AE BB DB Explorer

form_srcid: Wesley R. Elsberry

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 38.107.191.99

View Author detected.

view author posts:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Wesley R. Elsberry

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Wesley R. Elsberry%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2002/05/06 02:19:43, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

DeLay was asked where kids should go to college. The questioner apparently asked this in the context of teaching creationism. Houston Chronicle article William Dembski is mentioned in the above article. Note the mode of discussion DeLay's spokesman, Jonathan Grella, uses in talking about Barry Lynn. "Guilt by association" tactics seem to come in both rightist and leftist flavors. As a student at A&M, I have to say that I saw no evidence of a lack of conservatism on campus.  I didn't live in the dorms, so I can't speak to the reports of rampant hanky-panky. Dallas Morning News article

Date: 2002/05/06 02:25:59, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I would like to announce the availability of the "Finite Improbability Calculator". The Finite Improbability Calculator is a tool for exploring the very small probabilities encountered in applying some of the formulas in William Dembski's "No Free Lunch" to biological phenomena. Some basic functions are implemented, such as factorial, change of base, permutation, and combination. Further, several of the formulas found in section 5.10 of "No Free Lunch" are implemented. I did this as an aid to my own analysis of Dembski's work, and realized that others could benefit from it as well. The routines are specifically made so that they handle very large and very small numbers without causing floating-point overflow or underflow errors. Comments are welcome.

Date: 2002/05/06 02:31:29, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I was able to attend the event due to good timing on other travel.   Eugenie Scott moderated.  William Dembski and Michael Behe presented on "intelligent design" and were questioned by Robert Pennock and Kenneth Miller. Dembski used a lot of negative argumentation in his presentation.   One of the parts which wasn't so negative included his capsule example of specified complexity as needing a long message and an independent pattern to match it.  Dembski invoked the bacterial flagellum as an example of specified complexity in biology.  He floated the claim that the only known examples of successful co-option come from human engineering.  He touted section 5.10 of his book, "No Free Lunch", as giving the probability calculations needed to find "horrendous" probabilities of getting a flagellum.  While Dembski had a section of his talk devoted to talking about "arguing from ignorance", it did not seem to me that he actually disposed of the issue.  Dembski reiterated the claim that design is a notion belonging to statistics and complexity theory.  And to top things off, Dembski even repeated his claim that there is a room at the Smithsonian devoted to artifacts known to be designed but for which no purpose is known. Of course, there is no such room, which can be confirmed by contacting the Smithsonian, as Jeff Shallit has done.  There was once an exhibit (1980-81) with one display case in which some artifacts were displayed. I have to wonder why it is that if design is properly a statistical and complexity theoretic notion, why hasn't Dembski published his "design inference" in that literature.  It would seem to be a neutral ground in which to gain some credibility for the concept.  I don't think that the statisticians really care about the evolution/creation issue, so the whole thing about the "Darwinist conspiracy" should be a non-issue in that context. Rob Pennock tried to get Dembski to commit to saying what sorts of things can be taught if one accepts "intelligent design" by contrasting that to what science already has resolved.  Issues like the age of the earth and whether a global flood could be taught were brought up.  But Dembski dodged making any stand on these issues, saying that his stance is that "design" is detectable.  I think this showed that Dembski is simply evasive on these points which might lose the ID movement the support of YEC fellow-travelers.  Others have opined that this showed Dembski's fortitude in refusing to grant Pennock any points. Miller tried to get Dembski to state when the intelligent designer had to infuse the "specified complexity" seen in various events mentioned by Dembski and other ID advocates.  Did the origin of life 3 billion years ago indicate an intervention by the intelligent designer?  Maybe, maybe not was about the extent of Dembski's reply.  For the bacterial flagellum, the Cambrian explosion, the emergence of various animal groups, "maybe, maybe not" was the sum total of Dembski's stance.  The specified complexity might have been input at the origin of the universe, and subsequent examples would have to be examined in detail.  ID could thus be compatible with some form of Deism, or an interventionist theology, but doesn't seem to have any way within it to decide between the two. Michael Behe gave his usual talk on "irreducible complexity", including some discussion of mousetraps. Ken Miller presented a four-step logical argument based upon things that Behe has said in the past.  Behe stated flatly that the second point was something he had never said, but Miller was able to pop up the full quote and citation showing that Behe had, indeed, said just that.  Miller then proceeded to show that for each of three biological systems that Behe has used in the past (the blood clotting cascade, the bacterial flagellum, and the eukaryotic cilium) that functional systems with fewer parts do exist.  Behe was caught flat-footed by Miller's citation of work from 1969 documenting that dolphins and whales lack Hagemann factor from their blood clotting cascade.  "I feel sorry for the dolphins," said Behe.  "There's no need to feel sorry for the dolphins," said Miller, "they are doing just fine."  Take away 40 proteins from the bacterial flagella, or 80% of the system, said Miller, and you still have a fully functional Type III secretory system.  Behe objected that these were not exactly the same proteins, but Miller countered that in each case they were quite similar with high sequence similarity in conserved regions.  For the eukaryotic cilium, Miller presented the case of cilia from eel sperm, that are missing several parts found in other cilia, but which are still fully functional. One criticism of Miller's presentation would be that Behe kept saying that Miller was not taking into account Behe's full argument.  I think that Behe would have a point here if he could just cite the places where he had retracted the claims that Miller did critique. Pennock made an incredibly telling point, in that neither Behe nor Dembski would reduce "irreducible complexity" to an independent and objective criterion that would not require Behe to pass judgment on whether a system was actually IC or not.  Pennock proposed that the use of knockout experiments could establish what is or is not IC.  Behe said that this would be a good place to start, but that he would reserve judgment. Each of the participants was asked to give a URL. Kenneth Miller Rob Pennock Michael Behe William Dembski Eugenie Scott

Date: 2002/05/06 12:26:38, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Transcripts would be good.  I'm trying to work out the issues on making transcripts available.  There was a complaint from one of the participants about making the audio recordings available.  Hopefully, there won't be such issues over the transcript.

Date: 2002/05/06 12:31:50, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I don't think it is an overanalysis of the situation.  Take a look, for instance, at William Dembski's book, No Free Lunch, and section 1.8 therein.  Within that, you'll find him discussing an argument by analogy eerily similar to your description.

Date: 2002/05/07 00:47:12, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

There are a number of critical reviews of Dembski's "The Design Inference". Review by Ellery Eells Review by Wesley R. Elsberry Review by Fitelson et alia Review by Richard Wein

Date: 2002/05/07 00:58:23, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I have an extended critique of this book at this page.

Date: 2002/05/07 02:24:06, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

My page on William A. Dembski.  This links to his own pages and essays, and also to critical views of his ideas. Please use this thread for pointing out new essays, books, criticism, and news concerning William Dembski.

Date: 2002/05/07 10:07:10, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Intelligent Design advocates often deploy very negative analogies concerning their critics.  Such analogies have included things like the former Soviet regime, McCarthyites, and Nazis. This thread is for documenting specific instances where ID advocates engage in political speech at the expense of their critics. I'll start things off with a recent example. Mark Hartwig: Compares Darwinists to Nazis Mark Hartwig has taken over the "Weekly Wedge Update".  In his column for May 5, 2002, Hartwig makes an analogy between "Darwinists" and the Nazi oppressors of Czechoslovakia. Quote The intimidation tactics, however, signal something important about Darwinists. That "something" was explained in an insightful little piece by one A.J. Obrdlik. Published in 1942, it was a study of "gallows humor" in Czechoslovakia during the Nazi occupation. In that article, Obrdlik made a very keen observation: Gallows humor is a reliable index of the morale of the oppressed whereas the reaction to it on the part of the oppressors tells a long story about the actual strength of the dictators: If they can afford to ignore it, they are strong; if they react wildly with anger, striking their victims with severe reprisals and punishment, they are not sure of themselves, no matter how much they display their might on the surface. With the growing success of the Wedge, I'm sure we're going to see a lot more of this stuff. But Darwinist tactics will become a lot less intimidating as people realize that they signify not strength but panic.

Date: 2002/05/16 16:52:01, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

On the ARN forum, "Ex-YEC-er" made this comment: Quote As far as the Brainstorm forum is concerned, my experiences differ significantly from yours, perhaps because I tend to be critical of Dembski's arguments. When mentioning references to Wesley Elsberry my posting was removed by the moderator. "No interest in the gospel of Elsberry...". When I forwarded my response to the administrator to Dembski (I was responding to his posting), Dembski had me banned and warned me that any attempt to complain about this would likely lead to my permanent banishment from the forum. ARN forum thread on flagellar evolution This, of course, intrigues me. If anyone knows who "Ex-YEC-er" is, please ask him or her to get in touch with me about this. Also, if you have direct experience with ISCID moderation removing or editing posts based upon references to particular critics, I would like to hear from you.

Date: 2002/05/17 10:02:05, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

This forum is for brief posts relating upcoming or past events having to do with "intelligent design".  Discussion should be taken to the "All About Antievolution -> Intelligent Design" forum or one of the fora under "Specifically About Intelligent Design". Please provide a link to online articles or announcements.  A short summary would be appropriate to describe what is linked. Wesley

Date: 2002/05/17 11:12:21, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

2002/05/10 Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution" has been produced as a film suitable for television broadcast by "Coldwater Media".  It premiered in Seattle at Seattle Pacific University. Origins of life film to premiere at SPU Not the Whole Truth, a review by Roger Downey. Documentation of the history of the DeHart case.  DeHart was featured in the "Icons" video. Please add "Icons" video related links to this thread.

Date: 2002/05/17 19:19:04, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

In this ARN forum topic, the issue of arguing concerning optimality was raised.  The person bringing this up cited Dembski, but several of his ideas seem to stem from Paul Nelson's presentation back at the 1997 NTSE conference. Basically, ID advocates object to optimality arguments by biologists when these venture into the realm of contrasting natural mechanisms with supposed supernatural mechanisms.  Paul Nelson made the observation that such argumentation presupposes certain "theological themata".  Nelson also asserted that in order to argue that some state observed in nature was sub-optimal, one would have to reliably know what the absolute optimal state was, and calculate an optimality deficit figure. I responded to Nelson's assertion that knowledge of absolute optimality was a necessary part of a sub-optimality argument some time ago on the talk.origins newsgroup.  The response can be seen here, but the essential message is that a valid sub-optimality argument can be warranted on a strictly relative basis, with no need for absolute optimality to be known. I also responded to William Dembski's essay on optimality argumentation, pointing out several problems in his argumentation.  Dembski's essay is here, and my response is here.

Date: 2002/05/17 19:40:34, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The "Coldwater Media" video of Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution" premiered on 2002/05/10, and since has been reported to have aired on several television stations in Ohio.  This deployment seems to be obviously political in nature, with an aim to influence voters, who in turn would influence the Board of Education to include "intelligent design" in school science standards, or at the least officially single out evolutionary biology as "controversial" and require the teaching of "evidence against" evolution.  These two ways of stating things are pretty much synonymous for "intelligent design" advocates. Anyone with information on specific times, locales, and dates when the "Icons" video has been aired is requested to add to this thread in the "Intelligent Design News" forum.

Date: 2002/05/18 03:24:15, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Here's a reference that Ken Miller cited in the AMNH debate on 2002/04/23: Quote Robinson, A. Jean, Kropatkin, Mona, and Aggeler, Paul M.  1969.   Hageman Factor (Factor XII) Deficiency in Marine Mammals. Science 166:1420-1422. Marine mammals lack one of the "parts" of the blood-clotting system whose absence supposedly renders the system non-functional. Mark Todd pointed this one out to Miller, having heard about it from some of the veterinarians who I work with, too.  I don't think that they mentioned this bit around me.

Date: 2002/05/19 14:25:05, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

One of the staples of the antievolution movement is the deployment of "quotations".  When one examines the antievolutionary literature, one will note a relative superabundance of quoted material within it.  Closer examination will reveal that many of these supposed quotations are quoted out of context, have been edited to adjust their meaning to something in line with the argument the antievolutionist wants to make, are from "experts" of dubious reputation or from long ago, are patched together from widely separated sentences in the source, or otherwise fail to accurately reflect the intent and meaning of the author. In this thread, I would like people to contribute examples of misquotations deployed by antievolutionists.  This should include the citation of the misquotation (who deployed the quote and where), the misquotation itself, and the original quote with sufficient context to show that the antievolutionist did indeed engage in misquotation. I'll also encourage people to contribute such examples to my quotation database at this URL. Additonally, people are directed to Michael Hopkins's Quotation and Misquotations FAQ at the TalkOrigins Archive.

Date: 2002/05/20 12:03:29, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

There are some issues that exploration of Dembski's formulae reveal. p_dco = p_orig * p_local * p_config Dembski provides two basic equations for probabilities.  The one for p_local is defined on NFL p.293.  Both p_orig and p_config are calculated on the basis of what Dembski calls a perturbation probability.  Dembski provides a variety of forms or approximations to a perturbation probability (NFL pp.297,299,300,301). p_local calculations (NFL p.293) p_local = (units in system * substitutions / total different units)^(units in system * copies) What is interesting here is that numbers for "substitutions" and "copies" are simply invented by Dembski, not referenced as the result of empirical study on the system in question.  Yet the equation is highly sensitive to changes in these numbers.  For the numbers provided by Dembski (50 units in the system, 4289 total different units, 5 copies, 10 substitutions), the resulting probability is 4.502871e-234 (all calculations done via the Finite Improbability Calculator).  If we change "substitutions" to 11 instead of 10, the resulting probability is 1.003831e-223, or about 11 orders of magnitude.  If we change "copies" to 4 instead of 5, the resulting probability is 2.102769e-187, or about 47 orders of magnitude different.  This extreme sensitivity is something which Dembski does not even note in his discussion. The other numbers in the calculation would at first glance appear to be more stable.  But the total number of units, 4289, is simply taken as the number of proteins which the E. coli genome is known to code for.  There is no justification given for using this number in the context of flagellar construction.  It is well known in developmental biology that not all proteins coded for are present or expressed within a cell at all times, yet this is exactly the sort of counterfactual assumption Dembski makes in deploying this number.  If we assume a mere 10% of possible proteins are not present at the time of flagellar construction, the calculated probability changes to 1.246450e-222, or 12 orders of magnitude more likely.  Even the number 50, for proteins used within the flagellum, is not beyond critical examination.  There is no indication that this is the minimum number of proteins necessary for flagellar construction, just that this is the characteristic number seen in E. coli flagella.  Change this to 49, and the probability rises to 1.481864e-231, or about 3 orders of magnitude more likely. Dembski has failed to establish the biological relevance of his p_local calculation.  He has overlooked the developmental aspect of the E. coli cell entirely.  His invented parameters are not grounded in empirical research.  The extreme sensitivity of his provided equation to changes in values of all parameters lends little confidence to the results.  In no sense does he justify this calculation as providing an upper bound on the probability of even "random localization", as he must if this calculation is supposed to be relevant in any sense to the issue at hand.  And, of course, there is no justification for the assumption that "random localization" is the sole relevant chance hypothesis to be considered.

Date: 2002/05/21 21:09:49, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The antievolution group in Nebraska appears to be Concerned Citizens for Objective Science Education. Right on the home page, this group quotes Charles Darwin. Quote A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question. It is an interesting quote, now seen in the presentations of several "intelligent design" advocates.  Their deployment of it is flawed, however.  ID advocates don't "balance" facts and arguments for "intelligent design" against facts and arguments for evolutionary biology.  The ID advocacy strategy is one of negative argumentation.  This is apparently a cover for their inconvenient situation, which is that they seem to have no "facts and arguments" for their position. But even that is not the whole story.  The quote from Darwin is lifted from an interesting context.  I will provide the complete paragraph here. Quote This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. -- Origin of Species Darwin's statement does not support the notion, common among ID advocates, that in any educational circumstance when one mentions evolutionary biology one must then launch into discussion of the top ten reasons ID advocates are antievolutionists.  Darwin recognizes that the context matters, even if ID advocates fail to take the point. A Nebraska group opposed to "intelligent design" being inserted into the science curriculum is the Nebraska Religious Coalition for Science Education.

Date: 2002/05/22 12:07:18, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Creative Loafing Atlanta has an excellent front-page article on "intelligent design" and the textbook disclaimers mandated by the Cobb County school board. Sidebar articles cover scientists responding to "intelligent design" and the Cobb County disclaimer, where Ken Miller is featured in both of those pieces.

Date: 2002/05/23 08:35:09, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

A popular antievolution argument often deployed by "intelligent design" advocates concerns the non-universality of the genetic code:Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, and Cornelius G. Hunter. I'm opening this thread for discussion of the canonical genetic code and its variants, and also for examination of the claims of ID advocates concerning the canonical code. Kenneth Miller of Brown University has a couple of essays on this topic: here and here.

Date: 2002/05/23 08:55:32, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The canonical genetic code It is tough to represent tabular information in a proportional font.  So I will present a list representing the canonical genetic code.  There are three items separated by commas in each line.  The first is a representation of a codon, a nucleotide triplet.  Each base is represented by a letter: "a" for adenine, "g" for guanine, "c" for cytosine, and "u" for uracil.  The second item is either an amino acid or a "stop", where each amino acid is represented by a three-letter abbreviation.  The third item is a single-letter code for an amino acid. uuu,phe,f ucu,ser,s uau,tyr,y ugu,cys,c uuc,phe,f ucc,ser,s uac,tyr,y ugc,cys,c uua,leu,l uca,ser,s uaa,stop,x uga,stop,x uug,leu,l ucg,ser,s uag,stop,x ugg,trp,w cuu,leu,l ccu,pro,p cau,his,h cgu,arg,r cuc,leu,l ccc,pro,p cac,his,h cgc,arg,r cua,leu,l cca,pro,p caa,gln,q cga,arg,r cug,leu,l ccg,pro,p cag,gln,q cgg,arg,r auu,ile,i acu,thr,t aau,asn,n agu,ser,s auc,ile,i acc,thr,t aac,asn,n agc,ser,s aua,ile,i aca,thr,t aaa,lys,k aga,arg,r aug,met,m acg,thr,t aag,lys,k agg,arg,r guu,val,v gcu,ala,a gau,asp,d ggu,gly,g guc,val,v gcc,ala,a gac,asp,d ggc,gly,g gua,val,v gca,ala,a gaa,glu,e gga,gly,g gug,val,v gcg,ala,a gag,glu,e ggg,gly,g Here's a page with a table showing the canonical code and the full expansion of the abbreviations.

Date: 2002/05/23 09:48:03, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

How many codes could there be? The simple answer is "lots".  The canonical genetic code has 64 entries coding for 21 different things (20 amino acids plus a "stop" signal).  It is called "degenerate", which is a fancy way of saying that there are more codes than there are things coded for, which results in some redundancy in the canonical code.  If you look closely at how codons are matched with amino acids, you will likely notice that in many cases a change in the third base of the codon results in no change in the coded-for amino acid.  This results in a typical clustering of codons, so that a change of one base has about a one-in-five chance of causing no change at all in what amino acid is coded for.  In other words, the canonical genetic code is not as "brittle" as it could be.  I hope to explore that more thoroughly later. But back to the question of interest.  How many "genetic codes" could there be?  Let me be clear here.  The phrase "genetic code" is sometimes sloppily used to refer to the specific sequence of bases observed in the genome of an organism.  That's not the way I am using it here.  The "genetic code" is used here as the way in which triplets of three nucleotide bases are mapped to corresponding amino acids for the purpose of protein synthesis.  Figuring out how many different ways such a code can be instantiated can be approached through combinatorial "counting rules". The first "counting rule" of interest is the factorial function.  Given some positive integer number n of items, the factorial is defined as the product of every positive integer greater than or equal to one and less than or equal to n.  The number of different ways 64 symbols can be represented as a sequence is factorial(64) (or 64!), or about 1.268869e89.  Since a degenerate genetic code doesn't have 64 different symbols, but rather 64 positions for symbols, this represents an upper bound on the number of possible genetic codes using triplet codons. So what counting rule gives us what we want?  The answer is the "partition rule".  This tells us that the number of ways that k different symbols can be arranged to fill n spaces when we know how many of each of the k symbols there are.  The rule is n! / (m_1! * m_2! * ... * m_k!) The sum of m_1 through m_k = n For 21 symbols, the worst case situation would be if most of the code specified a single amino acid.  This occurs if one symbol is repeated 44 times and the remaining symbols have 1 instance each.  In this case, application of the partition rule tells us that there are 4.8e34 possible codes of that sort. The best case situation is where all the codes are as nearly evenly represented as possible.  This is the case when one symbol has 4 instances and the remaining 20 symbols each have 3 instances.  In this case, there are about 1.4e72 possible different codes of that sort. If we take the distribution of symbols in the canonical code, we have 64! / (4!6!2!2!2!2!2!4!2!3!6!2!1!2!4!3!6!4!1!2!4!), or about 2.3e69 possible different codes of that sort. It is interesting that the actual canonical genetic code has a distribution that would permit almost as many variants as the very best case situation. Next up will be considering what the numbers mean for evolutionary biology.

Date: 2002/05/23 20:58:45, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

2002/05/23 Skip Evans, Network Project Director at the National Center for Science Education, has a response to the DI CRSC "Icons" video: Discovery Institute Pioneers the Mis-infomercial.

Date: 2002/05/23 22:08:15, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Jonathan Wells has a very interesting report on the debate before the Ohio Board of Education.  Wells and Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture were matched up against Kenneth Miller and Lawrence Krauss. Other resources of interest in the Ohio situation: Ohio Citizens for Science, a group for the acceptance of the new science standards as written by the advisory team. Science Excellence for All Ohioans, a group advocating the inclusion of "intelligent design" in the K12 science curriculum, or at least something singling out evolutionary biology as a subject requiring "teaching the controversy". Substandard Education for All Ohioans, a parody site poking fun at the antievolution stance of the page just above. Events from Ohio, a collection of resources at the National Center for Science Education.

Date: 2002/05/23 22:43:25, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski now has his own collection of links to his writing, at DesignInference.com.

Date: 2002/05/24 01:06:23, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

This forum should be used for multi-user contributions to topics common in discussion of antievolution. Posts should make specific additions to the stated topic, such as contributing URLs, bibliographic citations, and essays.

Date: 2002/05/24 12:59:02, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Stephen Jay Gould died of cancer at age 60 on 2002/05/20. A number of obituaries have run. Mercury News/Philadelphia Inquirer Salon BBC News/SCITECH Harvard Gazette Nature Boston Globe Yahoo! CNN Washington Post Newsday Boston Herald Washington Post: Scientist who wrote rings around the earth Chronicle of Higher Education Nando Times MSNBC

Date: 2002/05/24 13:11:11, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Problem with Mercury News/Philadelphia Inquirer obituary An obituary for Stephen Jay Gould by the Mercury News/Philadelphia Inquirer quoted many people about Gould.  Here's what they reported from Henry Morris and Richard Dawkins: Quote ``We would honor him as a worthy opponent and will miss his great writing,'' said Henry Morris, founder and president emeritus of the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon. ``Many of us creationist scientists thoroughly enjoyed reading -- and quoting from -- his books.'' Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, a longtime critic of Gould, once wrote: ``He massively over-hyped his own work, and has a grossly exaggerated opinion of the worth of his ideas.'' -- Mercury News/Philadelphia Inquirer obituary While the reporters went to the trouble of talking to Henry Morris, they apparently failed to give Dawkins the same courtesy, citing instead something written in another context an unspecified length of time ago.  Unfortunately, the text does not emphasize the point that Dawkins's comments were not made in the context established by the Morris quote just previous, which has misled some readers already. I wrote Richard Dawkins about the Mercury News/Philadelphia Inquirer obituary, and he gave me permission to publicly release the following quote: Quote For good or ill, Steve Gould had a huge influence on American scientific culture, and on balance the good came out on top. Although we disagreed about much, we shared much too, including a spellbound delight in the wonders of the natural world, and a shared conviction that such wonders deserve nothing less than a purely natural explanation. His powerful voice will echo on for a long time.

Date: 2002/05/24 14:04:09, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The Fourth World Skeptics Conference sponsored by CSICOP, June 20-23, 2002, in Burbank, California, will feature a panel on "Evolution and Intelligent Design". The moderator will be Massimo Pigliucci.  Panelists will include William Dembski and Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, Kenneth Miller of Brown University, and myself (Texas A&M, if you don't know already).

Date: 2002/05/24 19:53:47, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Stephen Meyer compares Ken Miller to Himmler This one is reported by no less an authority than Jonathan Wells. Quote Another interesting aspect of the press conference was a statement by Ken Miller, featured on the evening news, to the effect that ID advocates are trying to present their views to the public "without the approval of science." Afterwards, in private, Steve Meyer kept repeating Miller's pompous declaration with a heavy German accent, sounding for all the world like Heinrich Himmler, Hitler's propaganda chief. -- Jonathan Wells on 2002/03/11 session with the Ohio BOE

Date: 2002/05/25 01:56:40, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Jonathan Wells: Darwinism analogous to former Soviet regime Quote These critics include embryologists, paleontologists, biochemists, molecular biologists, medical doctors, philosophers, and even lawyers. Unfortunately, the North American science-and-religion establishment has largely turned a deaf ear to these critics, preferring instead to abandon classical theology and embrace metaphysical materialism and moral relativism. But I see the situation as analogous to the last years of Soviet communism. A small, powerful elite controls all the official information outlets while the evidence against the official position swells quietly, like a wave building offshore. Someday soon, to the surprise of many people in academia and the media, the wave will break. I predict that the Darwinist establishment will come apart at the seams, just as the Soviet Empire did in 1990. -- "Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D." by Jonathan Wells

Date: 2002/05/25 02:03:31, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Phillip Johnson: Compares Gould to Gorbachev It seems timely to revisit this offering by "wedge" strategist, DI CRSC advisor, and author of the rejected Santorum amendment, Phillip E. Johnson. Quote Gould’s uncomfortable situation reminds me of the self-created predicament of Mikhail Gorbachev in the last years of the Soviet Empire. Gorbachev recognized that something had gone wrong with the Communist system, but thought that the system itself could be preserved if it was reformed. His democratic friends warned him that the Marxist fundamentalists would inevitably turn against him, but he was unwilling to endanger his position in the ruling elite by following his own logic to its necessary conclusion. Gould, like Gorbachev, deserves immense credit for bringing glasnost to a closed society of dogmatists. And, like Gorbachev, he lives on as a sad reminder of what happens to those who lack the nerve to make a clean break with a dying theory. -- Phillip E. Johnson's "The Gorbachev of Darwinism" (1998)

Date: 2002/05/25 02:22:21, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

William Dembski: Compares Darwinism to former Soviet regime Quote Dembski, whose recent book, "The Design Inference," presents in great detail how the Intelligent Design argument satisfies logic and probability, likes to compare the movement's influence on science to the freedom and democracy movements and their effect on Eastern Europe. Criticism of Darwinism now threatens the hegemony of Darwinism, he says, just as the move toward freedom upset the Soviet empire. Stephen Goode's "Scientists Find Evidence of God" (1999/04/19)

Date: 2002/05/25 02:32:00, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Phillip Johnson: Compares Methodological Naturalism to former Soviet regime Quote Behind this student movement is a more general intellectual movement that will bear fruit in the coming century. It is a bit thin on the ground for now, but so was the Christian faith in the first century. Materialism as a philosophy is superficially powerful but moribund, as we saw when the Soviet Union collapsed without a struggle a decade ago. Methodological naturalism is a branch on the materialist tree that will lose its power to intimidate when the tree is known to be hanging in midair. -- Phillip Johnson, Foreword to "Unapologetic Apologetics" (2001)

Date: 2002/05/25 03:58:59, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Phillip Johnson: Compares Darwinism to the Soviet Union Quote Darwinian evolution with its blind watchmaker thesis makes me think of a great battleship on the ocean of reality.  Its sides are heavily armored with philosophical barriers to criticism, and its decks are stacked with big rhetorical guns ready to intimidate any would-be attackers.  In appearance, it is as impregnable as the Soviet Union seemed to be only a few years ago. -- Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwin On Trial" (2nd ed.), p.169.

Date: 2002/05/25 10:32:18, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

William Dembski: Compares opponents at Baylor University to Napoleon Quote Dembski, as the director of the center, also commented on the report in a one-paragraph e-mail message following its release. "The report marks the triumph of intelligent design as a legitimate form of academic inquiry. This is a great day for academic freedom," Dembski began. He concluded by observing that "Dogmatic opponents of design who demanded the Center be shut down have met their Waterloo. Baylor University is to be commended for remaining strong in the face of intolerant assaults on freedom of thought and expression." -- Christianity Today: "Baylor's dismissal of Polyani Center director Dembski was not a smart move." (2000/10/23)

Date: 2002/05/25 10:45:31, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

William Dembski: Approves of comparing opponents at Baylor University to McCarthyites Quote Baylor University President Robert Sloan has removed me as director of the Michael Polanyi Center despite his having personally solicited me to come to Baylor and establish the Center as a means of furthering work on intelligent design. Some Baylor faculty have exerted enormous pressure on Baylor to disassociate the university from me and my research. Earlier President Sloan had properly characterized these efforts as "intellectual McCarthyism." -- William Dembski: Press release (2000/10/19)

Date: 2002/05/25 17:54:10, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

William Dembski: Forrest and the "leftist" remark Quote Barbara Forrest's letter is the worst sort of leftist guilt-by-association diatribe. -- William Dembski, post to ARN discussion forum, 2002/04/17 03:38 PM

Date: 2002/05/27 08:50:39, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

This thread is for documenting the various young-earth arguments and responses to those arguments. I'll start off with one that is based upon ecology. The Population Argument The following quotes are selected from an online essay of mine. Quote Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years.  Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood.  It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives).  While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not. The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give.  The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false. Some are precise enough to restrict their conclusion to only humans, others leave how much is disproved unspecified.  Some utilize the numbers to infer intermediate population sizes.   I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.  First, the argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. Second, all such arguments yield absurd values for population sizes at historical times.  Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Fourth, final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time.  I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about.  I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. Quote Third, the argument ignores what is known about population dynamics from other species.  Various other species can be observed to sometimes reproduce exponentially, but we observe that such populations fluctuate, stabilize, or crash.  In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.  In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.  Just as the number of E. coli present in your gut will not tell us your birthday or the time of your last use of an antibiotic, so human population size is decoupled from when Homo sapiens arose, or even when a bottleneck may have occurred. Quote In short, the SciCre population argument fails on many different criteria.  Honest creationists should eschew its use. -- Population Size and Time of Creation or Flood Interestingly, the population argument is not listed among those that "Answers in Genesis" recommends that YECs should not use.

Date: 2002/05/29 14:03:24, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Michael Shermer, a critic of "intelligent design", has made such a comparison before. Quote In Why People Believe Weird Things I compared these evolution deniers to Holocaust deniers, pointing out how they use the same style of argumentation and commit the same fallacies of logic in their parallel attempts to distort the historical record for political, ideological, or religious purposes. -- Michael Shermer's "ID Works In Mysterious Ways" I don't want anyone to get the idea that invidious comparisons are exclusively employed by ID advocates.  I do want to document that ID advocates do deploy invidious comparisons, and show something of the poor level of justification usually given for the deployment of such comparisions by the ID advocates.

Date: 2002/05/31 21:33:37, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I'll be on a panel to discuss "intelligent design" at CSICOP's Fourth World Skeptics Conference, June 21, 2002, in Burbank, California. The panel will be moderated by Massimo Pigliucci.  Other panelists are Kenneth Miller of Brown University, William Dembski of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, and Paul Nelson, also of the DI CRSC. My abstract for my set 15-minute presentation was printed in the conference program, so it's public knowledge now. Quote Title of talk: "Beyond the 'wedge': Intelligent design, science, and culture Abstract: The "intelligent design" movement is primarily coordinated by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (DI CRSC). While the highest-profile activity of the DI CRSC so far has been its anti-evolutionary activism, its long-term goals are far more ambitious. As promulgated in the "wedge" document, early versions of the DI CRSC web site, and seen in the actions of the Fellows of the CRSC, no less than the re-definition of science itself is intended. Despite statements that ID is primarily a scientific research program, the fact is that  most of the effort of the CRSC Fellows is directed into political action. While scientific justification was one of the primary goals outlined in the "wedge" document, this area remains little-developed and apparently has been abandoned.  The current and projected activities of the DI CRSC indicate that the next 25 years will be filled with more confrontation with mainstream science. Links: CSICOP CSICOP Fourth World Skeptics Conference The DI CRSC "Wedge" document I would appreciate comments on things to bring up during the panel session.

Date: 2002/09/05 10:03:05, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Check out the Pensacola News Journal "For The Record" page. Search for "hovind".  The mention is in the "felony arrests" section. Wesley

Date: 2002/09/06 10:18:56, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

To avoid the cut-and-paste job, here is a link to the Escambia County Clerk of the Court record for Kent E. Hovind. You can follow the links from that document to see progress in the case, or any additional legal interactions that may arise between Hovind and Escambia County.

Date: 2002/09/06 10:26:19, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The Escambia County Property Appraiser has online searchable records.  When one searches for "Hovind Kent", one finds these results.  It is interesting that the property where Hovind was arrested does not appear in this list.

Date: 2002/09/07 07:33:29, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

An Indianapolis Star editorial by Andrea Neal shows that the Discovery Institute's "Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture"'s propaganda machine continues to bamboozle the credulous public. Neal buys into several falsehoods told by the DI C®SC.  First and foremost, Neal seems to think that there is some scientific content to "intelligent design" claims.  Second, Neal asserts ID represents cutting-edge science rather than warmed-over nineteenth century apologetics.  Third, Neal buys the tale that there is no religious component to the ID movement. The question to pose to those who think that "intelligent design" is science is to ask where the science is.  The only things cited by Neal add up to critiques of the sufficiency of current natural explanations.  There is nothing beyond assertion that ID has any role whatever in accounting for biological complexity.  I've asked some of the "scientists at top institutions" that Neal refers to for a progress report on the ID community making a positive case for ID conjectures, and in each instance have received answers that translate into an admission of "no progress" since 1997. The assertion that there is any "cutting edge" to the ID wedge fails the most cursory examination of the evidence.  Phillip Johnson's original ID tome, "Darwin On Trial", simply goes to show that there is hardly an antievolution chestnut that he doesn't like.  Many of the favorites of the young-earth creationist movement are happily recycled by Johnson.  The whole "irreducible complexity" edifice erected by Michael Behe is simply a more technical gloss on the ancient "what good is half a wing" canard common in YEC circles.  Behe's innovation resides in locating systems in which there is both a paucity of evidence and no expectation that further evidence bearing on the origin of the structures will be forthcoming.  That's a prerequisite for any argument from ignorance that is expected to hold up over time.  But the central part of ID argumentation can be traced to the Reverend William Paley's arguments made in 1802.  The scientific community actually did take up such arguments and examine them seriously -- and decided that they did not fit the evidence.  ID is not "cutting edge".  At best, it's "reheated leftovers". Neal asserts that skeptics cannot show any religious underpinnings of ID in court because ID is "a scientific possibility".  Neal is obviously ignorant of the massive paper trail left by the "scientists at top institutions" of the DI C®SC concerning the goals and motivations of the ID movement, most succinctly expressed in the famous "Wedge" document.  This will be one of the easiest tasks for skeptics to accomplish in court, not one of the hardest. Neal's innovation in the editorial is to characterize opposition to the ID movement as "anti-religious".  This, of course, is bunk.  Plenty of religious people are part of the community of skeptics of ID.  The panelists at the recent CSICOP Fourth World Skeptics Conference session on evolution and intelligent design included two ID advocates and two ID skeptics, all Christian believers. Neal ends with this: Quote Teaching intelligent design to our children is gaining strength too, as it should. Students need to know the latest research about how it all began, even if it points to an all-knowing creator. It would be a sad irony to let Darwin write the final chapter because we fear where science might lead us. Why should a set of religiously-motivated conjectures based solely upon negative argumentation and wishful thinking be taught to students as if it were "research"?  Why should students be given the mistaken impression that such conjectures represent the "latest" in scientific thinking, when in fact various components of these arguments can be traced back decades or centuries? But the capping irony is the construction of Neal's final sentence.  Science should lead, all right, and it is precisely because the politics of the ID movement lead it rather than the science that we should reject these premature moves to force ID into school science curricula.  Let ID prove itself in the marketplace of scientific ideas, and then it will be ready for inclusion in science education.  It is not there yet, and even ID advocates say that they are just beginning now to see glimmers of the formation of an ID research program.  The unseemly haste with which the ID advocates push for inclusion of their untested and unresearched claims into school curricula bespeaks an unscientific attitude, one more similar to a salesman trying to offload stock that is past its sell-by date.  Something smells fishy in that.

Date: 2002/09/16 07:46:44, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

William Dembski comments upon the paper John Wilkins and I wrote last year: Quote (1) Then why not withhold judgment in the Contact example and simply attribute a long sequence of prime numbers from outer space to unknown causes? The problem is that Wilkins and Elsberry's revised filter scotches all design inferences and not just the ones they don't like in biology. For the ID critic, the answer is not to revise the filter but to try to substitute a different picture of scientific rationality (e.g., Sober's likelihood approach). But that is deeply problematic itself. (2) With regard to false positives, to say that the design filter does not commit false positives if there is specified complexity remains true. And to say that an attribution of specified complexity may be mistaken is also true -- and not inconsistent with the latter claim. There's a difference between specified complexity as it subsists in nature and our knowledge of it. You might want to reread my post about what sort of property is specified complexity.   Thread on ISCID Brainstorms board Dembski is incorrect in his assertion in (1).  Our revised filter does not eliminate all design inferences.  We went to some trouble to distinguish two classes of design inferences, ordinary and rarefied.  Ordinary design inferences are still just as valid as they ever were under our revised filter.  But the revised filter makes it clear that the epistemic warrant for rarefied design inferences is an illusion based upon invalid analogy to ordinary design inferences. I find the point of (2) to be exactly what I've forwarded as a critique in the past, notably in my presentation at the "Interpreting Evolution" conference in 2001.  I have not been shy in saying before that Dembski's explanatory filter/design inference (EF/DI) is only reliable in the sense Dembski gives when one has complete knowledge, i.e., the true causal history is already known.  In that case, one has no need for Dembski's EF/DI -- it's entirely superfluous.  It is only in the case of limited knowledge that false positives become an issue, but these cases are also the only ones where Dembski's EF/DI could possibly have any utility. It's nice to have Dembski confirm that I was right in making that critique.

Date: 2002/09/18 03:38:03, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

William Dembski has offered a very interesting piece concerning what he believes needs to be demonstrated to show that natural selection is a sufficient causal explanation for some system.  See it on the ISCID Brainstorms board. The basic gist is relatively straightforward, though the notation looks a bit overblown. Dembski starts with an analogy to demonstrating common ancestry of two lineages X and Y, whose initial states X_0 and Y_0 are actually the single common ancestor of all derived X_n and Y_n.   Dembski asserts: Quote In the best circumstance, each such X(i) and Y(j) must be explicitly exhibited and any arrows of causation connecting two organisms must produce small incremental changes that are highly probable on the basis of the Darwinian selection mechanism. The more intermediates that are missing from this picture and the more handwaving and just-so story-telling to describe the arrows of causation, the more problematic the evolutionary explanation. It should be noted that common ancestry is not dependent upon the mechanism of natural selection being operative at every step, or indeed at any step.  Dembski's scenario completely ignores the evidence of molecular biology in applying sequence comparisons, which is largely based upon the evidence of the X_n and Y_n extant organisms, rather than X_0, Y_0, or any intermediates, since the molecular data from long extinct organisms is generally not available for anlaysis.  Nor does natural selection eschew incorporation of "large" changes, should such change have an adaptive advantage for the bearer.  It is well-developed in the evolutionary literature that "small" changes are more likely to have an adaptive advantage than "large" changes, and thus we should expect more "small" changes to be observed in lineages undergoing selection.  But that doesn't limit natural selection to *only* using "small" changes, as Dembski seems to imply above.  These departures Dembski takes from the biological reality of inferring common ancestry of lineages suggest that Dembski's approach is problematic. As G.G. Simpson pointed out, intermediates are always missing, except where they are found.  Let me point out  what should count as a non-problematic example of common ancestry of two lineages, Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa.  A very good plate appears in the paper by Pearson et alia. Quote Pearson, P.N.; Shackleton, N.J.; and Hall, M.A., 1997.  Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of _Globigerinoides_trilobus_ and _Orbulina_universa_ (planktonic foraminifera).  Journal of the Geological Society, London, v.154, p.295-302. Figures from this paper are reproduced on the web in this page by Don Lindsay. Pearson et alia adduce other evidence than what Dembski has offered in his argument.  They examine stable isotopic evidence to show that the divergence of G. trilobus into O. universa occurred sympatrically.  This also has a bearing on the sufficiency of the evolutionary account of common ancestry of these two species.  Notably, though, Pearson et alia do not invoke natural selection as the sole mechanism of change in this divergence.  The fact of the divergence is an issue separate from the underlying mechanism. Dembski's underlying analogy for the remainder of his argument concerning the sufficiency of evolutionary explanations for IC systems excludes relevant classes of evidence, unnecessarily invokes a particular process as needed to be demonstrated, and ignores actual biological practice in showing common ancestry of lineages.  This, to say the least, is an inauspicious beginning for the remainder of his argument.

Date: 2002/09/21 18:43:23, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

More instances of Wells holding forth on where peppered moths do or do not "normally" rest: Quote 4. "students should know that the pictures were faked": This goes without saying.  Since biologists have known since the 1980s that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks, not to tell students that the pictures were staged (in many cases by gluing or pinning dead moths to desired backgrounds) constitutes as clear a case of scientific fraud as any on record.  Yet I'm aware of no sincere efforts by Darwinists to inform students of this -- despite their pious declarations of good intentions. Almost all recent (1998-2000) biology textbooks use such photos without any indication that they were staged.  As a scientist, I find this absolutely inexcusable.  If dogmatic Darwinists were as smart as they pretend to be, they would be actively campaigning -- for their own good! -- to rid textbooks of this fraud.  Acquiescence in scientific misconduct will not look good on their resumes. (Source) Quote Then there's the story of peppered moths. Most current biology textbooks carry photos of these moths on tree trunks, claiming that experiments performed in the 1950s showed that natural selection (stemming from camouflage differences and predatory birds) made dark- colored moths more common during the Industrial Revolution. But Martin omits the fact that this textbook story is now very much in doubt, because biologists discovered in the 1980s that peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. All the textbook photos have been staged- -some by gluing or pinning dead moths in place. (Source) Quote 1. Since 1988, it has been well known to everyone who studies peppered moths that tree trunks are not their normal resting places. Michael Majerus lists six moths on exposed tree trunks over a forty year period, but this is an insignificant proportion of the tens of thousands that were observed during the same period. There simply is no question about it: peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks in the wild. (Source) Quote Regarding the peppered moths: Kettlewell's experiments supposedly demonstrated that cryptic coloration and selective bird predation are the principle causes of industrial melanism were discredited by (a) findings in the 1960's and 1970's that other factors (such as migration and non-visual selection) had to be invoked to account for observed geographical distributions, (b) reports that the rise and fall of melanism were not correlated with lichen cover on tree trunks in the U.S. or many parts of the U.K., © research in the 1980's showing that peppered moths in the wild do not normally rest on tree trunks (where Kettlewell conducted his experiments), and (d) revelations that all photographs of peppered moths on tree trunks have been staged, either by manually positioning live moths or by pinning or gluing dead ones. (Source) Ah, this is the one that I wanted to track down specifically: Quote BUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MAJERUS, HAS KNOWN SINCE THE 1980'S THAT PEPPERED MOTHS DO NOT REST ON TREE TRUNKS IN THE WILD. This means that every time those staged photographs have been knowingly re-published since the 1980's constitutes a case of deliberate scientific fraud. Michael Majerus is being dishonest, and textbook-writers are lying to biology students. The behavior of these people is downright scandalous. Fraud is fraud. It's time to tell it like it is. (Source) Wesley

Date: 2002/09/26 10:25:36, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Quote Clearing up confusion requires a careful and consistent use of terms.  In this book, "creation science" refers to young-earth, six-day special creation.  "Creationism" means belief in creation in a more general sense.  Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old, and the simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are "creationists" if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated this process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose.  As we shall see, "evolution" (in contemporary usage) excludes not just creation-science but creationism in the broad sense.  By "Darwinism" I mean fully naturalistic evolution, involving chance mechanisms guided by natural selection. (Source: Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (2nd ed.), Intervarsity Press, p.4 (footnote).) [Fixed typo.]

Date: 2002/09/30 11:08:38, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

On September 26th, 2002, the Cobb County school board voted unanimously for a provision that singles out evolutionary biology as controversial and requires teachers to engage in "discussion of disputed views of academic subjects". Cobb County policy There will be "implementing regulations" related to this policy.  I see a high potential for mischief at the administrative level.  The policy does not stipulate that the level of "dispute" must be scientific in nature, which opens the door to any sort of "dispute", no matter how lacking in scientific merit it might be. Here's an article on how teachers are reacting to the change: Cobb teachers ponder new evolution rule Wesley

Date: 2002/09/30 16:12:55, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Henry Schaefer, UGa professor and Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, has an op-ed piece in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Standard evolutionary theory has shortcomings It looks to me like the usual admixture of arrogance and ignorance on the part of a religiously-motivated antievolutionist.  But your mileage may vary... Notice that while Henry feels free to hand out grades to natural selection, gravity, and quantum mechanics, he doesn't proceed to use the same evaluation framework for "intelligent design".  That's OK, the evaluation process is trivial, and I can apply it quite easily here.  Henry uses two criteria given by Stephen Hawking for good theories: Quote A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements. It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements. And it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations. Does ID describe a large class of observations?  No.  Does ID have a model with only a few arbitrary elements? No.  In fact, there is no ID model.  ID is just "nature didn't do it" repeated ad nauseum. Does ID provide a basis to make definite predictions about the results of future observations?  Definitely not.  William Dembski specifically excludes this in his essay on "Testability".  Dembski also excludes ID predictions on the basis that designers are "innovators" (see NFL). So, going by the standards that Henry has validated, I see no way to award ID more than an "F" for goodness of theory. Yet Henry does, I believe, wish to see ID taught in Cobb County science classrooms as one of those "disputed views" that the recent policy change now countenances.  It certainly isn't because of the scientific content, which leaves one wondering why... Wesley

Date: 2002/10/07 08:31:20, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski on publishing: Quote Baylor's Mr. Dembski also has little interest in publicizing his research through traditional means. "I've just gotten kind of blasé about submitting things to journals where you often wait two years to get things into print," he says. "And I find I can actually get the turnaround faster by writing a book and getting the ideas expressed there. My books sell well. I get a royalty. And the material gets read more." (Source: Darwinism Under Attack, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 2001/12/21)

Date: 2002/10/10 19:52:48, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

This thread is for items relating to the Ohio Board of Education's consideration of new science standards. An interesting press statement came out today. Quote October 10, 2002 Press Conference Statement of Professor Joseph F Koonce Chair, Dept of Biology Case Western Reserve University jfk7@po.cwru.edu 216-368-3561 Many claims have been made in recent months as to what Ohio scientists think about intelligent design "theory." However, until now, no data existed on this issue. My colleagues and I set about to collect the data so that the public may gain an accurate impression of what Ohio's scientists think. The results are gratifying and unequivocal. Nine out of ten Ohio scientists from Ohio public, private (including both secular and religious) universities say that intelligent design is primarily a religious view and is simply not part of science. We designed and conducted this survey with the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati.  We sent out email messages around the state to faculty in departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics and other natural sciences, inviting them to answer a set of questions and to give their thoughts about the evolution-intelligent design debate.  The survey ran between September 26 and October 9. Prior to polling the scientists, the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati included questions on the September Ohio Poll (conducted September 4 through 15, 2002) asking the general public to respond to two questions about intelligent design. Like the scientists, a clear majority of Ohio residents found intelligent design to be religious, and not a scientific view. Next Monday and Tuesday the Ohio Board of Education will vote on whether to include intelligent design or other forms of anti-evolutionism in the new K-12 science standards.  Intelligent design advocates claim life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of a supernatural being or force, and they claim their view is scientific. Clearly Ohio's citizens are not convinced that this argument should be taught as science. I want to make clear that I am a religious person myself. As a Roman Catholic, I do believe in God and in concurrence with teachings of the Catholic Church, I have never found these beliefs in conflict with Evolutionary Theory.  Science addresses the nature of the physical universe, not the supernatural or the eternal. Like me, 84% of my colleagues also report that they find evolutionary theory compatible with belief in God. I wish this would lay to rest the destructive notion that science and religion are at war in America. There is no such inherent conflict. Science and religion can promote and enhance each other without having to pretend we know less than we actually do about how the world is constructed and how it functions. Most all of Ohio's science professors (92%) thought "Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." When asked if such students should also be tested on their knowledge of the concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate, 90% said "no." Only 2% said that intelligent design was strongly supported by scientific evidence. The survey also explored scientists' views on antievolutionism beyond the intelligent design movement. Some critics of evolution claim evidence against the theory of evolution has caused it to fall out of favor among scientists. This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." We are extremely pleased with the response. Nearly 500 scientists responded, a rate of 31%.  The survey had an error of plus or minus 4.5 percent. Equally pleasing was the outpouring of gratitude for providing the opportunity to express their concern with the erosion of scientific literacy in the developing K-12 standards for Ohio.

Date: 2002/10/10 23:05:23, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The CWRU poll made the news. Professors say intelligent design is not scientific theory - Akron Beacon Journal, OH

Date: 2002/10/11 05:08:01, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Ohio draft standards And a newspaper article about the BOE's consideration of "intelligent design": Committee members propose final changes to science standards, AP story

Date: 2002/10/11 11:05:56, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Another news item on Ohio... Schools panel to decide evolution angle Monday (Plain Dealer, 2002/10/11) And the Ohio Citizens for Science web page.

Date: 2002/10/11 12:55:11, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Answers In Genesis has a response to Kent Hovind concerning their list of arguments that creationists should not use.

Date: 2002/10/11 15:07:50, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Another news report on the Ohio poll... Ohio poll: 'Design' theory is religious (Cincinnatti Post, 2002/10/11)

Date: 2002/10/11 15:18:41, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The creationism issue came up in a debate between candidates for Georgia state school superintendent. State school chief hopefuls have free-wheeling debate (Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2002/10/10) Quote The issue that generated the most spirited debate was whether schools should teach creationism. Christmas said she would stay out of such local issues, but added, "Schools are about teaching scientific theories, not religious principles." Cox said she would not shy away from debates like the one Cobb County officials had this month because they teach "students to live in a free society with free ideas and to talk about them civilly."

Date: 2002/10/11 15:27:57, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Kansas got the national spotlight in 1999 when creationists rewrote the science standards and excised evolution from them.  Since then, some creationist board members were voted out, and evolution was restored to the science standards.  The voters of Kansas will be making choices between candidates again this year.  Will we see a cyclical pattern of change in the science standards? Here's a news item concerning two of the candidates in Kansas and some mention of their views on evolution. Board of ed hopefuls have similar stances (Newton Kansan, 2002/10/09) Quote Neither candidate distinguished himself. Even on the divisive issue of teaching evolution vs. creationism, candidates basically agreed on what policy should be. Both said they would not support the teaching of creationism as an alternative to evolution. "I support academic freedom," Willard said. "That means giving the scientific evidence on all sides of the issue and encourage them to make up their minds. I think that is what education is about, teaching kids to inquire and come to a decision." "I would not teach creationism as an alternative to evolution," Anstine said. "In my mind creationism is a function of my home, my wife and eight kids. It is a function of our church. We've been there for more than 40 years. I think the creation story and other parts of religion are taught by the home."

Date: 2002/10/12 01:59:54, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The genome of the mosquito Anopheles gambiae and the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum have been mapped and were published in issues of Science and Nature early in October. See the Science News Online article for more information.

Date: 2002/10/12 02:30:11, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

A Boston Globe article highlights research aimed at finding recently evolved genes in the human genome with implications for health care and future research. MIT scientists develop way to catch evolution in the act (Boston Globe, 2002/10/10)

Date: 2002/10/12 11:15:58, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

More on the Polls in Ohio From the AIBS lists... Quote Please forward this far and wide! Dear Colleagues,        Before the Ohio Board of Education gives any more consideration to including intelligent design, alternatives to evolution or the "teach the controversy" approach, they need to listen to what Ohio's best educated scientists said in a new poll.  The Biology Department at Case Western Reserve University and the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati conducted an e-mail poll of all the 4 year college and university science faculty they could get e-mail addresses for, and also placed two questions about intelligent design on the Ohio Poll to gather opinions of the general public.  A quick summary of the results are given below, followed by the complete press releases from the University of Cincinnati, Case Western Reserve University and Professor Joseph F Koonce, Chair, Department of Biology at Case Western Reserve University.        As far as support for intelligent design goes, only 4% of the scientists polled thought there was a valid scientific challenge to evolution, only 7% thought there was scientific evidence supporting intelligent design (2% strong evidence, 5% percent some evidence), and only 5% said intelligent design was not primarily a religious view.  The bottom line for supporters of intelligent design is it is at BEST only a fringe view, but more accurately recognized as the newest species of creationism to evolve. Best wishes and please pass this on! Steve Edinger, M.S. President, Ohio Citizens for Science        Among the survey's findings were: -       Nine out of 10 scientists (91%) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view -       A vast majority (93%) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution" -       Almost all scientists (97%) said they did not use the intelligent design concept in their research -       Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2% were unsure -       Approximately 7% felt that intelligent design had some support from scientific evidence -       Some 84% felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God"         A total of 460 professors responded or a rate of 31%.  The survey had an error of plus or minus 4.5%.  "We are extremely pleased with the response," says Koonce ******************************************************************************** Internet Public Opinion Laboratory Department of Political Science University of Cincinnati By: George Bishop, PhD Professor of Political Science          For Release: October 10, 2002 Director Internet Public Opinion Laboratory Department of Political Science University of Cincinnati Majority of Ohio Science Professors and Public Agree: "Intelligent Design" Mostly about Religion "Intelligent Design": Is it science or religion? The idea that an intelligent designer or a supernatural force created the universe and guided the development of human life has become the center of a heated controversy among Ohio educators. As the State Board of Education in Ohio wrestles with the policy issue of whether to teach "intelligent design" in public school science classes the latest statewide surveys of Ohio citizens and science professors in Ohio indicate that the concept of "intelligent design" is viewed by the vast majority of scientists and a clear majority of the public as basically a religious explanation of human origins. These findings are based on: (1) an Internet survey of 460 science professors teaching at both public and private four-year colleges and universities in Ohio, sponsored by the Biology Department at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland and conducted by the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati between September 26 and October 9, 2002; and (2) an Ohio Poll of 900 adults conducted by the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati between September 4 and September 15, 2002. Public Ignorance and Public Opinion Despite significant coverage and editorials on the ID issue in Ohio's news media in recent months, most Ohioans still know little or nothing about "intelligent design". In the most recent Ohio Poll, conducted between September 4 and September 15, 2002, respondents were first asked: " Do you happen to know anything about the concept of 'intelligent design'?" The vast majority (84%) said "no"; 14% said "yes"; and the rest (2%) were "not sure". Not surprisingly, college graduates were significantly more likely to say they knew something about it (28% of them) than were high school graduates (7%) or those with less than a high school education (6%). Whether they knew anything about it or not, respondents were then given a brief description of the concept of intelligent design identical to the one used in a statewide Cleveland Plain Dealer Poll conducted this past spring: "The concept of 'intelligent design' is that life is too complex to have developed by chance and that a purposeful being or force is guiding the development of life." "What is your opinion-do you think the concept of 'intelligent design' is a valid scientific account of how human life developed, or is it basically a religious explanation of the development of human life?" Given this description, the majority of Ohioans (54%) viewed it as basically a religious explanation of human origins; less than 1 out of 4 (23%) thought it was a valid scientific account; 7% believed it was a mix of religious and scientific accounts; and 17% said they were "not sure." Views of Ohio Science Professors Not unexpectedly, those who have the academic training and expertise (PhDs) to teach the basic natural and physical sciences in Ohio's public and private universities regarded the concept of "intelligent design" as an unscientific notion. More than 9 out of 10 (91%) thought it was primarily a religious view. The vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." Only a tiny percentage of them (7%) thought that "intelligent design" was either "strongly" or "partly" supported by scientific evidence. Most (90%) believed there was no scientific evidence at all for the idea of "intelligent design". And 3% were "not sure". Furthermore, when asked if they ever used the ID concept in their research, virtually all of them (97%) said "no." Ohio's science professors felt just as strongly about what should or should not be taught about the controversy in Ohio schools. Most all of them (92%) thought " Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." When asked, however, if such students should also be tested on their knowledge of the concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate, most of them (90%) said "no." Perhaps the most surprising finding in the survey is that the great majority of Ohio science professors (84%) thought that accepting the theory of evolution was "consistent with believing in God." Only 9% thought it was not; and the rest (7%) just weren't sure. Most critics of teaching evolution in Ohio's schools commonly assume it's basically inconsistent with believing in God. Evidently, most of Ohio's science professors-those who understand the theory of evolution best-do not share that widespread view. Further statistical analysis of the data from the survey of Ohio science professors showed only minor differences in responses across scientific fields such as astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and other natural sciences. Survey Methodology Ohio Poll The sampling error for the Ohio Poll of 900 adults is +/-3.3%. A description of the methodology for the Ohio Poll conducted from September 4 through 15 can be found at the following website: http://www.ipr.uc.edu/PDF/OhioPoll/op092502.pdf Internet Public Opinion Laboratory (IPOL): Methodology An e-mail invitation to participate in this web-based survey was sent to all professors (approximately 1500) currently on the faculty in four-year, public and private colleges and universities in Ohio for the following fields: Astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics, and other natural sciences. Their e-mail addresses were identified through a combination of listings on the various college and departmental websites, supplemented by further examination of other university information sources. Four hundred and sixty (460) professors responded to the e-mail invitation, a response rate of 31%. The sampling error for a sample size of 460 cases is approximately plus or minus 4.5%. As in any other survey, in addition to sampling error, other sources of error such as non-response and the wording and context of the questions asked can affect the results and conclusions of the study. The results reported here for the Internet survey of Ohio science professors were based on the following questions (Note: Percentages Rounded) 1.      Are you aware of any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution? a.      Yes              4% b.      No              93 c.      Not Sure         2 2.      The concept of "Intelligent Design" is that life and the universe are too complex to have developed without the intervention of a purposeful being or force to guide the development of life. Which of the following do you think best describes "Intelligent Design"? a.      It is strongly supported by scientific evidence  2% b.      It is partly supported by scientific evidence            5 c.      It is not supported at all by scientific evidence       90 d.      Not Sure                                                             3 3.      Do you think the concept of "Intelligent Design" is primarily a religious view?" a.      Yes             91% b.      No               5 c.      Not Sure         4 4.      Do you think Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate? a.      Yes             92% b.      No                4 c.      Not Sure          3 5.      Do you think Ohio high school students should be tested on their knowledge of the concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate? a.      Yes               6% b.      No               90 c.      Not Sure          4 6.      Do you use the concept of Intelligent Design in your research? a.      Yes               2% b.      No               97 c.      Not Sure          1 7.      Do you think accepting the theory of evolution is consistent with believing in God? a.      Yes             84% b.      No                9 c.      Not Sure          7 ******************************************************************************** University of Cincinati October 10, 2002 Contact: Carey Hoffman NEW POLL DATA SHOWS OHIOANS SEE 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' AS A RELIGION-BASED CONCEPT        Cincinnati   The controversial concept of "intelligent design" theory, now under consideration by the Ohio Board of Education, is seen by Ohio scientists and the general public as basically a religious explanation of human origins. That's according to a new study released today that was conducted jointly by researchers at the University of Cincinnati and Case Western Reserve University.        Two surveys were analyzed to produce the findings - an Internet survey of 460 science professors from across Ohio and an Ohio Poll of 900 adults conducted in September. A summary analysis of the data by UC's George Bishop accompanies this release.        Bishop is a professor of political science and director of UC's Internet Public Opinion Laboratory. A widely-known expert on public opinion surveying, he has done extensive work on the topics of Americans' religious world views and beliefs about human origins. Bishop can be reached in his office this afternoon after 3 p.m.        Case Western's work was led by Joseph Koonce, chair of the biology department. Case Western will host a press conference in Cleveland this afternoon at 2:45 p.m. in Room 405 of Clapp Hall to discuss the study. Media contacts: George Bishop, University of Cincinnati. Joseph Koonce, Case Western Reserve University. Susan Griffiths, Case Western Reserve University Communications Office. 110-02  -30- ******************************************************************************* Case Western Reserve University October 10, 2002                                Contact:        Susan Griffith                                                                Senior Media Relations Representative CWRU FACULTY REPORT FINDINGS ON EVOLUTION, INTELLIGENT DESIGN POLL OF OHIO'S SCIENTISTS        CLEVELAND--Nine out 10 Ohio scientists from secular and religious colleges and universities responding to a survey say that intelligent design is primarily a religious view and not part of science.  Case Western Reserve University faculty reported on the findings of the Internet poll during a news conference Thursday, October 10.        "This is the first time we have hard data on what Ohio's scientists think about the issue of intelligent design versus evolution," says Joseph Koonce, CWRU chair and professor of biology.        Koonce designed the Internet survey with the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati.  He sent out e-mail messages around the state to faculty in departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics and other natural sciences, urging them to answer a set of questions and to give their thoughts about the evolution-intelligent design debate.  The survey was conducted between September 26 and October 9.        Prior to polling the scientists, the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati included questions on the September Ohio Poll (conducted September 4-15) about intelligent design, asking the general public to respond to a similar Internet poll on their views of intelligent design and evolution.  Like the scientists, a clear majority of Ohio residents found intelligent design to be religious, and not a scientific view.        Findings from the polls, come days before the State Board of Education faces the issue at its meeting on next Monday on whether to include intelligent design or other forms of anti-evolutionism in the new K-12 science standards. Intelligent design advocates claim life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of a supernatural being or force, and they claim their view is scientific.        Most all of Ohio's science professors (92%) thought "Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate."  Scientist responded negatively (90%) to the testing about the knowledge of "intelligent design" as a requirement to graduate.        The survey also explored scientists' views on antievolutionism beyond the intelligent design movement.  Some critics of evolution claim evidence against the theory of evolution has caused it to fall out of favor among scientists. This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not award of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternative scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution."        Finally, the survey investigated the popular theme of a war between science and religion in America and found no such conflict.  The great majority of Ohio science professors (84%) thought that accepting the theory of evolution was "consistent with believing in God."  Only nine percent thought it was not; and the rest (7%)  were not sure.  Most critics of teaching evolution in Ohio's schools commonly assume it is inconsistent with believing in God.  Evidently, most of Ohio's science professors-those who understand the theory of evolution best-do not share that view.        Among the survey's findings were: -       Nine out of 10 scientists (91%) felt the concept of intelligent design was unscientific and the same number responded that it was a religious view -       A vast majority (93%) of the scientists were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution" -       Almost all scientists (97%) said they did not use the intelligent design concept in their research -       Ninety percent of the responding scientists stated that they felt no scientific evidence supports intelligent design, while 2% were unsure -       Approximately 7% felt that intelligent design had some support from scientific evidence -       Some 84% felt acceptance of the evolution theory was "consistent with believing in God"         A total of 460 professors responded or a rate of 31%.  The survey had an error of plus or minus 4.5%.  "We are extremely pleased with the response," says Koonce        For further information, contact Koonce. ******************************************************************************* October 10, 2002 Press Conference Statement of Professor Joseph F Koonce Chair, Dept of Biology Case Western Reserve University Many claims have been made in recent months as to what Ohio scientists think about intelligent design "theory." However, until now, no data existed on this issue. My colleagues and I set about to collect the data so that the public may gain an accurate impression of what Ohio's scientists think. The results are gratifying and unequivocal. Nine out of ten Ohio scientists from Ohio public, private (including both secular and religious) universities say that intelligent design is primarily a religious view and is simply not part of science. We designed and conducted this survey with the Internet Public Opinion Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati.  We sent out email messages around the state to faculty in departments of astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, physics and other natural sciences, inviting them to answer a set of questions and to give their thoughts about the evolution-intelligent design debate.  The survey ran between September 26 and October 9.         Prior to polling the scientists, the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Cincinnati included questions on the September Ohio Poll (conducted September 4 through 15, 2002) asking the general public to respond to two questions about intelligent design. Like the scientists, a clear majority of Ohio residents found intelligent design to be religious, and not a scientific view.        Next Monday and Tuesday the Ohio Board of Education will vote on whether to include intelligent design or other forms of anti-evolutionism in the new K-12 science standards.  Intelligent design advocates claim life is too complex to have developed without the intervention of a supernatural being or force, and they claim their view is scientific. Clearly Ohio's citizens are not convinced that this argument should be taught as science. I want to make clear that I am a religious person myself. As a Roman Catholic, I do believe in God and in concurrence with teachings of the Catholic Church, I have never found these beliefs in conflict with Evolutionary Theory.  Science addresses the nature of the physical universe, not the supernatural or the eternal. Like me, 84% of my colleagues also report that they find evolutionary theory compatible with belief in God. I wish this would lay to rest the destructive notion that science and religion are at war in America. There is no such inherent conflict. Science and religion can promote and enhance each other without having to pretend we know less than we actually do about how the world is constructed and how it functions. Most all of Ohio's science professors (92%) thought "Ohio high school students should be tested on their understanding of the basic principles of the theory of evolution in order to graduate." When asked if such students should also be tested on their knowledge of the concept of "Intelligent Design" in order to graduate, 90% said "no." Only 2% said that intelligent design was strongly supported by scientific evidence. The survey also explored scientists' views on antievolutionism beyond the intelligent design movement. Some critics of evolution claim evidence against the theory of evolution has caused it to fall out of favor among scientists. This is clearly not the case in Ohio where the vast majority (93%) of science professors said they were not aware of "any scientifically valid evidence or an alternate scientific theory that challenges the fundamental principles of the theory of evolution." We are extremely pleased with the response. Nearly 500 scientists responded, a rate of 31%.  The survey had an error of plus or minus 4.5 percent. Equally pleasing was the outpouring of gratitude for providing the opportunity to express their concern with the erosion of scientific literacy in the developing K-12 standards for Ohio. ******************************************************************************* Please see the Ohio Citizens for Science's web page at: http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven A. Edinger, Physiology Lab Instructor 064 Irvine Hall Department of Biological Sciences               steven.edinger.1@ohio.edu Ohio University                                 Office:  (740) 593-9484 Athens, Ohio  45701-2979                        Fax:  (740) 593-0300 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ****************************************************** "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."  Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1973 ******************************************************

Date: 2002/10/12 16:54:41, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

More news from Ohio... Evolution may be hot topic, but barely makes ripple in races (Akron Beacon Journal, 2002/10/12) The contentious debate over evolution and "teaching the controversy" doesn't seem to be having an effect on most of the political races for positions on the board of education.

Date: 2002/10/13 05:41:59, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

State refuses to advance intelligent design theory (Canton Repository, 2002/10/13) Quote Pat Barron, facilitator for the writing team, said the panel held “considerable discussion about what to put in, what to leave out” and examined virtually every piece of public input. “To have intelligent design in the standards as something that is documented in science, (they) just didn’t believe that there’d been sufficient research evidence,” she said. That's a considerable understatement.

Date: 2002/10/13 05:50:39, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Darwin's theory 'may explain ill health' (BBC News, 2002/10/12) Quote Professor Randolph Nesse believes that conditions like heart disease, obesity and drug abuse can all be explained by the fact that the human body was not designed for the 21st Century. He suggests many serious illnesses occur because the human body has failed to evolve and is still designed for a much simpler existence.

Date: 2002/10/13 06:03:22, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Chinese Hominid Challenges Out-of-Africa Origin of Modernman (People's Daily, 2002/10/12) Quote A recent finding in the dating of Chinese hominid fossils has challenged the prevailing "out-of-Africa" theory regarding the origin of modern man. With a new dating method, scientists determined that Liujiang Hominid roamed south China approximately 70,000 to 130,000 years ago, rather than 30,000 years ago or less as it was previously believed. This new finding supports the theory that modern Chineseman originated in what is present-day Chinese territory rather than the mainstream "out of Africa" hypothesis which held that modern humans evolved from African ancestors alone. The article claims that the "out-of-Africa" theory dates to 1987.  The writer is only about a century and a bit off. ------------- Man or ape? African fossil sparks verbal war (Independent Online, South Africa, 2002/10/11) Quote Their claim is that Toumai will overturn the conventional view of mankind, because the evolutionary split between apes and humans clearly occurred far earlier than molecular studies suggest. Nonsense, say a team led by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, who suggest the ape-like features found on Toumai mean he was no more than that - an ape.

Date: 2002/10/13 06:08:58, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Radioactive sand causes mutations in human DNA (Genome News Network, 2002/10/11) Quote Radiation has been known to cause cancer and damage to human cells, but it has been less clear to what extent it affects human DNA. Now, researchers have observed that high levels of naturally occurring radiation significantly increase the number of mutations in human DNA.

Date: 2002/10/14 09:36:00, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

DNA analysis cracks HIV case (Health News, 2002/10/14) Quote The case is the first time that "phylogenetic analysis" - a study of the mutation rate of an organism - has been used in a court of law, according to Dr David Hillis of the University of Texas in Austin and colleagues. This case demonstrates that it is now possible to trace the pathway of infections of viruses among individuals within a population, Hillis said.

Date: 2002/10/14 10:23:14, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Another press item on Ohio. School Board Panel Puts Final Touches On Science Standards (WCMH, 2002/10/14) Quote A final draft of the standards takes an evolution-only approach, despite efforts by some board members to add a concept called "intelligent design," the idea that a higher power must have designed life because it is so complex. Critics say the concept is a version of divine creation, which the U.S. Supreme Court has barred from being taught in public schools.

Date: 2002/10/14 10:42:06, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Battle of the bugs (Independent, UK, 2002/10/14) Quote Earlier this year, scientists took the decision to deliberately introduce a ladybird from Australia to the Galapagos in order to curb the continuing expansion of the cottony cushion scale insect. This pest, whose presence on the islands was first reported in 1982, has over the past 20 years become enemy number one for 19 Galapagos plants, including six endangered species, of which two are on the verge of extinction. This is the first use of biocontrol in the Galapagos Islands.  The article touches upon the testing and evaluation process.

Date: 2002/10/14 19:34:39, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Another news item: Ohio Panel Gives Evolution Nod (Dayton Daily News (AP), 2002/10/14) Quote A state school board panel Monday recommended that Ohio science classes emphasize both evolution and the debate over its validity. The committee left it up to individual school districts to decide whether to include in the debate the concept of ``intelligent design,'' which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence.

Date: 2002/10/14 20:09:31, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Darwin to receive Scots honour (BBC News, 2002/10/14) Quote Scotland's capital city is finalising plans to honour biologist Charles Darwin. A plaque will be unveiled in memory of the scientist who developed the revolutionary theory of natural selection.

Date: 2002/10/15 08:09:49, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

More news.  Same data, different interpretation. Intelligent design absent from science standards (Zanesville Times Recorder, 2002/10/15) Quote The evolution section of the standards does include instructions to teach "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The language was adopted over the objections of board member Marlene Jennings of Kirtland, who called it an attempt to insert intelligent design into the standards surreptitiously. But board member Michael Cochran of Blacklick, who introduced the language, said Jennings was twisting the words. "This just reflects that there is some debate in the scientific community currently," he said. "There are none of the buzz words that point to other theories." Note that Cochran is on record as saying that this particular phrasing is not about opening the door to "intelligent design" discussion.  My bet is that Cochran is either being disingenuous or just plain lying.  So watch what "intelligent design" advocates say about this part of the proposed standards; if they tout it as a victory for their viewpoint, that makes a stronger case for deliberate deception on Cochran's part.

Date: 2002/10/15 18:16:13, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The Ohio Board of Education Vote What the news outlets say... Ohio OKs Creation in Science Class (Newsday (AP), 2002/10/15) Quote The state school board said Tuesday it will adopt a science curriculum that leaves it up to school districts whether to teach the concept of "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is guided by a higher intelligence. Same AP story, different headline.  This link gives more of the AP story. School board panel: Ohio students should be taught evolution (Wilmington News Journal (AP), 2002/10/15) Another story on the local impact: State decision not likely to have great impact on local processes, educator says (Wilmington News Journal, 2002/10/15) Quote I think it could excite some people to think that things are going to happen that probably won’t," said Melissa Snyder, Blanchester Schools’ director of instruction. "I know that our science teachers are going to go ahead and teach science. "They want to meet the state’s standards, but I don’t think they’re going to open up a bunch of controversial topics just because there’s some language at the state. They pretty well respond to the community and to their students’ interests and needs, as far as what they need to know in science."

Date: 2002/10/15 18:23:14, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

And a response from "intelligent design" advocates: Intelligent Design Debate 'A Small First Step' States Ohio Roundtable (PR Newswire, 2002/10/15) Quote "The debate over intelligent design as a viable addition to state science standards proves just how inflexible the education establishment has become. According to recent polls, over 80% of Ohioans would prefer to have an open classroom environment for the discussion of scientific theories of origins. Yet changing a handful of words in the standards has created near hysteria among many in the education establishment.    Today's vote by the board is a small first step in the direction of open dialogue and freedom of thought. It falls far short of acknowledging the tremendous outpouring of public support for change in the state standards."

Date: 2002/10/15 18:55:36, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Op-ed piece on the coming elections... Showdown is likely over SBOE election (Doug Anstaett, The Kansan Online, 2002/10/15) Quote And our view is that faith issues must continue to be separated from the teaching of scientific fact in our public schools. Science is science. Faith is faith. Churches can teach what they want. That freedom is protected by the U.S. Constitution. But our public schools must stick to the facts, even if some of those facts are still in dispute.

Date: 2002/10/15 20:32:26, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Discovery Institute Claims Victory in Ohio Ohio Board Backs Academic Freedom and Encourages Critical Analysis of Evolution (DI CRSC, 2002/10/15) Quote The Board's approach was anticipated by a proposal made earlier in the year by Dr. Meyer. Testifying before the Board of Education in March 2002, Meyer proposed requiring students to understand the scientific arguments for and against Darwinian evolution and allowing (but not requiring) local districts to include "intelligent design" as part of teaching the scientific controversy over evolution. Like I noted earlier, Cochran's statement that the language wasn't about admitting "intelligent design" looks like it was either disingenuous or deliberate deception.

Date: 2002/10/16 09:03:08, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Op-ed gives BOE kudos for decision... School board did right thing on evolution (Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, 2002/10/16) Quote Board members stressed that they do not believe that the standards encourage students to learn intelligent design or other concepts not rooted in science. We agree. A science curriculum should stick to proven scientific facts. The 19-member board voted unanimously to adopt the standards, and we are pleased that even those who pushed for intelligent design are receptive to the compromise. In the end, decisions over teaching intelligent design ended up where they should with the local districts. News item on the BOE vote... State approves new science guidelines (Lancaster Eagle-Gazette, 2002/10/16) Quote The new science standards, used as a baseline for the state's proficiency exams, do include teaching evolution in biology classes in high school and middle school. But they also include the caveat that teachers discuss "how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." That language, added Monday during a committee meeting, was deemed innocuous but important by board members sympathetic to intelligent design, the belief that a higher power played a role in the creation of all life. "This is not ID," said board member Deborah Owens Fink of Akron, who introduced the analysis language. "This is not introducing religious perspectives. This is only introducing scientific perspectives." That's not what the Discovery Institute thinks.  I think Owens-Fink is, like her colleague Michael Cochran, being either disingenuous or deliberately deceptive on this.  The test will be whether "intelligent design" is permitted or encouraged as an alternative "scientific" view to be discussed when evolution is mentioned in science classes.

Date: 2002/10/17 04:01:00, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Op-ed on the BOE decision... A waste of time: School board mentality is unevolved (Cliff Radel, Cinncinnatti Enquirer, 2002/10/17) Quote The board's decision was by design. But, it wasn't intelligent. Made in the spirit of compromise with certain board members, being open-minded, bowing to thousands of e-mails pushing intelligent design - take your pick - this decision sets a vile precedent. It opens the floodgates to every half-baked, crackpot notion about any subject taught in school. Above all, it amounts to a waste of precious time.

Date: 2002/10/17 04:12:00, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The Moonie take on the Ohio decision... Ohio schools to teach evolution 'controversy' (Larry Elder, Washington Times, 2002/10/17) Quote     In the first of the two changes, the definition of science has been broadened to "a systematic method of continuing investigation" of nature. It replaced the previous contention that science is limited to "natural explanations," which, according to some, rules out any concept of a Creator.     Ms. Princehouse said the change is "innocuous." But Mr. Lattimer said it allows students to consider that a higher force can be part of how science interprets the world.     The second statement requires that teachers "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory."     The decision by a five-member standards committee followed a year of hearings and public opinion polls indicating that Ohioans liked the idea of "teaching the controversy."

Date: 2002/10/18 08:24:32, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Commentary by Pamela Winnick Inherited Debate: Ohio classrooms get a second opinion on evolution (National Review Online, Pamela Winnick, 2002/10/18) Quote In what could turn out to be a stunning victory for opponents of evolution, the Ohio Department of Education voted 17-0 on Tuesday to pass a "resolution of intent" to adopt science standards that would allow students to "investigate and critically analyze" Darwin's theory of evolution. With additional hearings scheduled for November and a final vote to be held in December, Ohio is likely to become the latest battleground in the never-ending debate over how life began. Quote Pamela R. Winnick, a lawyer admitted to practice in New York, has been a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Toledo Blade. A 2001 Phillips Foundation fellow, she is writing a book about the politics of evolution. When one looks into the fellowship Winnick received, it appears that she is being paid as a partisan anti-evolutionist, not just as an investigative reporter.  I've never seen the partisan nature of Winnick's fellowship noted in relation to her "news" stories.

Date: 2002/10/20 12:35:55, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

SEAO plans to capitalize on BOE wording RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ADOPT SCIENCE STANDARDS (accessed 2002/10/20) Quote Overall, we commend the State Board for making these changes. This recognizes, in part, the results of public input which show that a large majority of Ohioans favors the teach-the-controversy approach. This also acknowledges a growing number of credentialed scientists, including over fifty from Ohio, who endorse a teach-the-controversy approach to biological evolution. We feel that the changes that have been made will align the new standards with the Santorum language in the federal education bill, the 'No Child Left Behind Act' of 2001. In addition, these changes will contribute substantially to better objectivity in biological origins instruction.

Date: 2002/10/20 12:41:56, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Most schools steering clear of evolution (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2002/10/20) Quote The mercury rose a notch or two in Cobb County this year as the community debated how evolution should be taught. The reality is that, in Georgia, evolution rarely is. Teachers veer away from discussing the topic and the state requires little learning in that area, educators say.

Date: 2002/10/20 12:53:20, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Selman v. Cobb County: court battle over creationism (JTA News, 2002/10/16) Quote Selman dismisses charges by Cobb backers of creationism that he is anti-religion and said 95 percent of the phone calls he has gotten have been positive. “I’m not against anybody’s religion,” Selman said. “I want everybody to practice what they believe. I practice [Judaism] the way I want to.”

Date: 2002/10/21 01:09:40, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Amateurs find fossil of `world's oldest spider' (icWales. 2002/10/21) Quote A TEAM of amateur palaeontologists has stumbled upon the fossil of what they say could be the world's oldest spider. The remains of a spider-like creature discovered in a sandstone quarry in Mid Wales are expected to send a wave of excitement through arachnologists.

Date: 2002/10/21 11:26:19, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Hovind's side of the story Quote It is obvious that the reporting officer saw none of the events described in the report and is taking the word of two people with a history of violence and mental illness. It is my sincere belief that the report is deliberately worded to make me look guilty and make officer Burk’s unnecessary arrest look justified. No one in the house was ever touched or threatened in any way except me. It's an interesting read.

Date: 2002/10/23 11:53:04, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Intelligent Design advocate lauds state plan on teaching evolution (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2002/10/23) Quote "Our slogan to the press is, Teach the controversy,' " said Johnson, widely regarded as the father of the modern intelligent-design movement. Ohio's decision to allow that controversy in science classrooms has drawn fire from the science community, which has accused the intelligent design advocates of attempting to slip religion into the classroom by the back door. That doesn't bother Johnson, who said the scientific establishment keeps the Darwin "myth" afloat by controlling funding and keeping research it doesn't like out of scholarly journals. Ohio, Johnson said, has "liberated" teachers to teach all sides of origins. The article dances around the political aspect of Johnson's talk.  We have the indication of press manipulation, and elsewhere there is mention of planning in Kansas being less well done than it was in Ohio.  Hello?  The press just doesn't seem to get it.

Date: 2002/10/24 08:58:29, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Darwinism in Crisis Quote For well over a century now the reigning scientific view has been that the existence of life in the universe could be explained on the basis of natural processes alone. In the light of new research in science and philosophy by a group of first-rank Christian scholars, this view is no longer tenable and is being challenged around the world. YOU ARE INVITED TO THIS RARE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND LEARN ABOUT “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” THEORY FROM THE VERY SCHOLARS WHO HAVE STARTED THIS REVOLUTION IN THE HISTORY OF IDEAS! Witness the news media and academic community from around southern California ask the tough questions about the “Intelligent Design” Revolution. WHEN: Thursday evening, October 24, 2002 from 7:00 to 9:30PM WHERE: Chase Gymnasium on the Biola University campus in La Mirada COST: $10 per person. Tickets are available at the door only. Best seats available for early arrivals. I plan on going, but I can't say that I was specifically requested as part of the academic community in SoCal.  I can well imagine that they may have requested press coverage, but I haven't heard anybody say that they've encouraged the skeptics to attend. This is held just prior to the Research & Progress in Intelligent Design (RAPID) Conference at Biola.  I tried to register for this conference, but was told it is a closed event. Notice that Biola's Christian Apologetics program, which is organizing the "Darwinism in Crisis" panel, identifies the group as "Christian scholars".  It is a refreshing break from the false claim of "top scientists" deployed in the past by the Discovery Institute.

Date: 2002/10/25 13:53:28, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Astrobiology Update: Oxygen-making Microbes Came Last, Not first (SpaceRef.Com, 2002/10/25) Quote "What paleontologists and geologists have had to do is reconstruct evolutionary events because biologists haven't had a very good evolutionary tree of bacteria," says Blank. To get a better family tree, Blank took advantage of growing genome archives and studied 38 genes in the whole gene sequences of 53 species of extant bacteria, including Cyanobacteria. By mapping out the rates of change in the slowest-changing genes, Blank was able to generate a bacterial evolutionary history that shows cyanobacteria branching off last.

Date: 2002/10/29 23:53:59, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Publishers alter texts to try to make grade (Houston Chronicle, 2002/10/29) Quote Bowing to political pressure, publishers of social studies textbooks have changed passages dealing with events ranging from the Alamo to last year's terrorist attacks. The publishers are hoping the changes will help their 200 textbooks gain approval next month from the State Board of Education. That approval is key to getting a piece of the $345 million market. [...] For example, a reference in a sixth-grade social studies book to glaciers forming the Great Lakes "millions of years ago" was changed to "in the distant past." Robert Raborn, a member of the conservative Citizens for a Sound Economy, had complained that "millions of years ago" supported the theory of evolution and excluded theories such as intelligent design. How can ID be excluded by a reference to millions of years, when ID advocates won't take a stand on how old the earth is?

Date: 2002/10/30 00:03:26, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Despite failing, Taft is better choice for Ohio (News-Messenger, 2002/10/28) Quote At a recent joint appearance before a group of Ohio newspaper editors, Hagan challenged Taft on his stance on the intelligent design vs. evolution debate before the state school board. Hagan said that if he were the governor, he would speak forcefully on the issue, telling Ohioans that intelligent design can be taught in comparative religion classes or philosophy classes but that it does not belong in science classes. He then asked Taft for his opinion. Taft evaded the question by saying that a committee was working on the issue. An editor followed up: OK, so a committee is looking into it, but what is your position, Gov. Taft? The governor refused to answer. The reason: Taft can't win votes by telling us his position. But he can lose votes, so he keeps quiet. That's not leadership, governor. Tell us what you think. Tell us what needs to be done. Make the hard decisions and then force the Legislature to deal with it. If you get another four years, you need to show that you deserved it. In a lukewarm endorsement of Taft for re-election as governor of Ohio, the editorial gives us this vignette of an encounter on the campaign trail.  The editorial writer nails it on the head, and reminds me of Acton's aphorism that all that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.

Date: 2002/11/04 21:02:45, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Birds of a Feather (USC Research, 2002/10/30) Quote Scientists from the Keck School of Medicine of USC for the first time have shown experimentally the steps in the origin and development of feathers, using the techniques of molecular biology. Their findings will have implications for the study of the morphogenesis of various epithelial organs – from hairs to lung tissue to mammary glands – and is already shedding light on the controversy over the evolution of dinosaur scales into avian feathers.

Date: 2002/12/05 13:40:26, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Phillip Johnson on Ohio The Dick Staub Interview: Phillip Johnson Quote What does Ohio's decision on science requirements mean for the Intelligent Design Movement? The recent decision of the Ohio Science Standards Committee of the State School Board has been a big breakthrough. [Critics] are calling it a compromise, but it isn't. It's our position. It allows teachers to present evidence against the theory of evolution. This evidence includes the facts that the drawings of embryos in the textbooks are fraudulent and that the peppered moth experiment was botched if not an outright hoax. It looks like the statements from board members that their proposed language did not represent an opening for "intelligent design" arguments are considered by Johnson to be pure flapdoodle.

Date: 2002/12/05 14:24:43, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Phillip Johnson compares "Darwinists" to Napoleon's army in Moscow Quote They have lost a big one. They're like Napoleon's army in Moscow. They have occupied a lot of territory, and they think they've won the war. And yet they are very exposed in a hostile climate with a population that's very much unfriendly. That's the case with the Darwinists in the United States. The majority of the people are skeptical of the theory. And if the theory starts to waver a bit, it could all collapse, as Napoleon's army did in a rout. (Source: The Dick Staub Interview: Phillip Johnson )

Date: 2002/12/08 00:05:34, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

The ISCID moderator (John Bracht, if my sources know what they are talking about) recently posted concerning how ID critics came in 4 categories. Quote 1. Open-minded skeptic: I'm interested, but not convinced. 2. Closed-minded skeptic: Not convinced and no longer interested in being convinced. Call me only if something new develops somewhere to cause quite a commotion. 3. Debunker: Not convinced; no longer interested in being convinced; interested only in convincing others they are wrong. 4. Debunking Crusader: Debunking to save humanity. (Source: On Criticism - Four Types of Critics ) I've asked for what category I might be classed in.  Stay tuned for the results... Wesley

Date: 2002/12/08 07:33:53, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Newspaper: at least six no votes expected on science standards Quote Some members of the state Board of Education say they feel pressured by Gov. Bob Taft’s office and his eight appointees on the panel to vote unanimously for the curriculum guidelines. Only a majority is required for approval. “It’s all coming through the governor’s office — a call here, a comment there,” board member Martha Wise of Avon told the newspaper. “It’s a very heavy-handed way of dealing with the situation. This is our vote. It’s not the governor’s vote.”

Date: 2002/12/09 07:07:07, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Of mice and men Quote Despite the vast areas of commonality between the two species, the research identifies genetic territories that have undergone huge divergence. Mouse genes involved in sex, courtship, smell and immunity are fundamentally different from anything seen in the human genome. The nocturnal mouse uses olfactory cues for marking territory and identifying possible mates; the genes of the mouse immune system are immensely evolved compared to ours, indicating the faster genetic "arms race" between mice and their parasites – a product of the large litter size and short generation time of the fast-breeding rodent. So although the mouse genome opens the prospect of strides in the understanding of human disease, it also provides biologists with the raw data on which to build insights into our common evolutionary history.

Date: 2002/12/09 18:12:01, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Hartwig's "Darwinian Resolution" Mark Hartwig responds to the AAAS anti-ID resolution with the following: Quote Placed side-by-side with other public statements, the resolution and op-eds show how widespread Darwinist anxiety has become. [1] More importantly, however, they also reveal why Darwinists are losing ground: namely, because they are misleading their supporters. How are supporters being misled? Quote In his op-ed for the Beacon Journal, Leshner attributed the ID movement’s success to “a sophisticated marketing campaign based on a three-pronged penetration of the scientific community, educators, and the general public.” This echoes a key theme of ID foes, which says the ID movement is succeeding by duping the public with shrewd tactics and a big-bucks marketing campaign. Such claims are a great way to rally the troops: “Don’t worry boys, they’re just shooting blanks.” But they’re also a great way to get those troops mowed down, due to cockiness and lack of preparation. Imagine someone repeating Leshner’s claim in a public forum. It would be a small matter to show that the balance of marketing power lies with the Darwinists. Indeed, the byline for Leshner’s piece in the Beacon-Journal notes that his organization “has 134,000 members serving 10 million scientists worldwide and publishes the weekly journal Science.” [details of the marketing plan for the Evolution TV series skipped - WRE] With the financial and talent resources that the Darwinist establishment has at its disposal, anyone repeating Leshner’s claim in a public forum is likely to end up looking foolish or disingenuous. Note carefully what Hartwig does not do: he does not show that the claim in question is false, but rather engages the tu quoque fallacy.  AAAS has a lot of members and sends them information, sure, but what has that got to do with the issue of whether ID's success is due to marketing or to content?  Where is it that Leshner misleads?  It appears to me that the person looking foolish or disingenuous is likely to be the one who had to use tu quoque in order to have the semblance of a response. Next up, Hartwig tries again on another issue: Quote The same is true for anyone who tries to defend the notion that there is no evidence against evolution and that ID success is a matter of deception and style rather than substance. Darwinist leaders have repeated these claims for years, arguing that dissent is unreasonable and should be banished from science classrooms. Such tactics are an easy mark for ID proponents, who have responded by publicizing scientific evidence against naturalistic evolution, by documenting the pervasiveness of egregious errors in biology textbooks’ treatment of evolution, and by doggedly insisting that debate be based on facts and reason rather than alleged motives. And again Hartwig fails to touch the issue, which is whether ID advocacy has any content of its own.  Even Hartwig can't name any, for his list is composed entirely of negative arguments concerning evolutionary biology and meta-arguments about debating style. Again, where is it that Leshner misled anyone?  Hartwig certainly develops no argument that such was the case. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/10 17:11:20, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

On the rarity of calculations using Dembski's EF/DI From t.o. ... In article <3df60bc3-robomod@ediacara.org>, Mike Goodrich  <goodrich_ms@yahoo.com> wrote: >Mark VandeWettering wrote: >> In article <3df3c928-robomod@ediacara.org>, Mike Goodrich wrote: MG> I sure hope that even though you don't know all my intentions, and even MG> though a certain amount of contrivance regarding matter, energy, and the MG> laws of physics are involved you are still making the judgment that my MG> posts are designed, thus confirming the utility of Demski 'sThree Part MG> Filter. MV> Your posts have actually very few signs of design.   But I am fascinated: MV> can you describe how Dembski's three part filter can be used to determine MV> that your postings are the result of intelligent design? MG>Actually I think it would be far more instructive for you to describe MG>how Dembski's filter would not be useful in determing that MG>intelligent design was not the best mode of explanation for my MG>postings, asuuming that is what you think..  It would be a good MG>excercise in thinking out of the box for you.  (But I won't hold my MG>breath) I don't know that it is more "instructive", since those making the positive claim have the burden of proof.  Mike's claim that Dembski's EF/DI has "utility" is a positive claim, and thus it is Mike who has the burden of proof here. Does Mike take up his burden?  Rather predictably, Mike attempts to shift the burden to others.  This is simple abandonment of the claim.  Mike apparently has no clue how to actually use Dembski's EF/DI, and rather than forthrightly admit this, Mike tries to distract others from recognizing this. But Mike is not the only person for whom Dembski's EF/DI is simply too cumbersome to apply to real-world problems.  Dembksi himself has attempted only four applications of varying degrees of completeness in the period from 1996 to the present.  Which reminds me of the following: [Quote] Thus far Gell-Mann's theory has resisted detailed applications to real-world problems. [End Quote - WA Dembski, "No Free Lunch", 2002, p.133] Dembski's criticism of Gell-Mann's "effective complexity" is far more apposite when applied to his own concept of "specified complexity".  No one but Dembski has, to my knowledge, even attempted a calculation of the sort required by Dembski's description of his EF/DI.  Hmm... Actually, I may be the only other person than Dembski to attempt a calculation following his EF/DI as it was described in "The Design Inference".  I seem to recall a post here in t.o. some years back showing that solutions of the "travelling salesman problem" were examples of specified complexity. So what would have to happen for Mike to become the very first person other than William Dembski and Dembski's critics to actually apply Dembski's EF/DI, and not simply assert that it is applicable? Dembski lays out his "argument schema" for his somewhat revised EF/DI in "No Free Lunch" on pages 72-73.  Mike should refer to it for the full specification of what has to happen for an analysis to match the technical requirements of the EF/DI.  Failure to fully apply this framework is rampant, as analysis of Dembski's four examples shows. First, observe an event.  It is interesting that while Dembski says that "subject S learns that an event E has occurred", Dembski is fond of using hypotheticals instead of real-world events. Second, generate a set {H} of chance hypotheses relevant to the production of event E.  This seems to be a stumbling block, for one can note that failure is common in this regard.  Fully 25% of Dembski's proffered calculations (one of them) is notable for *not* including natural selection among relevant chance hypotheses (see section 5.10 of "No Free Lunch"). Third, identify a "rejection function f" and "rejection region R" such that E is in R and R "is an extremal set of f".  Even Dembski skipped this part in section 5.10 of "No Free Lunch".  Don't forget the gammas and deltas discussed on p.72!  This requires math, not handwaving. Fourth, identify the "background knowledge K" that "explicitly and univocally identifies the rejection function f" from step (3).  Again, this step is notable by how seldom it is actually deployed, as can be seen by its absence from the discussion in section 5.10 of "No Free Lunch". Fifth, identify the "probabilistic resources" for E "to occur and be specified relative to S's context of inquiry".  BTW, Mike, S is you in this discussion.  And again, even Dembski omits this step from section 5.10 of "No Free Lunch". Sixth, fix a significance level alpha so that events less probable than alpha remains improbable conditioned on each of the chance hypotheses in {H} even when the probabilistic resources of (5) are applied.  This one requires some knowledge of probability and statistics, and thus may prove more difficult for Mike than it was for Dembski. Seventh, confirm that the probability of the rejection region R is less than alpha for all of the chance hypotheses in {H}.  Again, this requires actual math, not vague handwaving, and may prove somewhat difficult for Mike. Step 8 is just a conclusion that E exhibits specified complexity.  Mike has shown no problem in jumping to conclusions regardless of the lack of warrant for them, so assuming he makes it through the preceding steps, this one should pose no difficulty.  In fact, this step is so easy that most of the "examples" cited by Dembski are composed entirely of the assertion that some phenomenon E exhibits specified complexity with no accompanying justification of any sort whatsoever.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, no "calculation" of any kind is offered. If Dembski's EF/DI did have "utility" for some applications, it seems to me that someone somewhere in the six years that it has been available publicly should have picked it up and applied it to accomplish something non-trivial.  Even if Mike successfully deployed the full EF/DI apparatus (an event that itself discourages breathholding), the end result (a conclusion that Mike's posts show "design" sensu Dembski) is trivial and would not support Mike's claim that Dembski's EF/DI has "utility" in any non-trivial sense. There are other approaches to analysis of events based on algorithmic information theory that can do the useful, utilitarian tasks that Dembski talks about in making ordinary design inferences without the many drawbacks that critics have noted in Dembski's EF/DI apparatus.  Wherever someone wishes to apply the EF/DI, they very likely would be better off using an alternative analytical tool.  However, the alternatives do not lead to a conclusion, either deductively or inductively, of intelligent agent causation.  So far, the only "utility" that has been demonstrated for Dembski's EF/DI is based not upon its "application to real-world problems", but rather in its very existence as a tool for Christian apologetics.  The various failures to completely deploy the EF/DI seem to have no effect on its effectiveness in apologetics.

Date: 2002/12/11 13:33:28, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

New standards play down `intelligent design' Quote The debate on whether intelligent design should be taught in Ohio schools has raged for months as the state board of education considered the new science standards. The standards are guidelines for teaching science to the state's 1.8 million public school students. The new science standards emphasize evolution but allow critical analysis of the theory. However, the board added an amendment saying the standards do not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.

Date: 2002/12/11 13:45:12, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Evolution disclaimer supported Quote High school biology textbooks would include a disclaimer that evolution is only a theory under a change approved Tuesday by a committee of the state's top school board. If the disclaimer wins final approval, it would apparently make Louisiana just the second state in the nation with such a provision. The other is Alabama, which is the model for the disclaimer backers want in Louisiana. The article quotes Darrell White, who was one of the agitators for last year's legislation aimed at declaring Charles Darwin, noted abolitionist, to have been a racist.

Date: 2002/12/11 17:24:31, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Why antibiotics in meat should give you pause Quote In other words, evolutionary biology should matter to just about everybody in America - and would, if they paid heed to several new studies confirming what some scientists have argued for years: that antibiotics are dangerously overused, especially to enhance the growth of farm animals. The result has been the swift evolution of bacteria that are resistant to commonly used antibiotics, such as Ampicillin, Erythromycin and Ciprofloxacin - which you may remember as Cipro, the drug of choice in last year's anthrax attacks. You don't have to live on a farm to care about this. According to two of the studies, these drug-resistant strains are probably as close as your nearest supermarket, or even in the package of raw chicken you bought to make tonight's dinner. In a study conducted by Consumers Union, researchers found Campylobacter in 42 percent of nearly 500 broiler chickens purchased in 25 different cities, and Salmonella in 12 percent.

Date: 2002/12/13 10:07:02, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Paul, I'm not sure that John is disagreeing with Kitcher.  Kitcher is talking about postulates, things that are assumed to be true for some line of inquiry.  Rarefied design as an inference, though, is something that some people assert can be concluded from particular premises. The problem with a postulate of the sort that Kitcher discusses, though, is that someone like Paul Nelson will come along and claim that what is being argued is theology and not science (as your 1997 NTSE talk set forth). If "postulating an unobserved Creator" were as generally productive as "postulating unobserved particles" has been in physics, I don't think that we would be having this sort of discussion now.  Postulating unobserved particles has led to specific hypotheses and experiments aimed at producing empirical data which would bear on whether outcomes based on the existence of those heretofore unobserved particles are actually there.  So far in ID, though, there is no similar push to test the postulate: once the unobserved Creator is postulated, no evidence concerning whether that Creator exists is sought after or solicited. But I wonder if this is going far afield from the topic of the first post. Have readers of Dembski really been "thrown" by the "reliability issue"?  Is it the critics who have the "lust for certainty"?  I don't think so. Let's revisit some history.  Back in 1998, Dembski published his book, "The Design Inference".  Before TDI came out, though, Dembski had a short piece published in "First Things" which discussed what TDI would be about.  Here's a snippet of that article: Quote Biologists worry about attributing something to design (here identified with creation) only to have it overturned later; this widespread and legitimate concern has prevented them from using intelligent design as a valid scientific explanation. Though perhaps justified in the past, this worry is no longer tenable. There now exists a rigorous criterion—complexity-specification—for distinguishing intelligently caused objects from unintelligently caused ones. (Source: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9810/dembski.html) This claim has not been explicitly retracted.  It is echoed in the pages of "No Free Lunch" (p.6, IIRC).  It sure looks like a claim concerning certainty to me. In that initial post, Dembski writes: Quote I argue that we are justified asserting specified complexity (and therefore design) once we have eliminated all known material mechanisms. It means that some unknown mechanism might eventually pop up and overturn a given design inference. This seems to me to be inconsistent with, if not contradictory to, the earlier claim.  Perhaps, though, you have a different perspective that can accommodate both the "untenable worry" claim and the later admission that Dembski's "design inferences" can be overturned with additional knowledge. Until such time as we get a statement from Dembski that the "untenable worry" claim is retracted, though, I think the critics are completely correct to hammer on this point.  Else we have the apparently inconsistent stance that the critics responding to the "untenable worry" claim are mistaken because application of the EF/DI is fallible, coupled with the continued use of the "untenable worry" claim whose basis is that application of the EF/DI is infallible for distinguishing intelligently caused objects. Quote This is known as having your cake and eating it. Polite society frowns on such obvious bad taste. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/15 07:44:24, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

From the ISCID thread.: Mark, Quote Does Wesley's dissatisfaction just boil down to two things. I get the feeling that rather than inquire whether this is the case, that this post is trying to assert this. Quote 1) In the last decade, the ID God hypothesis hasn't produced any or enough as useful predictions as the micro-billiard ball hypothesis, supposedly over the same time span with adjustments for the number of people working on each. Since both seem so equally simple, he ain't asking for much! Maybe another weeks extension will help. This has the character of a strawman argument.  If Mark would re-read what I wrote, he would find no reference to "the last decade".  What I did discuss, and what Mark does not touch upon, is the privileged position of a postulated Creator in ID conjectures.  Once postulated, no attempt is made to determine whether the postulate is valid, and even broaching the topic is anathema to many ID advocates.  This contrasts strongly with how certain other "unobservable" postulates are treated in science.  Kitcher's insight is still quite useful. Quote 2) Dembski was initially much to over-enthusiastic about his claims, unlike those poor, humble and tentative neo-Darwinists. It seems that recently Dr. Dembski has become more tentative as well, I wonder if that will really be the case with the opposition? Is that it! IMO, humble or not, Dembski continues to be "much too over-enthusiastic about his claims".  Page 6 of "No Free Lunch" only dates back to January of 2002, after all.  I'm sure Bill does not need anyone to attempt to defend his arguments with another instance of the tu quoque fallacy, though. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/16 01:51:08, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Mark, Quote Wesley, you say this about the God idea behind ID, quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once postulated, no attempt is made to determine whether the postulate is valid, and even broaching the topic is anathema to many ID advocates. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really! How do you know they haven't been thinking of ways to do this all along and they're only in alpha stage before they're ready to release their beta's on the road to release candidate for version one. Hopefully, they wouldn't charge too much extra for later service packs like Microsoft. If that's the case then my first comment stands. I'm being charitable and don't feel that they're trying to be deceptive. However, you seem to think that they are. Now that's juicy, do you have evidence for that charge or is that just how you feel about the situation? This is getting bizarre.  A false dilemma is provided here by Mark to go with the strawman of the first post.  I haven't said anything here about "deception", and I don't feel like being treated to a smorgasbord of fallacies.  Mark's mindreading skills seem to be, ahem, not very well developed. Since I don't claim to be a mindreader, I'm not particularly interested in the "bare possibility" that the situation in ID advocacy will change drastically next week.  I am interested in what has been observed thus far, and nothing Mark provides here would indicate that my reportage has been anything but dead-on accurate.  Many ID advocates have dismissed suggestions that the existence or nature of a postulated "designer" be explored rather than being treated as a "brute given".  If Mark insists, I'll be happy to start a thread on collecting instances to document this claim.  But I think that this should be stipulated.  It is not an extraordinary claim. Quote quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IMO, humble or not, Dembski continues to be "much too over-enthusiastic about his claims". Page 6 of "No Free Lunch" only dates back to January of 2002, after all. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's almost 2003 after all, so nothing he's written since counts?   Dembski provided both tentative and non-tentative claims concerning his EF/DI in NFL.  See page 6 for a non-tentative claim, and page 14 for a tentative-style claim.  Nothing he has written since has been a retraction of the non-tentative statements used in NFL.  At least, nothing that I've seen does that.  I'd appreciate a reference if the "untenable worry" claim has been explicitly retracted. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/16 03:09:49, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Frances, Quote Wesley raised some very good points. Lets stick to his arguments and try to refrain from distracting from them through the use of strawmen. I was actually trying to steer discussion back around to Dembski's arguments given in the initial post.  Perhaps I should have left Paul's interchange with John alone, but I thought I could clarify things there pretty quickly and move on.  I may have been wrong about how quickly... I appreciate the moderator letting the discussion continue in this thread at all, since it doesn't really seem to have a "brainstorming" style topic.  It is a pretty straightforward response to criticism, and in this case the critics have chosen to get somewhat involved.  (My involvement needs to be limited, as I'm getting acquainted with LaTeX for preparation of my dissertation and also have the usual daytime job.  Well, perhaps not that usual.) Anyway, I think that what should be followed are Dembski's arguments. Here's one: Quote (William A. Dembski:) Briefly, the claim that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design means that if an item genuinely instantiates specified complexity, then it was designed. As I argue and continue to maintain, no counterexamples to this claim are known. I was there when Ken Miller presented the Krebs cycle as a counterexample to Dembski on June 21st of this year.  I think that Dembski should note that counterexamples have been proposed by Miller and also Rob Pennock.  Now, it is a given that these have not been demonstrated to Dembski's personal satisfaction, but I think Dembski's phrasing of his claim is somewhat misleading to the reader. Further, I think the claim doesn't mean much, anyway.  Since 1996, Dembski has provided EF/DI calculations, in various degrees of completeness, for a total of four events.   The Caputo case The Contact primes sequence Dawkins's METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL string The E. coli flagellum (If I've missed an application of the EF/DI that comes with actual numbers and complies with more than two or three of the seven steps outlined on pages 72-73 of NFL, please let me know so I can expand the list.) That's not much of an empirical base upon which to build such sweeping claims as the "no counterexamples" claim above. Back in 2001 at Haverford College, I made the point to Dembski that collecting "confirming" cases does nothing to test his EF/DI.  I suggested that he apply his EF/DI and perform calculations for a number of events that could be agreed have sufficient evidence of natural causation to provide real tests of his EF/DI.  These included the Krebs cycle, since shown by Miller to be a real counterexample (well, he convinced me).  I also suggested the mammalian middle ear impedance-matching system and "fairy rings" as good candidates for testing the EF/DI. I think I brought up the point that the EF/DI should be applied to a broad range of biological phenomena at the June 21st get-together at the Fourth World Skeptics conference.  Create a workbook style presentation of a series of EF/DI calculations starting with small-scale events that everyone can agree should not trigger a "design inference" and work up to larger-scale events that biologists have evidence for saying that natural causes are sufficient.  Is the EF/DI a good guide to classifying biological phemomena?  Until we see a series of real examples of complete application of it, I think that the issue is still wide open. Well, I'll come clean.  I expect that if such a workbook were attempted, that the EF/DI would find "design" at ludicrously small-scale events, ones that not even Bill Dembski would want to go on record as saying that they must be considered to be "due to design".  I think that Dembski's statement at the end of TDI that a "design" conclusion is not easily reached via the EF/DI is simply false.  A simple way to show me wrong is to actually produce such a compendium of example EF/DI calculations, where the EF/DI performs in a stable manner and produces expected (by ID advocates, natch) results. The production of such a workbook would also do much to vitiate another criticism of mine, which is that the EF/DI framework is too unwieldy to be applied.  Dembski says of Gell-Mann's "effective complexity" that it "resists detailed application to real-world problems" (I think that's verbatim, but I don't have NFL in front of me.  Check around page 133.).  I think Dembski's EF/DI very much "resists detailed application to real-world problems", and the fact that Dembski has offered so few EF/DI calculations (even including the only partially complete E. coli flagellum example) supports my view.  Of the four examples, the Contact primes examples is plainly fictitious, neither the Caputo case nor the METHINKS string yield an improbability smaller than Dembski's "universal small probability", and the E. coli flagellum example suffers from a large number of defects.  Does it really take a year-and-a-half, on average, to apply the EF/DI to any sort of problem, no matter how trivial or how many steps are skipped? I'd be interested in hearing if any third party has attempted to apply or applied the seven-step process outlined on pages 72-73 of NFL.  I no of no such examples yet. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/18 00:26:24, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Paul, Quote 3. Wesley, I recall that I brought up the Kreb's cycle at the CSICOP discussion, not Ken Miller. If you have the video or audio tape, could you check for me please? Thanks. My VCR has taken up the habit of eating tapes, so I won't be putting in my copy until I get a new VCR. I couldn't say from recall that you didn't mention the Krebs cycle first, since you preceded Ken, but I do recall that Ken specifically discussed the Krebs cycle as a counterexample to Dembski's EF/DI.  That's because Ken used my "origination probability calculator" to "do the calculation", putting his finding on a par with the discussion by Dembski of the E. coli flagellum.  The same equations were used in both cases.  (Ken's presentation even included a slide with a screenshot of my web page.  More of Dembski's equations are implemented on my Finite Improbability Calculator.) I recall that you disputed Ken's use of the Krebs cycle on the grounds that the evolutionary scenario Ken cited was not complete enough to satisfy you.  That was during the panel discussion.  If I find my audio tapes, I'll give them a listen. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/19 20:01:20, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I agree with John's clarification. So, what are the central issues?  I'm thinking those are the issues from Dembski's topic-opening post. The title of the thread talks about a "lust for certainty".  I think I've established that the claims of certainty can be found in Dembski's work.  That critics chose to respond to those claims should have been expected.  The more tentative claims came later and did not displace the non-tentative claims, leading to a state of inconsistency in Dembski's claims. The claim by Dembski that there exist no counterexamples to his claim that his EF/DI is "reliable" is either abysmally weak (based on less than a handful of worked examples) or actually false (since various critics have put forward candidate counterexamples). I've had a look at Demsbki's essay on "logical underpinnings" but I don't yet wish to comment.  I'm getting acquainted with BibTeX at the moment. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/25 05:43:37, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Evolution's Sweet Tooth Quote Like icing on a cake, the surfaces of most animal cells are covered with sugars. These molecular sugar chains are capped off by a kind of sugar called sialic acid. While one particular sialic acid - called N-glycolylneuraminic acid (abbreviated as "Gc" in this article) - is found on most animal cells, it is not easily detectable on human cells. This is due to a genetic mutation that occurred many years ago, sometime after our last common ancestor with the great apes. All mammals except for humans tend to have about equal proportions of Gc and another sialic acid called N-acetylneuraminic acid ("Ac") in the body. Humans, meanwhile, only have trace amounts of Gc, but double the amount of Ac.

Date: 2002/12/25 05:54:39, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Phoenixville School District Addresses Evolution Alternatives Quote New wording in the Phoenixville Area School District's mission statement is already accomplishing its purpose: provoking discussion of hot-button issues such as evolution alternatives. [...] The mission statement was altered at the urging of school board vice president, David M. Langdon. Langdon had sought a more detailed statement, urging the teaching of "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. [...] Langdon, a software quality-control manager who earned a bachelor's degree in biochemistry at Lehigh University, is a devout Christian and said he believes the Biblical account of creation is literally true. He criticized the way evolution is taught. "My opinion is that evolution has some problems with it that the scientific community doesn't want to talk about," Langdon said. As John Stear points out, "Creationism is not the alternative to evolution; ignorance is."

Date: 2002/12/27 00:08:00, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

From an ISCID thread: Cornelius G. Hunter wrote: Quote I don't think we have scientific reason or evidence to believe complex systems such as echolocation or the DNA code could have evolved. Hmm.  I don't think that we have scientific reason or evidence to indicate that echolocation is due to anything other than evolutionary processes. There are several different approaches to biosonar.  The examples of bats and odontocetes are pretty sophisticated, but those of oilbirds and honey badgers are relatively simple.  Even humans can use hearing for directional cues, as several aids for the blind demonstrate. So I'd like to know what, specifically, puts the dolphin biosonar system (the one I'm most familiar with) outside the scope of evolutionary process. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/27 08:22:29, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Cornelius G. Hunter wrote: Quote I am not familiar with the dolphin's biosonar, but I am somewhat familiar with human-made radar and sonar systems. For those who may not be familiar with the bat's echolocation system, we should briefly explain that it maps out objects around it as small as a mosquito by sensing the echoes of its own squeaks. Its squeaks are well beyond the range of human hearing and are emitted at up to 2,000 times per second. Next it determines both range and direction to the mosquito by sensing the echo while filtering out echoes from the squeaks of nearby bats. Anyone familiar with today’s sonar or radar systems knows the immense complexity involved with such systems: the problems of sensing the echo in the presence of the transmitted signal which can be billions of times stronger, of filtering out spurious signals such as echoes of older transmissions, of combining the echo information with knowledge of your own motion, and so forth. Yet the bat’s detection abilities are superior to those of the best electronic sonar equipment. Evolution, on the other hand, has been shown to be able to make rather limited modifications to multi cellular organisms. These might include resistance to pesticides, minor morphological changes (eg, beak size and shape), more major morphological changes in the case of breeding (eg, dogs), coloration, etc. My list here (off the top of my head) is not close to being complete and I do not want to short-change evolution, but I trust I'm not missing anything too significant. My point is merely that, relative to the sorts of changes required to create a biosonar system, the observed evolutionary changes are rather minor. It is also worth noting that the observed evolutionary changes are made possible by a complex cellular machine that evolution cannot explain, aside from speculation. I think it is fair to say that there does not exist empirical evidence supporting the claim that biosonar systems could have evolved. I would say it is, as you put it, "outside the scope of evolutionary process," at least the known process. The idea that it evolved likely arises from a prior commitment to the truth of evolution rather than biosonar systems appearing to have evolved. It is probably worth exploring the question of whether it is at least a reasonable conjecture that such systems could have evolved? Personally, I would require any such attempt to include a fairly detailed explanation of the steps involved, where each step (i) consists of changes of the type and magnitude that are empirically observed, and (ii) confers increased fitness, or is reasonable for us to imagine given what we know about population genetics and neutral mutations. Also, I would require that the mutations required, in total, pass a likelihood test. That is, given (i) the number of bat populations and the number of years available, and (ii) the immense design space involved, is the evolutionary pathway anything more than astronomically unlikely. I feel these requirements are reasonable, and I have not seen any explanation that comes close. And I do not think it is because they are trivial and therefore taken for granted. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, I suspect we do not even have all the details of the bat's system so as to know what the required mutations are in the first place, let alone their individual effects at each step in the process. This appears to be a classic argument from incredulity.  It echoes early reactions against Donald Griffin's discovery of echolocation via ultrasound in bats, where is was considered inconceivable that such lowly creatures could have technology which was then new to human technology. I'm going to discuss dolphin biosonar for two reasons.  The first is that dolphin biosonar is the sort I am most familiar with.  The second is that Hunter's claim was about biosonar generally, not limited to bats in particular. The first issue to note is that the receiving system in dolphins need not be considered to be out of reach of evolutionary process.  I'm going to use human auditory performance as a becnhmark, since humans are a well-studied non-echolocating mammal with fairly generic capabilities.  One piece of evidence concerns the performance of humans given a biosonar task.  A study by Fish et alia (1976) demonstrated that human divers could perfrom about as well on a target discrimination task as did the dolphins, when the humans were given the dolphin biosonar signal shifted into the range of human hearing.  This indicates that even a rather general mammalian auditory system (as seen in humans) is sufficient to the task of deciphering biosonar information.  It also indicates that the general mammalian auditory system is an adequate starting point for an evolutionary process ending in biosonar capability. What changes to the general mammalian auditory condition must occur to derive a dolphin-like system?  Either of two parameters in cochlear construction will extend frequency response on the high end: increase the stiffness of the basilar membrane or reduce the width of the basilar membrane.  This falls into the category of "minor morphological change".  Dolphin cochleas have slightly fewer turns than in humans, but a bit over double the variation in width along the basilar membrane.  The minimum width of the dolphin basilar membrane is a bit less than a third of that of the human basilar membrane. Neurologically, dolphin basilar membranes have about the same numbers of inner and outer hair cells as seen in humans.  There are some differences in the brain, though.  The auditory cortex in dolphins is enlarged relative to that seen in humans.  Dolphins and bats each have lost the lateral superior olive, a structure implicated in coordinating eye movement with auditory cues in humans.  Dolphins are known to process clicks differently than tonal stimuli; this is something that is not seen in humans.  Dolphin evoked potentials show a faster response to click stimuli than to tonal stimuli. Psychoacoustics also demonstrate differences in quantity rather than quality between dolphin and human hearing.  Johnson's 1968 study on temporal auditory summation in dolphins showed that dolphin and human time constants were close in the range of 0.5 to 10 kHz.  Critical ratios are similar for dolphins and humans, although critical bandwidths are larger in the dolphin than in humans by a little more than double.  For frequency discrimination, dolphins perform similarly to humans, but at a higher frequency range.  Dolphin sound localization capabilities are also similar to those in humans. I still don't see any show-stoppers in what we know about the dolphin receiving system's characteristics. That leaves the transmitting system for possible show-stopping adaptations.  I think I'll write a post on that separately. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/27 08:34:19, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Archived post from the ISCID thread: I'll keep my comments here brief since the issue of biosonar is pretty tangential to the thread topic. Hunter's reply lacks the specificity that I requested.  The objection seems to be raised in a general, rather hand-wavy way.  I'd also caution against trying to take cues from human technology for whether particular tasks are difficult for biological systems.  As we know from computer science, many tasks that are easy for animals are difficult for computers, and vice versa.  The application of accurate mathematics is a snap for computers, but hard for humans.  Machine translation of human languages is a classic case of something that is easy for humans (who have both of the relevant languages), but has turned out to be very tough for the computers. I've taken my continued discussion of biosonar in dolphins to  another thread so that I won't be cluttering up this thread with it. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/27 10:36:51, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Cornelius G. Hunter wrote: Quote I'm not sure how I could have been more specific. I discussed the fact that the evolution of biosonar systems is significantly beyond the observed and known evolutionary process, I discussed the complexity of the process in general, and I laid out the requirements for establishing the reasonableness of the hypothesis. I gave 3 specific requirements: (i) lay out steps which are of observed type and magnitude, (ii) steps must not degrade fitness, and (iii) mutations required must pass a likelihood test. What more could I provide, especially given the lack of specificity in the available evolutionary conjectures on this hypothesis? Am I supposed to derive hypothetical evolutionary scenarios for you and then find point out their weaknesses when no such scenarios exist in the first place? If you find my response "hand-wavy" then you must find evolution to be far more so. One way to be more specific, overlooked by Hunter, would be to name an adapatation necessary to dolphin biosonar and present an argument as to why it could not arise via evolutionary process.  This specific form of argument is notable by its absence from Hunter's discussion.  While I disagree with Bill Dembski's mode of argument and conclusions concerning the E. coli flagellum, at least he made an attempt at a specific argument in that case. It is nowhere near a "fact" that "the evolution of biosonar systems is significantly beyond the observed and known evolutionary process".  Begging the question is not a valid argument.  I've already pointed out simple examples of biosonar, which even if we agree to disagree concerning the examples of dolphins and bats remain as an impediment to the scope of Hunter's claim. I'm not the one making universal claims about what is not possible.  That would be Hunter.  So far, though, I haven't seen anything that would cause me to think that the biosonar of dolphins poses a difficulty for evolutionary process.  Nothing in Hunter's discussion so far changes that. Quote Obviously, conjectures about the future can work both ways, and what we are left with is our current list of evidences and analyses. These do not bode well for evolution. I think that we will have to agree to disagree on that conclusion as well.  It looks like a non sequitur to me. Charles Darwin wrote: Quote Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. Wesley

Date: 2002/12/28 09:38:18, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

From an ISCID thread: Cornelius G. Hunter wrote: Quote Wesley: Respectfully, I think it is important to be clear and consistent on who is making what claim. Let me clarify that my position on the evolution of biosonar systems and macro evolution in general is that such evolution is unlikely and does not constitute a good scientific theory. I am not making a universal statement as you suggest. In fact, my comment which you originally responded to, and which you quoted in your first post was that: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't think we have scientific reason or evidence to believe complex systems such as echolocation or the DNA code could have evolved. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not clear to me how you concluded that my claim is that such evolution is impossible. It is worth pointing out, however, that this amounts to a shifting of the burden of proof, and is a common mode of argument. In fact, it seems that in every extended discussion of this sort I am, at one point or another, asked to provide evidence that evolution is false (as though the theory is true until proven false), or more commonly, as here, am told that this is my claim and that I've failed to support it. This is so common, it is not surprising that Darwin used it: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case. – Darwin, Origin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Darwin allowed that if the skeptic could find a complex organ that evolution could not produce then the theory would be disproven. But it would be impossible for a skeptic to prove that evolution could never create complexity, for that would be tantamount to proving a universal negative. You write: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One way to be more specific, overlooked by Hunter, would be to name an adapatation necessary to dolphin biosonar and present an argument as to why it could not arise via evolutionary process. -- Wesley -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is ironic that, on the one hand, while I am not making a universal claim you criticize me for doing so, but then on the other hand you suggest this is what is required for me to criticize evolution effectively. What you suggest is, of course, precisely the requirement that Darwin laid out, and it places the critic in an impossible position. And importantly, it makes science vulnerable to any idea that cannot be falsified. You write: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is nowhere near a "fact" that "the evolution of biosonar systems is significantly beyond the observed and known evolutionary process". Begging the question is not a valid argument. -- Wesley -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would help me if you could point out how I was begging the question, as I certainly try to avoid fallacious arguments. I thought I was merely pointing out the facts of the situation when I said that : quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My point is merely that, relative to the sorts of changes required to create a biosonar system, the observed evolutionary changes are rather minor. … I would say it is, as you put it, "outside the scope of evolutionary process," at least the known process. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How is this begging the question? You write: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've already pointed out simple examples of biosonar, which even if we agree to disagree concerning the examples of dolphins and bats remain as an impediment to the scope of Hunter's claim. -- Wesley -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not following here. Can you clarify what you see the implications are of the simple examples of biosonar? I like your quote from Darwin: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject my theory. – Darwin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In other words, we need to consider all the factors, such as the explanatory power, supporting evidence in addition to the problems. I could not agree more. In fact, it is the many problems with the positive evidences, as set forth by evolutionists, which caught my interest originally. The problem of complexity is less interesting as it is fairly obvious. --Cornelius Pointing out a sentence that does not contain a universal claim doesn't exculpate one from defending a universal claim made elsewhere.  Here's one from Hunter: Quote I think it is fair to say that there does not exist empirical evidence supporting the claim that biosonar systems could have evolved. That's a universal claim.  It's also a negative claim, which means that if any evidence exists which supports evolvability of biosonar, the claim is false. So Hunter's universal claim is false, because there does exist empirical evidence that biosonar systems could have evolved.  I've already mentioned the simple systems of oilbirds and honey badgers, which Hunter has thus far avoided taking up.  I've also gone into some detail concerning comparing the dolphin receiving system with that of a general non-echolocating mammal, Homo sapiens.  These represent empirical evidence that biosonar is not "beyond the scope of evolutionary process". I can understand Hunter's haste in trying to frame up a critic in an attempt to avoid the consequences of making such an egregiously false claim.  However, I'm not the type to take those sorts of shenanigans lightly.  Hunter's claim that no evidence exists to support the evolvability of biosonar is one that he bears the burden of proof for.  It may have been unwise of Hunter to put himself in the position of proving a universal negative, but he has no one else to blame for it. Perhaps the reason that sooner or later Hunter gets called upon to prove evolution false is simply that he makes such claims, and critics naturally call upon Hunter to either support or retract them. The "sorts of changes required to produce a biosonar system" are "relatively minor" and fully within the scope of evolutionary process, as far as I can tell.  Hunter's statement is begging the question because he is taking as a fact something that has not been established.  I suppose Hunter could respond that that is merely the use of a false premise instead, but in either case his argument is hosed. Simple examples of biosonar imply that Hunter's claim that "no evidence exists" to support the evolvability of biosonar is simply wrong.  If evolutionary process can explain simple biosonar, Hunter's universal is false.  Further, the facts of dolphin biology do support the possibility of dolphin biosonar being derivable from a generalized mammalian condition. Hunter's response to the Darwin quote I provided seems not to touch the issue identified by Darwin. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/01 01:59:53, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

You might be thinking of this thread. Basically, I took up the question of how many different codes could be constructed with the same statistical properties as the canonical genetic code, and found the number to be very large indeed, around 2.3e69. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/08 00:51:46, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Hello, Nelson. The ID movement's antievolutionism is well established. The buzz-phrase "evidence against evolution" is often deployed by ID advocates. That ID advocates may not reject every observation, hypothesis, or theory found in evolutionary biology doesn't mean that the ID movement is not antievolutionary. Even the Institute for Creation Research accepts some instances of the action of natural selection occurring, which hardly means that the ICR is not antievolutionary. Some places where ID and "evidence against evolution" coincide: Ohioans Don't Want Evolution Only Evidence Against Evolution Can Neo-Darwinism Survive? Columbus Dispatch is Blind to the Arguments and Evidence Against Evolutionism Results of analysis of the public comments on the proposed Ohio Science Standards ... Polls are meaningful Notes on lecture by Phillip Johnson at KU, April 7, 2000 Critics: No science in intelligent design Remarks to the Kansas State Board of Education Skepticism's Prospects for Unseating Intelligent Design Evolution FAQ "So What Evidence IS There Against Evolution?" No Admittance College student challenges evolutionary theory Evolution Rerun to Backfire; New Poll from Ohio Transcript-NPR Talk of the Nation / Science Friday Some DI Fellows discussing "evidence against" various bits of evolutionary biology: Report from Hillsdale College Symposium on ID Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism: Theories in Collision Cobb County (Georgia) School Board Promotes Academic Freedom, Not Religion Teach All the Evidence Will “Santorum Language” Save Us From Scientific Fundamentalism? This thread would be a suitable place to collect more instances of ID advocate use of the concept of "evidence against evolution". Many of the instances here are not careful to delimit "evolution" to 'Darwinism', 'Neo-Darwinism', or similar bugbears of ID advocates.  Some explicitly reference particular things as evidence against common descent.  As "theyeti"'s IDism in One Lesson, or "No Free Hunch" says with tongue in cheek, "ID is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree." Wesley

Date: 2003/01/10 13:03:16, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Barbarian wrote: Quote Maybe brains work better than we think? And I wrote before: Quote As we know from computer science, many tasks that are easy for animals are difficult for computers, and vice versa.  The application of accurate mathematics is a snap for computers, but hard for humans.  Machine translation of human languages is a classic case of something that is easy for humans (who have both of the relevant languages), but has turned out to be very tough for the computers. I certainly had no intention of giving anyone the impression that brains were incapable of solving difficult problems.  In context, I think that it was clear that I was making a case that the class of problems which is easily solved on von Neumann architecture computers is not exactly the same as the class of problems easily solved by brains, and that the latter class is not empty. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/10 18:05:34, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Troubled House, a play by Daniel Schwabauer Reviewed by Wesley R. Elsberry People like playing "what-if" games.  Hypotheticals appear in arguments regularly to test the boundaries of application.  Daniel Schwabauer tries his hand at a "what-if" game in his three-act play, "Troubled House" (http://www.troubledhouse.com/TH.SCRIPT.final.pdf, last accessed 2003/01/09).  It is useful to enumerate the conjunction of "what-if" conditions that this play comprises: What if an agnostic biology professor doubted the suffiency of evolutionary theory to account for the diversity and history of life on earth? What if that agnostic professor were enamored of antievolutionary literature? What if journalists goaded students into falsely claiming that the professor's doubts were religious in nature and that he was attempting to bring religion into the science classroom? What if an academic inquisition were launched to accuse the professor of blasphemy against science and decline to renew his teaching contract? What if those persecuting the professor had no answer whatever to classic antievolutionary chestnuts like "natural selection has never been observed and cannot be measured", "there are no clearly transitional fossils", "genetic information cannot  increase by evolutionary processes", and "evolution has no mechanism of change"? What if the professor's old mentor turned out to be the most clueless of dogmatic, atheistic Darwinists around? What if the student body were interested in "evidence against evolution" to the extent of attending hearings and starting a riot concerning the issue? What if the professor's moral sense leads him to repudiate a "statement of faith" in Darwinism rather than recant his doubts and hang onto his job? What if the professor's love interest, otherwise on the brink of marrying him, decided that she could not stand to leave her own academic position to go with him? This very special set of hypothetical circumstances gives rise to Schwabauer's script.  Schwabauer's script is obviously patterned as an inverse of Lawrence and Lee's "Inherit the Wind".  The allusions of "Inherit the Wind" are overt enough as an indictment of the McCarthy era, but this aspect of the original work does not seem to have been taken into account in Schwabauer's derivation. The result is a predictable morality play based on some of the fears common to conservative fundamentalist Christianity.  The venue is an "ivy-league university".  Journalists, represented here by students writing for the campus newspaper, are conniving manipulators who make William Randolph Hearst look like a saint.  The campus atmosphere is depicted as crushingly anti-religious.  The protagonist is a quietly stalwart agnostic, and examples of Christians whose intellectualism and cowardice dilute their faith are thrown into the mix. "Troubled House" as a set piece borrows much from the earlier one-act play by Schwabauer and intelligent design advocate John Calvert, "The Rule" (http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/TheRule.PDF, last accessed 2003/01/09).  Act two of "Troubled House" is a re-worked version of "The Rule".  While in "The Rule", the protagonist explicitly mentions "intelligent design" and espouses easily recognizable assertions from the ID literature, "Troubled House" avoids having its protagonist even say the word "design".  All explicit mention of "intelligent design" instead comes from the inquisitors -- and I use the term advisedly, since "inquisition" is what Schwabauer prominently features on his home page for this play. The inquisitorial nature of the "hearing" on possible misconduct by the protagonist is premised upon a general acceptance of philosophical naturalism by the administration.  The panel consists of the humorless dean of the university (it says she is humorless right there in the dramatis personae, as if we could not tell by the dialogue Schwabauer stuffs into her mouth), an emeritus professor of life sciences (who plays the inverse role from the William Jennings Bryan character of "Inherit the Wind"), the dean of the college of religious studies (who illustrates the lapse from real religious belief that sophisticated study of religion often implies to fundamentalists), and a mathematics professor who professes to be Christian but refuses to show any sign of it to the panel.  Points of logic brought up by the protagonist are passed over, points of procedure are broken by the "prosecutor", and no one even hints that the assertions made by the protagonist concerning evolution demonstrate considerable ignorance of the available evidence and state of the science. The protagonist offers a number of claims during the course of the proceedings, and as mentioned above, none of them are effectively countered in the script.  He defines science as "empirically verifiable knowledge".  He asserts that evolutionary biology has offered no effective mechanism for change.  He asserts that natural selection has never been observed or measured.  He asserts the "all genetic change is a loss of information" argument.  ID advocate Jonathan Wells's arguments on four-winged fruit flies and peppered moths are treated as factual.  (Although, of course, Wells receives no credit here for those arguments.)  The 'panda's thumb' is asserted to simply be a "spur" with no pretensions to thumb-hood.  The Cambrian explosion is cited as a difficulty, and he asserts that no "clearly" transitional fossils exist.  Of course, any halfway clued-in lurker in this debate could supply the missing rebuttals to all these supposedly unanswerable ojections.  But cluelessness in the opposition is apparently just one of the hypothetical conditions in force here. Some years ago, I had the opportunity to remonstrate with a proponent of education in evolutionary biology for her over-optimistic imaginary debate with ID advocate Phillip Johnson (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=67lv1r%24t3i%241%40news.tamu.edu&output=gplain, last accessed 2003/01/09).  It seldom comes about that participants on either side have it all their way when put to face-to-face discussion with the other side.  The incompetence of the inquisitors in Schwabauer's play takes us ever further away from anything like verisimilitude. The protagonist refuses to go through with an offered compromise, and thus loses his job and his love interest.  The "compromise" is for him to read a prepared statement, which is actually a statement of faith in the completeness and accuracy of Darwinian evolution.  His point is to say that truth requires anyone to say "I don't know" when it comes to evolution.  Certainly there are unknowns in evolutionary biology, but any evolutionary biologist is likely to come up with a far different list than the ones which the protagonist is urging as reasons to doubt. It's certainly the case that the protagonist is personally ignorant of much.  He is thrilled that a student on campus asks to borrow some of his books expressing the "doubt" he espouses toward evolution.  In the play, he is falsely accused of biblical evangelism, but his real evangelical calling is for a generalized ignorance masquerading as moral fortitude.  In the end, only lip service is paid to the concept of looking at the empirical evidence. I think that we can count on ID advocates pushing for student groups to perform this extended work of propaganda.  But as with most propaganda, I suspect that its value as entertainment will remain low. The "study questions" at http://www.troubledhouse.com/study.html are notable for their absence of examination of the claims made in the play.  Although Schwabauer claims that his site gives a brief introduction to "both sides of the controversy", I see remarkably little accurate information about evolutionary biology given there, and rather a lot of what ID advocates claim evolutionary biology is.  There are no links to sites which argue whether ID claims are valid, such as TalkDesign, TalkReason, and Antievolution.Org, or even those which take the part of mainstream science, such as The TalkOrigins Archive or the National Center for Science Education. Schwabauer sells manuscript copies for $6 each, and charges a $60 royalty for performances. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/12 22:56:09, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Nelson, You appear to be making an "argument from restricted connotation".  Your connotations of "intelligent design" and "antievolution" do not count as universally or even widely acceded. I think that it is clear that ID advocates -- and this category is inclusive of many holding a young-earth creationist view -- often urge consideration of "evidence against evolution".  The plain import is that these people take an antievolutionist stance. Having taken pains to urge ID as a "big tent" idea, ID advocates cannot simply dismiss those of their ranks who hold to a YEC stance, or repudiate their use of ID rhetoric and arguments.  Those YEC advocates of ID are just as much part of the movement as those who are OEC or partial accommodationist. As for the link to the description of the Rodney LeVake case, Nelson may not recognize why the link is relevant, but others will easily see that LeVake is an ID advocate who espouses the "evidence against evolution" strategy of antievolutionary activism. I have no idea why ID should be urged by Nelson as a "mechanism" of evolution, when we have a proclamation by no less an authority than William Dembski that ID is not that kind of theory. As noted before, ID advocates seem to tell us, "ID is what we say it is, and we don't agree." Wesley

Date: 2003/01/13 15:10:39, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Design Theory and its Critics Quote The present book, Intelligent Design Creationism and its Critics, is intended as a sourcebook of materials from both sides of the present debate. The editor, Robert T. Pennock, who is a vocal critic of ID, takes it that ID claims fail more or less on all fronts, and while giving both sides a platform, intends for the present volume to make ID's untenability (as he sees it) amply clear. Ratzch apparently does not distinguish an accusation of ignorance from ad hominem. Quote One individual particularly singled out is, surprisingly, Alvin Plantinga, who al- though an ID sympathisizer is not an ID advocate. Ruse: We know that Plantinga's agenda is Christianity. That is fair enough. But it is an agenda backed by a deliberate ignorance of work that is going on today in science. Plantinga is able to talk so confidently about science stoppers only because he has not and apparently will not look at what scientists are saying and achieving. [Ruse, p. 382] Ad hominem arguments are irrelevancies directed at aspects of personality.  Demonstrable ignorance of topics at issue, though, is directly relevant and is a legitimate point of argument. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/14 12:46:09, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

'Intelligent design' believers, sect seek curriculum change Quote People who believe in “intelligent design” are trying to change the way science is taught in West Virginia’s public schools. This time, they have an unlikely ally: the Raelian sect espoused by baby-cloner Brigitte Boisselier. On Friday, the public comment period ended for four statewide education standards. The standards for reading, math and social studies slipped through fairly quietly — but not science. More than 100 people spoke out about the new science standards, the state Department of Education estimates.

Date: 2003/01/14 21:52:52, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Creationist Museum Acquires 5,000 Year Old T. rex Skeleton Quote TULSA, OK—In a major coup for the growing field of creation science, the perfectly preserved remains of a 5,000-year-old Tyrannosaurus Rex were delivered Monday to Tulsa's Creationist Museum of Natural History.

Date: 2003/01/16 21:57:40, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

God and the Explanatory Filter Quote From: rossum <rossum48@coldmail.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins Subject: God and the Explanatory Filter Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Organization: (Posted via) GTS Netcom. Lines: 110 Sender: root@darwin.ediacara.org Approved: robomod@ediacara.org Message-ID: <ikob2v4me4nve84dnd4fd9qqaso7m9jf9o@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1042669908 55011 128.100.83.246 (15 Jan 2003 22:31:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:31:48 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.92/32.570 God and the Explanatory Filter Dembski's Explanatory Filter (EF) is intended to distinguish regularity, chance and design.  Dembski claims that the filter does not register false positives for design, though it is susceptible to false negatives.  When we apply the EF to God we get some interesting results. The filter has three stages, first a check for regularity, second a check for chance and third a check for design. 1 First Stage - Check for Regularity If something is due to regularity then it is the outcome of the working of the laws of the universe.  Since God is the creator of the universe it is not possible for God to be due to regularity.  I am sure that all believers would agree that God is not a product of the laws of the universe. 2 Second Stage - Check for Chance For something to be due to chance the probability of it happening by chance must be greater than Dembski's Universal Probability Bound (UPB).  This is 1 in 2 ^ 500, equivalent to 1 in 10 ^ 150, or 10 ^-150.  This equates to 500 bits of information.  Evaluating the probability of God is not easy.  There are two possibilities: God is simple or God is complex. 2.1 God is Simple If God is simple, then God does not contain a lot of information.  Low information corresponds to high probability, so a simple God would be more probable than the UPB.  In this case the EF would assign God to chance.  I do not think that there are many believers who would agree that the existence of God is due to chance alone.  This incorrect result might indicate a problem with the assumption that God is simple or else it might show a problem with the Explanatory Filter. 2.2 God is Complex God is complex, but how complex relative to the UPB?  This question is dependent on how much information God contains. God is omniscient, knowing everything; a very large amount of information indeed. However we can put a lower limit on the information contained in God. Given that God wrote the Bible, the minimum amount of information is the amount contained in the Bible. God knows more than is in the Bible; knowing less is not possible. Looking at one of my Bibles, I find that it has about 30 characters per line, 56 lines in a column and two columns per page. The Old Testament contains 840 pages and the New Testament 240 pages. A total of 1080 pages.  This is 30 x 56 x 2 x 1080 = 3628800 characters. For simplicity let us take the number of possible characters as 30, 26 letters plus space and some punctuation.  Therefore by the standard probability argument the likelihood of the Bible having arisen by chance is 1 in 30 ^ 3628800. Remember that this is an upper bound, God is less probable than this because he contains more information than is in the Bible. Working out the numbers, 1 in 30 ^ 3628800 is a probability of 1.8 x 10 ^ -3628942.  This is less than the UPB of 10 ^ -150 with a good margin for error.  Hence the EF does not assign God to chance at this stage. This is a better result.  God is not due to chance, which is in agreement with the opinion of all believers.  I will proceed on the assumption that God is complex. 3 Third Stage - Check for Design 3.1 Look for a Specification The third stage starts by looking for an independent specification. God certainly has a specification, scripture.  Given that God is specified then God is again not a result of chance: the EF assigns low probability non-specified events to chance.  Again this is a good result indicating that God is indeed specified.  Had God not been specified then the EF would have indicated chance which we have already rejected in 2.1. 3.2 Design is Detected At the third stage the EF says that if something is both complex and specified then it is due to design.  God is both complex, by 2.2, and specified, by 3.1.  Hence the EF says that God is due to design. Remember also that Dembski claims that the EF does not show false positives for design so this result is supposed to be reliable.  Of course the EF says nothing about the nature of the designer, it merely asserts the presence of intelligent design. 4 Conclusions I think all believers would agree that God did not arise from either regularity or chance.  However by Dembski's definition of design only regularity, chance and design are allowed -- Dembski defines design as everything which is neither regularity nor chance.  With this definition of design it is inevitable that the Explanatory Filter decides that God is designed. Given the wider aims of the ID movement it is amusing to see that Dembski's Explanatory Filter appears to give support to the atheist argument that God was designed by humans.  I am more inclined to think that either the EF is flawed or that this is an example of a false positive for the EF.

Date: 2003/01/19 09:43:21, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

When posting quotes like the one above, please also enter them into the quotation database. Thanks, Wesley

Date: 2003/01/22 06:00:48, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

ICR Event Announcement Calendar (click on Jan. 24) You can find a mini-bio of Edward Max at this New Mexicans for Science and Reason web page. If you haven't seen the "Gish Gallop" in person yet, this is likely to be an excellent opportunity to experience it. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/22 18:47:09, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Dr. Max has debated Gish before.   THE GISH - MAX AMARILLO DEBATE Gish-Max Debate Draws Overflow Crowd Wesley

Date: 2003/01/25 12:08:50, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

My first installment of comments on the Duane Gish v. Edward Max debate... Edward Max opened with discussion of what things were accepted by evolutionists versus creationists.  Both creationists and evolutionists agree that "microevolution" occurs.  Creationists disagree that common descent or macroevolution occur, while those are generally accepted by evolutionists.  Creationists disagree that gene duplication, random mutation, and natural selection can accomplish the tasks of explaining the adaptation and diversity of living organisms, while this is generally accepted by evolutionists.  Both sides agree that there is no evidence that would compel belief in a purely naturalistic origin of life, and also that there is no evidence that excludes God from having had a role in species origins. Max utilized a good technique, which was to use Duane Gish's past statements from debates and presentations for comparison to the standards of science in the scientific community.  One of the first things which Max examined was Gish's infamous claim that analysis of protein similarities showed that by that line of evidence, bullfrogs were the closest living species to humans.   Quote If we look at certain proteins, yes ... it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things.  But on the other hand, if you look at other certain proteins, you'll find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is a chimpanzee."  (Source: Duane T. Gish, 1983 broadcast on PBS) When pressed to give his references to substantiate this claim, Gish could give no actual data.  The vague reference extracted turned out to concern a joke told by an evolutionary biologist at a conference, not anything that came out of a laboratory.  Max introduced the phrase bullfrog argument to describe this situation of a proponent of antievolution putting forward an argument that could not withstand the slightest scrutiny, as would be required simply to permit initial publication in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.  The remainder of Max's talk was peppered with images of a bullfrog whenever he made the point that an antievolution argument failed to withstand even cursory scrutiny. Max made two points concerning creation "science" arguments in general: Quote 1. Used repeatedly for church and debate audiences, who find them persuasive 2. Questions challenging their scientific rigor are not answered More later... Wesley

Date: 2003/01/28 09:13:45, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Human Cloning Takes a Hit, Thanks to Bizarre Cult Claim Quote "Once the shock of what has happened wears off, you are easily on a slippery slope to more (cloning) applications and attempts," said Fuz Rana, vice president of science apologetics for Reasons to Believe, a Christian organization in California that concentrates on issues of science and faith. "The one thing I am hoping is that maybe the Christian community can exploit the fact that Clonaid was involved in the first attempt at human cloning. The fact that it was a UFO group makes it much more repugnant than if it was done by pristine scientists in white lab coats." Fuz Rana also happened to be a featured speaker at the Biola University "Research and Progress in Intelligent Design" conference last fall.  Notice that Rana seeks to exploit "repugnance" based solely upon who allegedly cloned a human, rather than whatever arguments may be offered.  This is a pretty straightforward repudiation of the usual Discovery Institute line that "motivations" don't count in arguments, just the validity of the arguments themselves. Wesley

Date: 2003/01/28 09:22:14, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Debate continues over creationism versus evolution in public schools Quote According to Georgia State Biology Professor Sarah Pallas, creationism relates to religious theories and is not scientific in nature. "It would be a clear violation of the Constitution [First Amendment] to teach those views in public school science class," said Pallas.

Date: 2003/01/29 05:17:19, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

A framework for consciousness Quote ABSTRACT Here we summarize our present approach to the problem of consciousness. After an introduction outlining our general strategy, we describe what is meant by the term 'framework' and set it out under ten headings. This framework offers a coherent scheme for explaining the neural correlates of (visual) consciousness in terms of competing cellular assemblies. Most of the ideas we favor have been suggested before, but their combination is original. We also outline some general experimental approaches to the problem and, finally, acknowledge some relevant aspects of the brain that have been left out of the proposed framework.

Date: 2003/02/04 07:57:03, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Micah, you complain of "uncharitable discourse" being directed against PCID.  Charity is a virtue, and according to the old adage it should begin at home.  Perhaps some re-examination of how "charitable" the discussion contained within PCID is in order. I know that in my dealings with antievolutionists, I am more likely to keep a moderate tone with those who don't imply that I am stupid or dishonest for holding the views I have.  In general, I think ID advocates are sincere in their antievolutionism, but mistaken. I'll concede that there is often a lack of charity in the writings of those who oppose antievolution.  I won't concede that this is done without reason in all cases.  I'll assert, though, that ID advocates and contributors to PCID do not set a charitable tone by example.  Here's a sample... Quote The more indirect the argument, the easier for Darwinists to overlook or conceal difficulties. [...] Professor Miller simply tries to use the term "gene duplication" as a magic wand to make the problem go away, but the problem does not go away. (Source: Michael Behe in PCID 1.1) What's this stuff about "conceal" or "magic wand"?  Is that "charitable"?  I don't think so. I find it hypocritical of ID advocates to complain of a lack of charity or polemical writing in their correspondents's work when the ID literature (including that portion that is found within PCID) is replete with both.  If charity is something you value as an ISCID fellow and member of the editorial board of PCID, my advice is that you should lead by example.  If you fail to show charity and eschew polemics through the contents of PCID, don't get indignant when the responses get a bit testy. Wesley

Date: 2003/02/04 16:56:39, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

If I recall correctly, there are no "brakes" in the review process for PCID.  Recommendation by two ISCID fellows assures publication, no matter how many might raise issues with a submission. I'd recommend that the policy be amended to something more like the peer-review process for mainstream journals, at least to the extent that critical comments could give the editors discretion to withhold publication until the issues are substantively addressed.  I don't think that would unduly restrict the stated desire to permit more speculative papers from appearing, but it should help improve the quality. Wesley

Date: 2003/02/10 10:35:18, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Creationism bill slips under radar Quote Sen. Larry Salmans, R-Hanston, said he took a seminar last summer on "Intellectual Intelligent Design." Other attendees asked him to introduce the bill, which he said had been introduced in other states. "They think the scientific method is being ignored," Salmans said. "It's neutral with respect to creationism or natural origins; it's about academic freedom." Though the bill does not explicitly mention evolution or creation science, it does require schools to "encourage the presentation of scientific evidence supporting the origins of life and its diversity, objectively and without religious, naturalistic or philosophic bias or assumption." The bill also would prohibit schools from punishing teachers who deviated from curriculum requirements. The article notes that it is likely that the bill will not pass. Wesley

Date: 2003/02/15 06:17:02, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Wesclin committee will investigate teaching of 'intelligent design' Quote Trimble, who is a teacher in the McLuer school district in St. Louis, offered his assistance in helping administrators and the committee in sorting through "intelligent design" issues. Trimble said he has taught "intelligent design" theory in several private religious schools. "It's a fascinating topic, and there's much information available, and I'd be happy to provide whatever input I can," said Trimble, who also noted that he is a graduate theology student. I somehow doubt that Trimble's briefing will cover objections by Orr, Sober, Pennock, Van Till, and Wilkins. Wesley

Date: 2003/02/15 06:33:34, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Students build skills at conference Quote The keynote speaker of the event was Elliot Sober, a professor from the University of Wisconsin. Sober is a nationally recognized professor who is known for his work regarding the philosophy of biology. Sober gave a speech on scientific philosophy, titled, “Intelligent Design is untestable. What about Natural Selection?”  Sober was the only professor to give a presentation, with the rest of the presentations being put on by students.

Date: 2003/02/15 06:52:24, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Ministries say expeditions to archaeological sites support creationism Quote A San Antonio ministry that subscribes to creationism is giving home-schooled children a chance for hands-on learning at archaeological digs that it says enhances the youths' knowledge of both science and faith. Vision Forum is a 5-year-old evangelical Protestant ministry that provides instructional materials for Christian home-schooling parents across the country. Last year it began booking family expeditions with a Florida-based ministry, Creation Expeditions, to archaeological sites they believe support biblical claims that God created the world in six days. The sites discussed in the article relate to paleontology instead of archaeology.

Date: 2003/02/16 15:57:13, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Evolution theory bonds scientists named Steve Quote That makes four Steves who support evolution, and there are apparently 221 other scientists who agree -- all of them named Steve. With tongue firmly in cheek, the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education trotted out the long list of evolution-minded Steves today at the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Denver.   The so-called Project Steve takes satirical aim at creationists who use similar lists of scientists to lend credence to their belief in a theistic model of creation, which does include a common ancestry. "Creationists are fond of amassing lists of Ph.D.s who deny evolution to try to give the false impression that evolution is somehow on the verge of being rejected by the scientific community," said Eugenia Scott, executive director of the Oakland-based center. "Nothing could be further from the truth." See the National Center for Science Education's Project Steve page. Wesley

Date: 2003/02/17 07:39:23, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Bringing in the Steves Quote The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an Oakland, California-based nonprofit organization affiliated with AAAS, issued a 90-word statement firmly supporting evolution education and asserting that "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred" within the scientific community. The mini-manifesto was signed by 220 scientists. And in a clear case of intelligent design, every one of them is named Steve. The list, which includes Steves, Stevens, Stephens, Stefans and Stephanies, is in part homage to the late Stephen Jay Gould. And as Steves make up about one percent of the US population according to the Census Bureau, the assumption is that the 220 signatories represent about one percent of the 22,000 scientists who would endorse the new statement.

Date: 2003/02/17 13:50:11, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

'Steves' support teaching of evolution Quote Yesterday's statement aimed to make fun of the anti-Darwin manifestos that were signed and circulated in the past few years, its organizers said.     "Of course science isn't decided by manifesto; this statement pokes fun at such efforts," said Nobel physicist Steven Weinberg.     He said the validity of evolution is seen in scientific papers.     The statement, signed by 220 Steves, includes two Nobel prize winners and eight members of the National Academy of Sciences.

Date: 2003/02/18 08:35:48, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Stephens and Stephanies support teaching of science Quote Dr. Stephen B. Malcolm, an associate professor of biological sciences at Western Michigan University, is one of more than 200 scientists named Steve to sign a national resolution supporting the theory of evolution as a "vital, well-supported, unifying principal of the biological sciences." Malcolm joined 224 other Steves and Stephanies to sign the statement issued Feb. 16 in Denver at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Signatories backed evolution instruction in public schools. The tongue-in-cheek initiative was designed both as a tribute to the late Harvard evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould and a spoof of anti-evolution manifestos that incorporate lists of names of scientists as evidence that evolution is falling into disfavor in the scientific community. Scientists spread the word on evils of pseudoscience Quote Scientists must be the evangelists against the well-financed effort to undermine science education, especially evolution, a physics professor said Monday. Scientists have become society's bad guys, as portrayed in the television series The X-Files where the truth is out there and don't trust anyone, said Lawrence Krauss, a professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. Krauss, speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said religious dogma and pseudoscientific nonsense have marginalized science at the highest levels of government and the schools.

Date: 2003/02/18 11:06:12, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Project Steve of scientists targets creationists for serious humor Quote Nobel Prize winner and Stanford University physicist Steven Chu believes we all came from the same ancestor that stepped out of the primordial ooze a few billion years ago. All of us. Poodles and people. Wasps and wombats. Steve Beckendorf, a University of California, Berkeley genetics professor, supports that theory too. As does UC Berkeley environmental scientist Steve Beissinger and applied physics professor Steven Block. That makes four Steves who support evolution and there are apparently 221 other scientists who agree -- all of them named Steve.

Date: 2003/02/18 12:15:28, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Yeast Protein Could Make New Chip Material Quote A misfolded yeast protein, used to conduct electricity, could produce dramatically smaller computer chips and more powerful sensors, researchers reported Friday. The protein, about 1 millimeter long but only a few nanometers -- or billionths of a meter -- thick, which was coated with gold as the conducting medium, was chosen because it could produce exceptionally durable electronic components, the researchers said. "We can imagine circuits in computers that are an order of magnitude smaller than they are now, using this technology," Susan Lindquist, director of the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge, Mass., told United Press International.

Date: 2003/02/18 23:13:11, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Scientists Lampoon Creation Science Quote Yet, one biologist who did not sign the statement — Stephen C. Lawler — said the "Steves" on this list are bowing to peer pressure. "Over the years, you have a choice to make as a scientist — if you're going to fess up to reality, or if your going to desire to hold on to your career, your lifestyle, etcetera," Lawler said.

Date: 2003/02/19 10:52:19, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Pupils keep memory of meningitis victim alive Quote A SCHOOL has paid a special tribute to an outstanding 15-year-old pupil who died suddenly last August as a result of meningitis. [...] The school held the Ben Moore Memorial Lecture on Creation or Evolution last week which was introduced by Ben's father and given by Dr Farid Abou-Rahme. Mrs Otter said: "Everyone contributed something to the assembly, whether it was a reading or a song. My tutor group collected the money for the memorial."

Date: 2003/02/20 10:01:26, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Interesting press release.  Various of the "facts" urged for consideration by the press have the property of being false. Quote As you report on controversies over evolution and intelligent design, here are some facts you might find useful: 1. There is a growing scientific controversy over Darwinian evolution. Glenn Morton's The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism page shows that this sort of claim predates Darwin.  And yet evolutionary biology does not yet reflect the sort of change that the evolution deniers claim is imminent. Quote a) Today there are critics of Darwinian evolution within the scientific community, including biologists at mainstream American universities. In 2001, more than 100 scientists including scholars at such institutions as Yale, Princeton, MIT, and the Smithsonian signed a public statement announcing that they were "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." [A complete list of these scientists can be found in A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.] The DI list of scientists was exactly the sort of thing that NCSE's Project Steve was meant to critique.  Science isn't conducted by list-making.  A more serious analysis and critique of the DI's "dissent from Darwinism" was made by NCSE, which presented the demographics of the group of signatories.  (The only "Steve" on the DI web page is Stephen C. Meyer, who is a philosopher, not a scientist.)  Another tricky bit about the DI list is that the signatories are not necessarily "at" the institution listed.  The institution listed by the DI tended to be either the current affiliation or the institution were a terminal degree was obtained, selected apparently on the basis of which one looked more impressive. Quote b) Because of the scientific critics of Darwin's theory, it is misleading to present the modern controversy over Darwinian evolution as a simplistic battle between "science" and "religious fundamentalists." Accurate reporting on this issue should do justice to the complexities of the real situation, not resurrect stereotypes from the fictional movie Inherit the Wind. Just because a scientist holds an opinion does not necessarily mean that the opinion given has a scientific basis.  In the case of modern antievolution, it is not at all misleading to point out that the antievolution movement (including the "intelligent design" advocates) proceeds via a political agenda.  In all but a few ambiguous cases or anti-Darwinian fellow-travelers, this political agenda is underwritten by a religious precommitment.  It really isn't all that complex. Wesley

Date: 2003/02/20 12:29:07, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Berkeley Scientists Create First 3-D Map of Protein Universe Quote The universe has been mapped! Not the universe of stars, planets, and black holes, but the protein universe, the vast assemblage of biological molecules that are the building blocks of living cells and control the chemical processes which make those cells work. Researchers with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley have created the first three-dimensional global map of the protein structure universe. This map provides important insight into the evolution and demographics of protein structures and may help scientists identify the functions of newly discovered proteins. Sung-Hou Kim, a chemist who holds a joint appointment with Berkeley Lab's Physical Biosciences Division and UC Berkeley's Chemistry Department, led the development of this map. An internationally recognized authority on protein structures, he expressed surprise at how closely the map, which is based solely on empirical data and a mathematical formula, mirrored the widely used Structural Classification System of Proteins (SCOP), which is based on the visual observations of scientists who have been solving protein structures. "Our map shows that protein folds are broadly grouped into four different classes that correspond to the four classes of protein structures defined by SCOP," Kim says. "Some have argued that there are really only three classes of protein fold structures but now we can mathematically prove there are four."

Date: 2003/02/21 10:08:03, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

NCSE Announces Adoption of West Virginia Science Standards Quote Friends, On February 20, 2003 the West Virginia Board of Education voted to adopt new science standards developed over the past year. The vote to approve the draft standards without any of the changes proposed by supporters of "intelligent design theory" was unanimous. Evolution features importantly in the new guidelines, which are based on frameworks suggested by the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Opponents of evolution education, including local creation science organizations, the West Virginia American Family Association, and Intelligent Design Network (IDnet, based in Kansas) had objected to the proposed standards and attempted to convince the Board to make significant changes. IDnet in particular sent several very long letters to the Board. Two IDnet leaders presented an "Intelligent Design symposium" and met or spoke several times with Board members and staff of the Department of Education. In the end, the Board decided not to make any changes in the draft standards. Jody Cunningham, president of the West Virginia Science Teachers Association, commented after the decision: "In a courageous move the Board voted to reject all attempts by Intelligent Design Network to weaken our Content Standards. It was exciting to hear the Board give full support to the standards.  They were not changed in any way. We were able to reject any attempt to weaken or even to insert a phrase that was not placed in the standards by the teachers of West Virginia." Eric +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ W. Eric Meikle, Ph.D. Outreach Coordinator National Center for Science Education 420 40th St., Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609-2509 510 601-7203 x307 510 601-7204 (fax) 800 290-6006 meikle@ncseweb.org www.ncseweb.org

Date: 2003/02/21 10:11:49, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

West Virginia Science Standards The above page shows the various proposals by IDNet of Kansas which were rejected in their entirety by West Virginia.

Date: 2003/02/21 14:42:50, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

West Virginia science standards won't include evolution alternatives Quote The standards had been opposed by the Intelligent Design Network in Shawnee Mission, Kan. Representatives of the group had spoken to the board several times. "I don't see how you can tell kids they are not created," John Calvert, managing director of the Intelligent Design Network, said Feb. 19. "Essentially when West Virginia teaches students that living systems are not designed, that's really teaching anti-religious theory. The court has said the state has to be neutral." Other evolution opponents said yesterday they objected to students being "indoctrinated" to believe Darwin's theory, which they said cannot be scientifically proven. "Let's let them hear the facts and decide for themselves. That's good pedagogy," said Karl Priest, an educator for 30 years. "Let's let the kids see the debate. It's an honest debate. It will be good for students and society." Other speakers derided evolution opponents. "They have the same station as people who say the world is flat," said Charles Pique, a retired physicist and electrical engineer who lives in Mink Shoals. "The scientific community believes that evolution is as certain a fact as the world is round."

Date: 2003/02/27 20:17:05, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

From the IDEA club page linked above: Quote But if you think that essentially no one trained in the sciences, particularly the biological sciences, is skeptical of Darwinism, or if you think that the "argument-from-authority" is a persuasive or conclusive argument in this issue, then please at least consider the modest presentation of Darwin-skeptics on this list. We don't expect to -- and never wanted to -- convince you that so much scientific opinion is on our side that therefore we are right--that argument, which some Darwinists use, discourages critical thinking, which we value very highly. We simply hope that this list might help show that intelligent people do question Darwinism, such that you might want to shift your eyes back to the evidence, and take a second (or first) look at the scientific evidence of this issue yourself. We are happy to invite you to peruse the articles on our website in the process. The DI list was not offered just to substantiate an existential claim of dissenting scientists.  The DI also makes the claim that ID is a rapidly expanding community which will shortly displace evolutionary biologists.  As Glenn Morton has shown, such claims even predate Darwin.  As "Project Steve" shows, the scientific community shows no sign of changing its demographic profile on evolutionary biology. Wesley

Date: 2003/07/05 09:42:02, Link 68.8.73.155

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski deploys Soviet::Darwinist analogy, yet again Quote In the current intellectual climate it is impossible to get a paper published in the peer-reviewed biological literature that explicitly affirms intelligent design or explicitly denies Darwinian and other forms of naturalistic evolution. Doubting Darwinian orthodoxy is comparable to opposing the party line of a Stalinist regime. What would you do if you were in Stalin's Russia and wanted to argue that Lysenko was wrong? You might point to paradoxes and tensions in Lysenko's theory of genetics, but you could not say that Lysenko was fundamentally wrong or offer an alternative that clearly contradicted Lysenko. That's the situation we're in. To get published in the peer-reviewed literature, design theorists have to tread cautiously and can't be too up front about where their work is leading. Indeed, that's why I was able to get The Design Inference published with Cambridge University Press but not No Free Lunch, which was much more explicit in its biological implications. -- Topic: ID and Peer Review

Date: 2003/08/09 10:16:57, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Cross-species Mating May Be Evolutionarily Important And Lead To Rapid Change, Say Indiana University Researchers Quote BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Like the snap of a clothespin, the sudden mixing of closely related species may occasionally provide the energy to impel rapid evolutionary change, according to a new report by researchers from Indiana University Bloomington and three other institutions. Their paper will be made available online by Science magazine's "Science Express" service on Thursday (August 7) at 2 p.m. EDT. A study of sunflower species that began 15 years ago shows that the sudden mixing and matching of different species' genes can create genetic super-combinations that are considerably more advantageous to the survival and reproduction of their owners than the gene combinations their parents possess.

Date: 2003/08/14 03:29:03, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Guest columnist misrepresents views Dr. Sean Carroll takes exception to the misuse of his words by John G. West of the Discovery Institute. Quote Editor: John G. West of the Discovery Institute, in his guest column Friday, quoted an article in a leading biology journal as purported support for his view that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary science ought to be presented in biology textbooks. I am the author of the article he quoted (but did not properly cite) and I am writing to make it absolutely clear that West is gravely mistaken in taking the excerpted sentence out of its full context.

Date: 2003/08/14 10:53:44, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

For decades, antievolutionists have attempted to influence the state of Texas in its selection of science textbooks (and all too often succeeded).  Texas is an attractive target for antievolutionists.  The state's constituency is largely conservative and religious, so there is an overlap with the ideological outlook of most antievolutionists.  The state of Texas is also one of the largest markets for secondary school textbooks in the USA.  Antievolutionists know that if they can influence Texas to cause textbook publishers to de-emphasize evolution or eliminate references to evolution entirely, they get the added bonus of changing the textbook content for the rest of the USA as well.  This is because publishers aren't going to offer a "science lite" version to Texas and a "real science" version to the rest of the country.  That would be an expensive proposition for publishers, and publishers are at basis simply looking to maximize their profits.  So the whole country gets "science lite" or even "pseudoscience" versions of textbooks because of the political machinations of antievolutionists in Texas. For several decades, the names of Mel and Norma Gabler were the most familiar of antievolutionists involved in the selection process.  The Gablers would offer long critiques of candidate textbooks, suggesting rewording or deletion of any content having to do with evolutionary biology.  (Antievolution was not their exclusive focus, though; their criticisms covered a number of the political hobby-horses of the religious right.) Now, the Discovery Institute has entered the fray in trying to influence the Texas textbook selection process.  A letter to the editor from DI fellow John G. West shows their intent nicely: Institute supports accurate science, by John G. West Quote First, we believe students should be exposed to legitimate scientific (not religious) controversies over evolutionary theory. Peer-reviewed science journals are filled with articles raising issues about various aspects of neo-Darwinism, the prevailing theory of evolution taught in textbooks. In 2000, for example, an article in the journal Cell noted that there is a ''long-standing question of the sufficiency of evolutionary mechanisms observed at or below the species level ('microevolution') to account for the larger-scale patterns of morphological evolution ('macroevolution').'' Yet this ''long-standing question'' about neo-Darwinism isn't covered in most textbooks. Why not? In addition, we favor correcting clear factual errors in textbook presentations of evolution. In the first instance, the Discovery Institute has a vested interest in keeping its antievolutionist activities labelled as something besides " creationism".  The DI rather obviously is looking forward to taking a test case to the courts, and there is way too much precedent attached to "creationism" and "creation science".  But the religious motivation of the high-profile DI fellows is easy to find (see Brian Poindexter's excellent page, From the Horse's Mouth).  The DI fellows have also liberally borrowed antievolution arguments from the SciCre young-earth creationist (YEC) contingent. The DI also encourages the YEC contingent to join forces with them in their antievolution activities.  This sort of "front" strategy doesn't fool people when it is employed by organized crime, so there should be no expectation that organized antievolution will be able to hide its intent in that fashion, either. The Discovery Institute has no interest in correcting factual errors in textbooks.  They wish to suppress certain well-known examples in evolutionary biology from textbooks and have taken a page from Orwell in their rhetoric on this topic.  The analysis of the targeted "factual errors" presented by DI fellow John C. "Jonathan" Wells, while lauded by West, has been shown to itself be rife with factual errors and misrepresentation (see Nic Tamzek's Icon of Obfuscation and Alan Gishlick's essay). West's letter has elicited several critical responses. First, Dr. Sean Carroll takes exception to the misuse of his words by John G. West of the Discovery Institute. Quote Editor: John G. West of the Discovery Institute, in his guest column Friday, quoted an article in a leading biology journal as purported support for his view that alternatives to contemporary evolutionary science ought to be presented in biology textbooks. I am the author of the article he quoted (but did not properly cite) and I am writing to make it absolutely clear that West is gravely mistaken in taking the excerpted sentence out of its full context. Oak H. DeBerg and Dr. Eugenie C. Scott also criticized West. Please enter further information about the Texas textbook selection process in this thread. Wesley

Date: 2003/08/14 14:42:46, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Yeah, I've linked the latest two in this thread. Wesley

Date: 2003/08/15 08:51:36, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Proposed changes in biology textbook assailed Quote SAN ANTONIO -- Responding to suggestions from a group that critics say advocates the teaching of creation theory, a publisher has made changes in a biology textbook being considered for Texas schools. Critics accused publisher Holt, Rinehart & Winston of caving in to pressure from special interests and conservatives on the state Board of Education. The Discovery Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Seattle, argued at a Board of Education hearing in July that alternatives to commonly accepted theories of evolution should be included in the textbook to comply with a state requirement that students analyze competing ideas. Some board members were sympathetic to the group's views.

Date: 2003/08/15 11:37:47, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Kansas science review revives evolution debate Quote TOPEKA - With evolution and politics hanging over the debate, the Kansas Board of Education on Tuesday broke a deadlock and voted to review the science curriculum in Kansas schools. The review, however, will not start until a year from now. It will be comprehensive, and its outcome might depend on who controls the board after the next elections. After Tuesday's decision, conservative and moderates on the board agreed on one thing: Evolution, which slipped off the front pages of newspapers for a while, has not disappeared as an issue in Kansas. "I think it will come back," said Steve Abrams of Arkansas City, a leader of the conservative side.

Date: 2003/08/15 14:35:44, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

TEXTBOOKS CHANGED FOR CREATIONISTS (San Antonio Current) Quote Textbook publisher Holt Rinehart & Winston is altering biology textbooks to meet the criteria of creationists who are attempting to weaken the study of evolution in high school biology classrooms. Last week, the Texas Education Agency announced the changes proposed to textbook publishers in response to testimony offered in July at the State Board of Education hearing. "One publisher has now bowed to the voice of a few religious extremists who would insist on teaching creationism in Biology classrooms," said Samantha Smoot, Executive Director of the Texas Freedom Network. "Rather than stand up for keeping good science standards in textbooks, Holt Rinehart has compromised the education of Texas students."

Date: 2003/08/16 09:31:14, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Institute known for pseudoscience Quote What is dishonest in West's misappropriation of Carroll's words is that Carroll is not challenging evolutionary theory at all. West is hoping that few Texans will realize that Carroll's research is focused on the different evolutionary consequences of mutation (meaning any genetic change) in genes that build parts of cells from mutations in genes that control what other genes do. West mentions his associate Jonathan Wells, and says that that Wells received a doctorate, implying that Wells is a scientist. What he didn't mention is that Wells, like West, is a professional science denier employed by the Discovery Institute.

Date: 2003/08/16 09:34:40, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Maxwell column had it right Quote Like many Americans, I'm interested in Texas' schoolbook choices. I was amazed to read John West's guest column attacking Angelo State professor Terry Maxwell's sensible column on science textbooks. West, a political writer for a political pressure group, may not know that just about everything he said is wrong. But it is. West's group is called the Discovery Institute. West praises a book attacking science, but fails to disclose that the author, Jonathan Wells, is a Discovery Institute operative too. Does West not know that the book has been thoroughly discredited, as Maxwell states?

Date: 2003/08/18 06:58:06, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

EDUCATION: State names 85 to panels (Pioneer Press) Quote Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke will ask the committee to consider an amendment that Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, tried unsuccessfully to add to the federal No Child Left Behind law. It says that when controversial topics — such as biological evolution — come up in the classroom, the curriculum should help students understand other views as well. One of the alternatives Santorum has written about is "intelligent design," which says an organism's complexity is evidence of an other-worldly designer. The amendment passed the Senate and was included in a conference committee's report, but was struck from the final version of the law. "We're not making grand claims that No Child Left Behind requires us to do this," said Education Department spokesman Bill Walsh. "But saying that NCLB and the Senate gives us guidance, (Yecke) is recommending that the committee go this way."

Date: 2003/08/18 07:05:12, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Remarks by Cheri Pierson Yecke, Ph.D., Commissioner of Education, July 31, 2003 Quote This time, we are faced with some controversial issues in the area of science. Scientific theories such as biological evolution can be the basis for a lot of emotional debate, as strong feelings are held by good people on both sides of such issues. To prevent such issues from becoming a stumbling block to the science committee, I am suggesting that some congressional language be inserted somewhere in the science document. It might be appropriate, for example, to place this language in the first part of the conceptual framework where the history and nature of science is discussed. In this way, we make it clear that decisions on the issue can be discussed and decided at the local level. This language is part of the conference report that articulated congressional intent and accompanied the No Child Left Behind Act. It had wide bipartisan support in Congress, having passed the Senate by a vote of 91-8.

Date: 2003/08/18 07:09:01, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Academic Standards Committee Members Chosen for Science and Social Studies Quote (St. Paul, MN…) Education Commissioner Cheri Pierson Yecke announced today the members of the Minnesota Academic Standards Committee for Science and Social Studies. Eighty-five members were chosen from over 600 applications. The law establishing new academic standards instructed the Commissioner to use a public process to develop these standards and present them to the legislature next February. “The quality of the applicants for the Science and Social Studies Committees was outstanding,” said Yecke. “I have no doubt the people we’ve chosen today will produce excellent academic standards for our schools.”

Date: 2003/08/18 07:13:24, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Minnesota has provided a list of the people selected for the Standards Committee: Science/Soc Studies standards committee members These are the people Yecke is urging to incorporate the Santorum language into science standards. Wesley

Date: 2003/08/18 07:44:53, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Minnesota has also provided the timeline for the creation and adoption of new standards.  It appears that the first draft will be released for public comment on September 8th. Science, Social Studies standards timeline

Date: 2003/08/30 05:20:58, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Evolution To Stay In N.M. Schools A short AP report says that the NM State Board of Education unanimously approved new standards that include evolution. The report doesn't discuss the campaign by ID advocates to incorporate the usual ID buzz phrases in the new standards.  One advocate sent around copies of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and a letter to schools around New Mexico.  A full page ad appeared shortly before the vote urging people to push for ID-related changes.  ID advocates publicized a Zogby poll which, it turned out, was called "bogus" by Sandia Labs administration, who disclaimed any association with the poll. Details are available at the New Mexicans for Science and Reason page. Wesley

Date: 2003/09/01 09:16:45, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

School board gives nod to creationism, abstinence-only Quote Also endorsed was a recommendation for teaching biology: "It shall be the policy ... when teaching Darwin's theory of evolution that it is only a theory and not a fact. Teachers shall be allowed in a neutral and objective manner to introduce all scientific theories of origin and the students may be allowed to discuss all aspects of controversy surrounding the lack of scientific evidence in support of the theory of evolution." Board member Tom Ball, who opened the discussion on the proposed changes, said he thought the evolution recommendation should use the word "required," rather than "allowed." Several people addressed the board including Pastor Bud Surles who said "evolution is more a product of Hollywood movies than based on real science." He also said the district should teach that "sex is safe only in a heterosexual, monogamous relationship" and that abstinence until marriage should be the message delivered by the district. Another pastor, Mike Brush, quoted scholars he said "understand the misconception of evolution" and are more inclined to accept the "intelligent shaping of matter." "Intelligent design is not religious-based. I would not want you to teach religion in any way, shape or form," he said.

Date: 2003/09/01 16:29:29, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Rep. Pence of Indiana: Quote I believe that God created the known universe, the Earth and everything in it, including man. And I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rationale explanation for the known universe. But until that day comes, and I have no fear of science, I believe that the more we study the science, the more the truth of faith will become apparent. I would just humbly ask as new theories of evolution find their ways into the newspapers and into the textbooks, let us demand that educators around America teach evolution not as fact, but as theory, and an interesting theory to boot. But let us also bring into the minds of all of our children all of the theories about the unknowable that some bright day in the future through science and perhaps through faith we will find the truth from whence we come. (Source: [Congressional Record: July 11, 2002 (House)] [Page H4527]) For others wishing to examine what the U.S. congress has said, check out the Congressional Record online. Wesley

Date: 2003/09/06 12:33:13, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Robert Weitzel: Theory puts a serpent in the garden of education Quote The Wedge Strategy's focus and funding are not on the research necessary to cause a shift in the prevailing scientific paradigm. Rather, they are aimed at convincing an uninformed public that intelligent design creationism deserves equal consideration as a "scientific theory." This is the "wedge" that intelligent design creationists hope will split the authority of the First Amendment and allow the Christian creation story to substitute for science in our country's public schools. The word is getting out, but rather slowly.

Date: 2003/09/10 23:15:47, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Biology textbooks spark ideological fireworks at hearing Quote Samantha Smoot, president of the Texas Freedom Network, said ``intelligent design'' proponents want to use the concept of an intelligent design behind man's evolution as a way of introducing religious creationism into science classes. ``Teaching creationism in science classrooms is unconstitutional,'' said Smoot, whose group opposes Christian conservative groups. ``Teaching `intelligent design,' the new creationism, is radically unscientific, and, despite the protests of `intelligent design' proponents, profoundly religious in nature.'' But William Dembski, identified as a leading proponent of ``intelligent design'' in a ``New York Times'' report, told state board members that ``Darwinian lobbyists'' are striving to maintain an illusion of scientific consensus related to evolutionary theory. ``I, and other mathematically trained scientists, regard claims for the creative power of natural selection as implausible in the extreme,'' said Dembski, an associate professor at Baylor University. ``All the textbooks under consideration grossly exaggerate the evidence of Neo-Darwinian evolution, pretending that its mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic change is a slam-dunk. Not so.'' I don't think Bill Dembski gets to speak for all those with mathematical training.  And certainly if one is a scientist, one is other than Bill Dembski.

Date: 2003/09/12 09:37:10, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

State Department of Education will hold hearing here Sept. 30 (Princeton,MN) Quote In science, sixth-graders will learn how personal bias can affect the results of “scientific experiment.” Seventh-graders will learn about plate tectonics and evolution – how science explains the presence of fossils and similarities among living things. The science standards include nothing about religious creationalism – that God, not random events, guided the path of development. “You can’t teach creationalism in the classroom,” said Yecke, citing a 1987 Supreme Court decision. Still, local school districts are free to teach the idea of intelligent design, she said. Such a standard is not found in the proposed standards, she said. But that is not to say local school districts can’t include it in their curriculums, she said. The anti-science nature of the ID movement comes through even in this excerpt.  Now it is part of the science standards that children be taught that science is untrustworthy.  What children should be taught is that the personal bias of individual experimenters can lead to wrong conclusions, but that over time the scientific community finds -- and fixes -- such anomalies, and that science's track record on self-correction is unparalleled by any other "way of knowing" in human culture.  It doesn't look like that's what they'll be getting in Minnesota, though. Yecke's specific comments giving local school boards the OK to incorporate "intelligent design" into curricula are just irresponsible.  ID doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion in a science curriculum, and simply opens up local groups for protracted and expensive legal action.  If the Discovery Institute can't even think of what should be taught about "intelligent design", why is it even an issue for anybody else?

Date: 2003/09/12 09:42:25, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

What Should Be In Textbooks? Quote In Mr. Fennel's science class, LBJ high schoolers learn a lot about geology and biology. "Do I think it's good to talk about evolution in biology classes yes. I think it's a biological process we have a lot of evidence for," LBJ High School Science Teacher Tim Fennell said. But some say that evidence is flawed. "Presenting this stuff as fact when it's been in science literature discredited for 20 years that won't cut it," Bruce Chapman with the Discovery Institute said, "Did you take biology? Yeah. I did too and a great deal is wrong." So they tell members of the State Board of Education it's their right to add their opinion to Texas textbooks.

Date: 2003/11/12 08:04:00, Link 12.233.62.15

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Jeff Shallit and I have a topic on replacing Dembski's notion of specification in the appendix of our long paper critiquing William Dembski's ideas . (See Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information".) In the article, we note a number of problems with "specification" as given by Dembski. Our replacement, specified anti-information (SAI), does not have the drawbacks that we note for specification. SAI is grounded in algorithmic information theory and can be considered an application of the universal distribution. (See the original article by Kirchherr, Li, and Vitanyi.) Some of our colleagues reading the drafts of our long paper back in 2002 were non-plussed: why did we attempt to "rescue" the notion of specification with a replacement? The answer is that we felt that some positive statement needed to be made rather than making an entirely negative critique. Dembski's examples resonate with readers, so we felt that a non-Dembskian approach was needed to show that the examples could be dealt with in a rigorous way, but that the further conclusions about intelligent agency that Dembski urges were unsupported. SAI accomplishes both these goals. SAI is easy to apply to problems that can be reduced to a bit-string representation, as Dembski has done for some of his examples. SAI also warrants a far weaker implication than intelligent agency as a cause: an event with high SAI is likely caused by a simple computational process. Elsewhere in the article, we discuss the ubiquity of natural computational processes. There is no "design inference" that can be based upon SAI, just a "simple computational process inference".

Date: 2003/11/12 08:26:56, Link 12.233.62.15

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

I'm starting this thread for discussion of the paper that Jeff Shallit and I wrote on Dembski's ideas. Since it is now known to the public, I expect some criticisms of our criticisms will be made. For example... In a thread on ARN, "Rock" gripes that we imply that we have a positive theory but that we don't expound upon it. Well, we do have a positive approach to examining bit strings that is expounded upon for a couple of pages in our appendix. This is apparently not clear when one is simply "skimming" our paper. I have also started a thread here for discussion of our specified anti-information (SAI) as a replacement for Dembski's notion of specification. "Rock" also complained that there was "nothing original" in our paper. It is certainly true that many of our criticisms had been expressed less formally and separately elsewhere in discussion on the Internet, but I'm not sure that that applies to all of the criticisms that we made. SAI is an application of the universal probability distribution, but the application itself is original with us. In his last sentence, "Rock" asks if our ideas bear closer examination than Dembski's on these matters. Clearly, I think so. We identified a number of problems in Dembski's approach that we feel are insurmountable. Our SAI addresses each of those problems. Please use this thread to bring attention to criticism made in other fora.

Date: 2003/11/22 00:15:12, Link 67.169.4.10

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Responses to "Intelligent Design and that Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" The National Association of Scholars published an opinion piece by Paul Gross on "intelligent design". Gross pulled no punches, and showed that ID displays many of the well-known signs of "crank science". This did not endear him to our friends at the Discovery Institute, who wrote several lengthy responses and one short sneer. The PDF linked above has those responses, some letters of support for Gross, and the response by Gross to cap it off. It all comes to about 45Kbytes.

Date: 2003/12/06 11:58:44, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Salvador T. Cordova critiqued a "misunderstanding" concerning TSPGRID and Dembski's LCI in a thread on ARN. Quote Originally posted by Salvador T. Cordova: Originally posted by Lars the digital caveman: "Hence, large amounts of CSI that weren't there before have been generated. This clearly contradicts the LCI. " I agree with you that there are major problems with definitions in ID, and confusion is still rampant.  It would be in ID's intrest to establish uniform standards. However, consider the following, running a program that loops from 1 to a trillion and fills an array in memory with numbers 1 to a trillion. Is more information (not CSI) generated than was in the program before the run?  When one applies alogrithmic compression, on sees the trillion bytes of information are not generated by running the program.  The information is algorithmically compressed to the program by definition. Likewise,  the authors misunderstood in the case of TSPGRID what is going on, because instead of simple integers, they were generating CSI entities. But they forgot that the sum total of what was being generated was algorithmically compressible.  Apply the compression, one sees, no information was added within the system boundary. If we take: X =  TSPGRID Y =  inputs (25, 461, 330) as the starting point, that establishes the 'thermodynamic boundary' so to speak right? Running the program generates the following SET: A  =  F(25) = CSI corresponding to 25 B  =  F(461) = CSI corresponding to 461 C  =  F (330) = CSI corresponding to 330 It appears that we've generated lots of new CSI, but this is not true because the above SET of CSI entities is algorithmically compressible to the following by definition: X =  TSPGRID Y = input of (25, 461, 330) thus (X,Y) is 'isomorphic' to (A,B,C) under algorithmic compression. Thus LCI is not violated. However, the confusion is understandable, and thus I don't appeal to LCI personally very much.  And as I said, it's hard to create real world thermodynmically closed systems to run experiments on. "Salvador, one has to distinguish between information in general and CSI." Agreed, ID might be better served I believe to reconsider it's definitions of information, CSI, and detectability techniques.   One can do a lot of detection without appealing to Dembski's definition of CSI.  Some of those methods I show in my threads. The state of ID is more exotic than it needs to be, in my opinion. ID could benefit by emphasizing simpler detection methods.   Once the less exotic are demonstrated to be effective, then things like what Dembski is showing, with some reformulation, will be more acceptable. I love uncle Bill Dembski, but at times his definitions kill me. Respectfully, Salvador I agree that there is a misunderstanding, but disagree as to who has the misunderstanding. Let's review a bit about TSPGRID. Quote Our algorithm is called TSPGRID, and takes an integer n as an input. It then solves the traveling salesman problem on a 2n * 2n square grid of cities. Here the distance between any two cities is simply Euclidean distance (the ordinary distance in the plane). Since it is possible to visit all 4n^2 cities and return to to the start in a tour of cost 4n^2, an optimal traveling salesman tour corresponds to a Hamiltonian cycle in the graph where each vertex is connected to its neighbor by a grid line. As we have seen above in Section 9, Dembski sometimes objects that problem-solving algorithms cannot generate specified complexity because they are not contingent. In his interpretation of the word this means they produce a unique solution with probability 1. Our algorithm avoids this objection under one interpretation of specified complexity, because it chooses randomly among all the possible optimal solutions, and there are many of them. In fact, Gobel has proved that the number of different Hamiltonian cycles on the 2n * 2n grid is bounded above by c * 28^n^2 and below by c' * 2.538^n^2, where c, c' are constants [31]. We do not specify the details of how the Hamiltonian cycle is actually found, and in fact they are unimportant. A standard genetic algorithm could indeed be used provided that a sufficiently large set of possible solutions is generated, with each solution having roughly equal probability of being output. For the sake of ease of analysis, we assume our algorithm has the property that each solution is equally likely to occur. If TSPGRID selects among the many possible solutions for each input randomly (and elsewhere in the paper we define random in AIT as incompressible), how is it that there is a compressible representation of the sort Salvador claims? As I see it, either TSPGRID is being asserted to not select among possible solutions randomly, despite what we plainly said, or compressibility is being redefined by Salvador here. Quote Running the program generates the following SET: A  =  F(25) = CSI corresponding to 25 B  =  F(461) = CSI corresponding to 461 C  =  F (330) = CSI corresponding to 330 But running the TSPGRID program another three times generates another set, A', but highly unlikely that A = A' B', but highly unlikely that B = B' C', but highly unlikely that C = C' Et cetera. Perhaps Salvador could explain how his idea of compression works, since I'm not seeing it. I think the problem here is that Salvador is treating TSPGRID as a deterministic algorithm when it isn't. The whole point of describing TSPGRID was to avoid a situation where every run of the program on the same input yielded the same result.

Date: 2003/12/07 23:33:05, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Salvador, Thanks for the quick reply. Since I am working on a shorter version of the paper for publication, working out potential issues is quite useful. I appreciate comments that shed light on whether we're hitting the marks we set or not. I'm still thinking that TSPGRID demonstrates some problems in the argument for LCI, but it's possible that we've overlooked something. If that's the case, we'll have to revise the discussion of TSPGRID or abandon it. I'm not convinced yet that it's time to man the lifeboats, though.

Date: 2003/12/09 02:02:41, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Salvador, Thanks for your clarifications. As we note in section 5 and in the appendix, we believe that what CSI actually identifies, when it can be said to work at all, is the outcome of simple computational processes. That's why our "specified anti-information" (SAI) is a superior approach to "specification" than Dembski's methods. Given your obvious interest in algorithmic information theory, you should be able to confirm this for yourself briefly. I'm afraid that I don't concur with your analysis of the TSPGRID algorithm. In order to get to compressibility, you've converted TSPGRID into TSPGRIDdet, a separate, deterministic algorithm that solves the same problem, and added to your "background knowledge" the particular sequence of random numbers that specify a particular output solution for TSPGRIDdet. That doesn't set aside our claim that CSI is increased by TSPGRID when one uses the "uniform probability interpretation". Essentially, your compressibility approach uses the "causal history based interpretation", which was not our claim. See section 7 for a thorough critique of the "causal history based interpretation".

Date: 2003/12/11 14:20:54, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

We cover some natural instances of computational systems in section 5 of the paper. I think that you should have a look at this thread on SAI before getting too excited about how much of a "gift" SAI is to ID. SAI does not support the inference of action of an intelligent agent, just a simple computational process. As such, there is no distinction between naturally occurring computational processes, algorithms deployed by an intelligent agent, and the direct action of intelligent agents to be had via use of SAI. All may "generate" arbitrarily large amounts of SAI. I think that Dembski is likely to think of SAI as more of a poison pill than a gift.

Date: 2004/01/21 07:45:11, Link 68.8.73.28

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

A commonly overlooked reference Kimura, Motoo. 1961. Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution. Genetical Research 2:127-140. Quote The purposes of the present paper are threefold. First, a method will be proposed by which the rate of accumulation of genetic information in the process of adaptive evolution may be measured. Secondly, for the first time, an approximate estimate of the actual amount of genetic information in higher animals will be derived which might have been accumulated since the beginning of the Cambrian epoch (500 million years), and thirdly, there is a discussion of problems involved in the storage and transformation of the genetic information thus acquired. There is a vast field of fundamental importance which awaits the fruitful activities of statisticians and other applied mathematicians collaborating with biologists. I don't recall ever seeing a discussion of Kimura's paper in any antievolution argument on information. Wesley

Date: 2004/02/15 05:53:40, Link 69.42.3.139

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Quote PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly [NOPE] [...] Didn't PBS show "Unlocking the Mystery of Life"? Some PBS affiliates did show UML, but UML was produced independently by Illustra Media (essentially a corporate pseudonym for Coldwater Media). Nova and other PBS-produced shows have not yet taken up ID as a topic. Of course, ID was treated pretty fairly in the "Evolution" series. Except, of course, that ID advocates don't mean "fairly" when they say "fairly"; they mean "credulously". Wesley

Date: 2004/02/16 22:50:08, Link 69.42.3.139

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Oops. It's so hard to keep these religious media companies straight. Coldwater Media did the "Icons of Evolution" video. IIRC. Wesley

Date: 2004/02/16 23:30:05, Link 69.42.3.139

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Situation Alert for Ohio Public Education PDF version Phillip Johnson's "Wedge" strategy for the "intelligent design" movement can be seen at work now in Ohio. Johnson's strategy is designed to attack evolutionary biology as the first step in making science safe for the sort of theism Johnson prefers. The bluntest expression of the "Wedge" strategy appeared in promotional material for the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. (See http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html for the text of the "Wedge Document" and Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross's new book, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" (Oxford, 2003), for a minutely detailed critique. The Discovery Institute attempts damage control in http://www.discovery.org/csc/TopQuestions/wedgeresp.pdf) As with magicians, one needs to get past the patter and watch for the action.  It is in the actions and not the words that one can most clearly see that the dictates of the "Wedge" strategy are fully ascendant. In 2002, the Ohio State Board of Education approved new science standards that mandated the teaching of evolution in science classes. At the urging of antievolutionists, the Ohio State Board of Education also included a statement calling for teaching how evolutionary theory was the subject of "critical analysis" by scientists. Quote 23. Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this indicator does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.) - http://agpa.uakron.edu/k12....10.html or http://tinyurl.com/2jqk9 This sort of language was suggested by Stephen Meyer and Jonathan Wells (both Fellows of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, since renamed as the Center for Science and Culture) in a presentation before the Ohio Board of Education on March 11, 2002.  The apparently innocuous wording was deceptive, though, because rather than teach students about actual hot topics in evolutionary biology (e.g., allopatric versus sympatric speciation, punctuated equilibria in the fossil record, the evolution of sex, theories of eusociality, etc.), "Wedge" advocates took the wording as code for their own set of discredited objections to mainstream science.  While Meyer and Wells had originally sought to push for the specific inclusion of "intelligent design" in science classes, they decided instead to ask for a "compromise." The "compromise" suggested by Meyer and Wells was to "teach the controversy." See http://www.ohioroundtable.org/library/articles/ed/boardstudy.html http://www.creationists.org/20020311OSBEwells.html and http://www.ncseweb.org/resourc....002.asp. Although the adopted standards specifically stated that "intelligent design" was not to be part of the curricula (see quoted text above), the "Wedge" advocates got what they wanted with the above language: a hole large enough to attempt to drive a big antievolutionary semi straight into science classrooms. See: http://www.sciohio.org/sbe1015.htm. Over the past several months, the ID advocates on the Ohio Board of Education have loaded their truck. Model curricula comprised of lesson plans had to be generated to fulfill all the indicators of the science standards.  These new lesson plans were kept out of the public's reach, preventing scientists from reviewing these materials until shortly before official consideration for adoption.  (The embargo on access apparently did not extend to "Wedge" advocates; see http://www.sciohio.org/orcweb.htm.) In particular, a lesson plan based upon indicator 23 of the science standards for Grade 10 (the "critical analysis" guideline quoted above) presented several items from Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution", included "Icons" in its bibliography, included a non-existent reference in its bibliography whose citation only existed on creationist web sites, and directed students to antievolutionary web sites (including http://www.origins.org and http://www.arn.org). This attempt to insert "trash science" (as it was called by cognitive scientist Richard Hoppe in a Board of Education meeting on January 13) or "junk science" (as it was called by Sam Fulwood in a column for the Cleveland Plain Dealer on February 8) into science classrooms should be viewed as the expected outcome of the "compromise" language inserted into the standards.  This was no compromise, but rather the "Wedge" Trojan Horse in action.  Various cosmetic changes have been made to the lesson plan, but the blatantly deceptive content and many of the antievolution web resources remain. See http://www.cleveland.com/news....191.xml or http://tinyurl.com/22gvp for Fulwood's column.  See http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/L10-H23_Critical_Analysis.pdf for the lesson plan and http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/lesson_plan_critique.htm for a critique of it. A red herring being used by "Wedge" advocates is to say that "intelligent design" is not present in the lesson plan being critiqued, therefore there is no problem. For example: Quote "I think it's going to be great for science. This lesson, in my opinion, has been misunderstood. I am very familiar with intelligent design and it just is not in there," said Robert Lattimer, an intelligent design proponent and a scientist who was on the standards writing team from two years ago. - http://www.daytondailynews.com/localne....ce.html Although the phrase "intelligent design" may indeed be absent from the lesson plan, the content is easily recognizable, despite Lattimer's disavowal.  The content derives most notably from Jonathan Wells's "Icons of Evolution", which was hailed as a "Wedge Book" of the year 2000, and even now heads the poster-style ad on "ID Books" at http://www.discovery.org/csc/favoriteItems/IDBookAd.jpg.  "Intelligent design," having failed to develop any positive scientific research program of its own, consists entirely of often-rebutted negative argumentation against evolutionary biology, fully deserving the moniker of "trash science."  The material in the "critical analysis" lesson plan demonstrably is the content of "intelligent design" advocacy. Its role in the "Wedge" is clear (see http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html, especially "Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal"). Scientists in Ohio and across the nation took notice.  For an account of the recommendations of the Ohio Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, see http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/7965530.htm. More detail can be seen in the Cleveland Plain Dealer article: Quote The nation's most prestigious science organization added its voice Monday to criticism of model science lesson plans that the state school board is expected to vote on today. Scientists are "rightfully concerned about attempts to introduce tenets of intelligent design into your state's science curriculum and instruction," Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a letter Monday to Jennifer Sheets, president of the Ohio Board of Education. - http://www.cleveland.com/news....720.xml or http://tinyurl.com/2kh7u The letter from NAS can be seen at http://ecology.cwru.edu/ohioscience/NAS_Letter.html or http://www.antievolution.org/features/nas_ohio_20040209.pdf Despite the strong recommendations from Ohio state and national scientific organizations to reject this and other "Wedge" lesson plans, the Ohio Board of Education voted an "intent to adopt" the lesson plans, including the one on "critical analysis," at its February 13 meeting. It was a date that proved unlucky for good science education. An editorial appeared in the Dayton Daily News offering timely advice: Quote Citizens who are not in a position to read all the documentation -- or interpret all the buzz words that only the fully initiated understand -- might wonder where to turn. Best to turn to the scientists. And not just individual scientists, but the organizations that are representative of scientists and that have people who have responsibility for looking into these matters fully. - http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion....ol.html The editorial calls for Ohio Governor Bob Taft to weigh in on this issue. So far, the governor has chosen to let the Board of Education move the discussion along -- and take the political heat. The Cleveland Plain Dealer has also called upon Governor Taft to take responsibility and an active role in the process: Quote JEERS . . . to Gov. Bob Taft for taking a walk on the debate over the state's proposed science education standards. He must figure enough people are arguing that they'll eventually drift to a solution. That's not leadership. - http://www.cleveland.com/search....l?oxedi Jeffrey McKee had an instructive opinion letter which appeared in the Columbus Dispatch on February 20: Quote Can scientists comprehend a simple lesson plan? According to State Board of Education member Deborah Owens-Fink, "Some of these scientists are so paranoid, they don't understand it." The truth is that scientists understand it all too well: The proposed lesson plan on evolution is a thinly disguised attempt to promote creationism in Ohio's science classrooms. But the lesson is one of politics, not science. One need not be a scientist to connect the dots, as board members should know. Did she really think that we would not notice the highly misleading statements on the fossil record of evolution, fraudulent claims about today's evolution of bacteria and direct references to creationist literature? The proposed lesson plan must be replaced by an honest and serious portrayal of contemporary biology. Owens-Fink's cavalier attitude is characteristic of certain board members who would rather play political games than ensure a quality science education for Ohio's young scholars. Along with board member Michael Cochran, the other main perpetrator of this fraud, Owens-Fink is pushing a desperation agenda instead of fostering understanding. The "standards committee" of the State Board of Education needs a new chairperson with higher standards. Owens-Fink and Cochran should resign. JEFFREY K. McKEE Professor Ohio State University - http://www.dispatch.com/editori....05.html The next meeting of the Board of Education and final vote on the lesson plans is scheduled for March 8-9, which does not leave much time for feedback.  The leadership in Ohio needs to hear from you. When contacting them, brevity and courtesy are virtues to keep in mind. Also, if you have scientific training or credentials, please do mention those. Please also consider putting a copy of your comments in a public forum, where they may be referred to as a resource and inform the commentary of others. A thread suitable for this purpose is located at http://tinyurl.com/3a2sy Those who wish to make their views known to Governor Taft -- especially if you live in Ohio or know someone there -- can contact him at the following address: Governor Bob Taft 30th Floor 77 South High Street Columbus, OH 43215-6117 Phone 614-466-3555 or 614-644-HELP http://governor.ohio.gov/contactinfopage.asp Members of the State Board of Education of Ohio Members are grouped by how they voted on the intent to adopt the model curriculum. A "for" vote does not necessarily mean that the member is sympathetic to the "Wedge" advocates; several members are likely to have voted "for" simply to move the process forward, knowing that another vote would be taken in March. Voted AGAINST intent to adopt on February 13: Robin C. Hovis, Millersburg (330) 674-5000 Robin.Hovis@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-5/default.asp Cy B. Richardson, Jr., Bethel (513) 734-6700 Cyrus.Richards@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-10/ G. R. (Sam) Schloemer, Cincinnati (513) 821-4145 Sam.Schloemer@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-4/ Jennifer H. Stewart, Zanesville (740) 452-4558 Jennifer.Stewart@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-9/ ABSENT during vote on February 13: Martha W. Wise, Avon (440) 934-4935 Martha.Wise@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-2/ Virginia E. Jacobs, Lima (419) 999-4219 Virginia.Jacobs@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-1/ Voted FOR intent to adopt on February 13: Jennifer L. Sheets, Pomeroy, President (740) 992-2151 jennifer.Sheets@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/sheets/default.asp Richard E. Baker, Hollansburg, Vice President (937) 997-2101 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/baker/ Virgil E. Brown, Jr., Shaker Heights (216) 851-3304 virgil.Brown@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-11/ Michael Cochran, Blacklick (614) 863-0045 ota@ohiotownships.org http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-6/ Jim Craig, Canton (330) 492-5533 Jim.Craig@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-8/ John W. Griffin, West Carrollton (937) 866-1210 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-3/default.asp Stephen M. Millett, Columbus (614) 424-5335 stephen.millett@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/millet/default.asp Deborah Owens Fink, Richfield (330) 972-8079 deb@uakron.edu http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/district-7/ Emerson J. Ross, Jr., Toledo (419) 537-1562 ejross@buckeye-express.com http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/ross/ Jo Ann Thatcher, McDermott (740) 858-3300 http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/thatcher/ James L. Turner, Cincinnati (513) 287-3232 jturner@cinergy.com http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/turner/ Sue Westendorf, Bowling Green (419) 352-2908 Sue.Westendorf@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/westendorf/ Carl Wick, Centerville (937) 433-1352 Carl.Wick@ode.state.oh.us http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/members/wicks/default.asp Ex Officio Members Senator Robert Gardner, Madison (614) 644-7718 Representative Arlene Setzer, Vandalia (614) 644-8051 For further information regarding upcoming Board meetings or general information about the State Board of Education, contact Ohio Department of Education Board Relations 25 South Front Street, 7th Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-4183 Phone: (614) 466-4838 Fax: (614) 466-0599 Department Information Line: 1-877-644-6338 Catherine Clark-Eich, Executive Director Clark-Eich@ode.state.oh.us Clayton D. Cormany, Editor The Ohio State Board of Education page is at http://www.ode.state.oh.us/board/default.asp Please copy whatever you send to Ohio representatives to the thread here. This will make it easy for those in Ohio to reference your opinions. Wesley

Date: 2004/02/17 08:22:16, Link 66.47.51.78

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

"Accurate representation" This one's a treat: William Dembski complaining that someone else fails to use "accurate representation" and compounding that with a claim that he himself delivers "accurate representation". Dembski's reply to WSJ article `flaws in intelligent design' Quote Sharon Begley's article regarding "flaws in intelligent design" misrepresents the current state of the debate. [...] If evolutionists really had an answer to the origin of the bacterial flagellum in purely materialistic terms (i.e., invoking only material mechanisms like natural selection and random variation), they would merely need to state the answer and intelligent design would be dead in the water. The very fact that these issues are being discussed in the Wall Street Journal indicates that the debate is far from over. For an accurate representation of the current debate about microsyringes, bacterial flagella, and irreducibly complex systems generally, see my article "Irreducible Complexity Revisited" at URL=http://www.designinference.com/documents/2004.01.Irred_Compl_Revisited.pdf.]http://www.designinference.com/documen....ed.pdf.[/URL] We can be sure that "accurate representation" was not at the top of Dembski's agenda when he described Richard Dawkins's "weasel" program as having three steps, when two of the steps provided by Dembski do not appear anywhere in Dawkins's writings. (Further, the second time Dembski did this was in "No Free Lunch", and I had already written him in email and via an email list some months before NFL was published to inform him of the problem.) Similarly, "accurate representation" was not Dembski's concern when he sought to make a sweeping claim that evolutionary computation was inclusive of artificial neural systems. Quote By an evolutionary algorithm I mean any well-defined mathematical procedure that generates contingency via some chance process and then sifts it via some law-like process. The Darwinian mechanism, simulated annealing, neural nets, and genetic algorithms all fall within this broad definition of evolutionary algorithms. Source -- WA Dembski, "CAN EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS GENERATE SPECIFIED COMPLEXITY?", presentation at the "Nature of Nature" conference, Baylor University, April, 2000.] I pointed out that this classification was quite erroneous at Classification of Artificial Neural Systems: Is Stochasticity a Reliable Diagnostic Character? NFL was published one and a half years after my critique was put on the web. That would give anyone time to fix things, right? Wrong. Previously, Dembski had stated that "neural nets" were instances of evolutionary algorithms; in NFL, Dembski says that "training neural nets" by evolutionary computation are instances of evolutionary algorithms. The previous claim was simply false and the new claim is based upon the fact that some people do apply evolutionary computation to the problem of training neural nets. It reduces to the claim that instances of evolutionary computation are evolutionary computation; mentioning "neural nets" at all in that context seems unlikely to do anything but lead readers to the erroneous conclusion that the original claim has not been abandoned. Such basic errors as these reduce the credibility of his claims to achieve "accurate representation". Wesley

Date: 2004/02/17 18:46:34, Link 66.47.51.78

Author: Wesley R. Elsberry

Dembski's Response to WSJ Article on "intelligent design" Quote Design theorists have known all along about microsyringes and other supposed evolutionary precursors to irreducibly complex systems like the bacterial flagellum. This raises some questions. The first is whether the statement is true. I don't recall any ID theorist, and certainly not Dembski, discussing T3SS's when the topic of flagella arose prior to Larry Moran's encounter with Dembski in Toronto on March 7, 2002. If Moran's mini-lecture filled in this gap in the knowledge of "ID theorists" then much would be explained. Even Dembski appears to acknowledge the lack of discussion of T3SS's in ID argumentation in STILL SPINNING JUST FINE: A RESPONSE TO KEN MILLER, where he says this: Quote If the biological community had even an inkling of how such systems arose by naturalistic mechanisms, Miller would not -- a full six years after the publication of Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe -- be lamely gesturing at the type three secretory system as a possible evolutionary precursor to the flagellum. It would suffice simply to provide a detailed explanation of how a system like the bacterial flagellum arose by Darwinian means. Miller's paper, despite its intimidating title ("The Flagellum Unspun") does nothing to answer that question. A Google search for "microsyringe" coupled with either "intelligent design" or "irreducible complexity" turns up nothing by any "ID theorist". If the statement that "ID theorists" have known all along about "microsyringes" and so forth is true, then the question becomes, "Why didn't they discuss those issues when discussing bacterial flagella?" For folks who love to quote Darwin to their purpose, they seem loath to demonstrate that they embrace the point by example: Quote Darwin himself would have agreed: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Source: NO FREE LUNCH If "ID theorists" did know all along about "microsyringes". etc., then the obvious implication is that they weren't interested in achieving a "fair result" when they chose not to reveal this knowledge to their readers. My thanks to Ian Musgrave for noticing this bit of rhetoric on Dembski's part. Wesley