that mean all that research wasn't scientific?
Anthony Flew- once an atheist now accepts the design inference based on the scientific data.
It just didn't represent anything on the primordial Earth.
That is not known with certainty yet, and it misses the point even if true. The point is that creationists claimed that amino acids could not be formed abiotically. They were wrong.
Speciation isn't being debated
Not true. Look at this creationist book I picked up last week at a book sale: The Evolution Handbook. On p. 400 we find "The speciation problem is a gap problem. There are no transitional species, as there ought to be if evolution were true."
I have argued with creationists for years and years. About 1/2 of them, in my estimation, deny speciation.
it is nothing more than slight modifications.
False - polyploidy can produce distinctly different morphologies.
You really know nothing about evolution, do you?
Dembski, Minnich, Behe, Gonzalez, Axe- not one has said that ID requires the supernatural.
Judge Jones could spot a whopper and so can I.
Judge Jones, the plagiarizer of ACLU?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/study_shows_federal_judged_cop.html
Figured you'd love him.
Miranda:
We can now add law to the never-ending list of topics you know nothing about.
Judges don't "plagiarize" anything; they accept findings of fact. It is routine.
I'm curious - are you able to do anything except parrot Dishonesty Institute talking points?
The founders and promoters of ID are all religious. ID was created in order to make the religious goals of creationism appear scientific. But the very fact that the people who promote ID are doing so part time due to religious purposes is evidence that ID is religion.
Another piece of evidence is the way that Joe G writes and, I suspect, lots of other people whose arguments are based on faith rather than science and reason. Indeed, you can read how angry he is. How he insults by saying things like
"IOW Takis, you are a clueless troll"
"you just can't get it through your thick head"
"you tard!"
"Shallit starwman"
"wayward arse"
"your inner moron talking"
(He has actually never explained what IOW, troll, and starwman mean. Probably insults too.)
This kind of talk characterizes people "of faith". Those who, for lack of arguments, resort to insults and fights. It is known as fundamentalism. This may be due to belief in a supernatural force or faith in some kind of other illogical entity but, whatever it is, it has all the characteristics of religion.
As Shallit pointed out, the Discovery Institute states:
d]esign theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
As I pointed out, Wikipedia says the same thing: ID is a religious movement.
I base my disgust on ID on my reading of the "mathematical" papers of Dembski mostly (but also, to a lesser extent, to the silly arguments of others). If the leading person of ID is so poor in his mathematical arguments supporting ID then how can anyone, religious or not, take ID seriously? It is junk, sheer junk.
New World Encyclopedia.
I was just curious why Joe G keeps pointing to the above encyclopedia and why, on the other hand, is so furious with Wikipedia. To recall, I asked him to read the ID article on the latter and he became angry saying that "[wikipedia] should be sued for posting such nonsense [about ID being a religious movement]". I also asked him to modify the Wikipedia article but he refused to answer.
I ran a check on New World Encyclopedia (abbreviated NWE henceforth) and found it very-very poor, not only in Mathematics but also in other subjects, such as Physics.
Then I looked around to see what this document is. On the main page of the NWE we read:
This project transcends the metaphysical assumptions of both the Enlightenment and Modern Encyclopedias.
The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon.
The word "metaphysical" alone should ring a bell of danger. But then the name Sun Myung Moon is clear evidence that NWE (like ID) serves some religious purposes.
Sun Myung Moon is the founder and leader of the worldwide Unification Church. Moon has said, and it is believed by Unification Church members, that he is the Messiah. He is a religious fundamentalist, politically an extremely conservative individual, a controversial figure and the list goes on.
This is enough evidence that the NWE is trash.
"Judges don't "plagiarize" anything; they accept findings of fact. It is routine."
Good ones don't, you're right.
I'm sure you did the comparison of the writings yourself. You know bloody well that if the tables were turned, ie, that Jones ruled in favor of Behe's side, and he copied the writings of some creationist organization, you would've raised bloody hell.
I'm sure you did the comparison of the writings yourself.
No, actually, it was my colleague, co-author, and friend Wesley Elsberry who did the comparison, showing that the Dishonesty Institute lied when they created their 90% figure.
No surprise there: the DI lies about everything. If they claimed the sky was blue, you can be damn sure it turned purple overnight.
You know bloody well that if the tables were turned, ie, that Jones ruled in favor of Behe's side, and he copied the writings of some creationist organization, you would've raised bloody hell.
Well, we can add my reasoning ability and character to the long list of things that Miranda knows nothing about.
By the way, Miranda, judges rarely accept findings of fact when they're written in crayon.
Takis:
The founders and promoters of ID are all religious.
And your evidence for that is?
ID was created in order to make the religious goals of creationism appear scientific.
And your evidence for that is?
But the very fact that the people who promote ID are doing so part time due to religious purposes is evidence that ID is religion.
And your evidence for that is?
So Takis doesn't have any evidence and instead thinks his bald assertions are meaningful discourse.
You may be disgusted with ID but your position doesn't have anything to offer.
Ya see the fact is if you could just support the claims of your position ID would go away.
But seeing that the ONLY evidence for your position is the refusal to allow the design inference you really don't have anything at all.
And then there is Anthony Flew- once an atheist and now accepts the design inference based on the scientific data.
Takis:
I was just curious why Joe G keeps pointing to the above encyclopedia and why, on the other hand, is so furious with Wikipedia.
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
The wikipedia article on Intelligent Design is easily refuted.
Why would Takis accept something that is so easily refuted?
As for Judge Jones his decision is only valid in a small insignificant district in Pennsylvania.
It doesn't have any weight outside of that district.
Not only that a judge isn't in any position to determine what is and isn't science.
Discovery Institute and "Theocracy".
Overview:
Periodically certain Darwinists make false and unsubstantiated claims that Discovery Institute advocates “theocracy” or is part of the “radical Christian right” or supposedly supports something called “Christian reconstructionism.” These charges are little more than smears, and they show the bankruptcy of the Darwinists’ own position. Rather than argue about the substance of the scientific debate over neo-Darwinism, all Darwinists can do is engage in baseless ad hominem attacks.
Joe G:
I actually thank you for being polite once.
Evidence? Have you read the previous postings? For the third time on this page, read (and I won't put it in boldface) this:
Discovery Institute says:
Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.
Have you seen Dembski's page? http://www.designinference.com/ He clearly states his religious aspirations all over!
What additional evidence do you need? They say so themselves.
----
As for Wikipedia, you said (again and again and again):
Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.
The wikipedia article on Intelligent Design is easily refuted.
Why would Takis accept something that is so easily refuted?
Fine. You claim it can be refuted. Refute it then. This is the fourth time I'm asking you to refute it by modifying it. I bet that IDists will not let you modify the article!
----
Last but not least, you said you prefer, instead of Wikipedia, the New World Encyclopedia (NWE). Have you bothered to read my comment on it? Scroll back and read: NWE was established by the "Moonies". This is religion of the worst kind!
What other evidence do you need? Religion is all over, even in your references!
It's pointless, Takis. The guy is clearly not amenable to rational argument. He's like a one-man Dunning-Kruger case study.
More on NWE:
Sorry folks but I can't hold it back. I wasted a few minutes watching a video by a certain Dr. Gordon L. Anderson who promotes the New World Encyclopedia by saying things like "the problem with Encyclopedia Britannica is that it is scientistic", and "our encyclopedia will not just be facts but tell people about values", and "the values will be woven into the tapestry of an article". In other words, he is promoting a biased encyclopedia.
Who is this Gordon Anderson? A little search shows that he has studied philosophy of (you guessed it) RELIGION and that he is Secretary General of Professors World Peace Academy.
What on Earth is this World Peace Academy? You may have guessed it: The Professors World Peace Academy was founded by Sun Myung Moon who claims to be God himself.
I thank Joe G for pointing out explicitly that everything he says and everything he refers to is not just religion but religion of the worst kind.
Takis,
I provided what the Discovery Institute says.
Have you read any of it?
Here is another article for you to ignore:
The wedge document- so what
Again what Dembski thinks personally doesn't have any more or less impact on ID as what Dawkins thinks.
That Dembski is religious does not mean ID is.
IOW if we use YOUR logic then the tyheory of evolution is an atheistic theory.
As for modifying Wikipedia- will they pay me to do all the work that has to be done?
And when you attack people as opposed to the evidence it is a clear sign that you have nothing at all.
As I said Intelligent Design does NOT say anything about the designer and for that reason alone cannot be an argument for the existence of "God".
You seem incapable of understanding that simple concept.
You also ignore Anthony Flew, David Berlinski, the testimony of Behe and Minnich, the words of Richards and Gonzalez.
Other people have also weighed in on this- including John Morris, the president of the Institute for Creation Research:
"The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them."
Jeffrey,
You have yet to post a rational argument.
Until you do we will not know if I am amendable to one or not.
Joe G:
As Jeff said, it's pointless arguing with some who is not amenable to rational argument. Shouting (boldface) and cursing doesn't get you anywhere.
Even your citations stink of religion, read what I wrote about the New World Encyclopedia. Are you part of the "Moonies"?
And please (I'm saying this for the fifth time), go ahead and alter the Wikipedia article.
Takis,
You have yet to present a rational argument.
You have to attack people as opposed to their arguments.
There is a Greek proverb, beautifully applying in your case:
Στου κουφού την πόρτα όσο θέλεις βρόντα.
Translation: At the deaf person's door [you may] knock as much as you wish [in the sense that it's of no use to knock].
I would substitute "deaf" by "deaf and blind".
Takis,
Your projection is duly noted.
That said I am more than willing to put my money where my mouth is.
Ya see I know your only "sources of information" are the already refuted Wikipedia article and the oft-refuted comments from Forrest and her ilk.
Also you have refused to read anything I have posted starting with the fact that ID doesn't say anything about the designer and therefor cannot be an argument for the existence of "God".
You ignore what I post as if your ignorance is meaningful discourse.
And you also ignore that the ancient Greeks were discussing teleology long before any US Court decisions.
Is there a Greek proverb for a person who is proud that his head is up his arse?
"my colleague, co-author, and friend Wesley Elsberry who did the comparison, showing that the Dishonesty Institute lied when they created their 90% figure. "
It appears from your friend's analysis that Jones plagiarized 66 percent.
Elsberry gets real mathematical on us when he writes "The whole ruling has quite a bit of text that did not come from the PPFOF."
I'm sure you are put much more at ease about Jones' ruling!
It appears from your friend's analysis that Jones plagiarized 66 percent.
It appears you (a) still don't understand what judges do and (b) can't admit the DI lied when it created its 90% figure.
So, stupidity and dishonesty in one comment. No surprise there.
"It appears you (a) still don't understand what judges do and (b) can't admit the DI lied when it created its 90% figure."
a) What percentage is common for judges? Did Jones go WAY beyond what is "common"?
b) Your friend wrote: "Somebody at the DI eyeballed it and said that.s close enough."
You go for unsubstantiated charges?
I can't tell if DI lied. Maybe they had their own criteria that didn't match your friend's.
So, weakness and weaseling in one comment.
What percentage is common for judges? Did Jones go WAY beyond what is "common"?
And if he did, what then? Judges accept findings of fact all the time. That is why lawyers prepare briefs. Turning it into a "plagiarism" charge is simply ridiculous.
Maybe they had their own criteria that didn't match your friend's.
The burden of proof is on you to produce those criteria, not simply assume they exist.
Judge Jones didn't accept any "findings of fact".
It is pretty obvious that he didn't even listen to the testimony of the ID experts.
It is also obvious that the Dover school board didn't know what ID was- they most likely still do not.
The school board gad religious motivations and JJ conflated that with ID.
However, as I said before, his decision is meaningless outside of his little district in PA.
Judge Jones didn't accept any "findings of fact".
A lie. Even the DI agrees he did; they just object to the ones he accepted.
It is pretty obvious that he didn't even listen to the testimony of the ID experts.
A lie. He listened and even queried some of them.
All Joe can do is lie, because he has no evidence for his loony claims.
1- Jones says that ID requires the supernatural. Yet both ID experts testified that it does not.
IOW Jones accepted the lies of the atheists with an agenda.
2- Dr Behe responds to Jones
3- And Jones conflated the school boards' motivations with ID.
IOW Jones accepted the lies of the atheists with an agenda.
More lies from Joe.
1. Not all the pro-science people who testified were atheists.
2. ID is religious, as amply documented over and over.
A bit more evidence (as if more is needed...) for the religiousness (christianity to be more exact) of ID:
"Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." -Dembski, Touchstone journal of mere christianity, 1999.
"[Our goal is to] defeat [the] materialist world view represented by the theory of evolution in favor of a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." - The wedge strategy action plan of the Discovery Institute.
The banner of the Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture was originally a religious icon.
This banner was, eventually, secularized because it is the agenda of ID and DI to try to infiltrate simpletons with their stupidities, simpletons who are not necessarily religious, by convincing them that ID is a science that can be understood by the layman. Their proselytizing tactics include putting aside their own foundational principles (creationism) only for the benefit of expanding their cult.
Perhaps because all forms of a life were in one way or another conceived by intelligent researchers.
Dear "Term Papers":
Your comments will not be published, as they are a form of blogspam. You can submit them without a link to your "term papers" website.
Post a Comment