Tomasz K. Baumiller has published a video of a walking crinoid. It's in realtime, meaning the little critter is walking along at a fairly brisk pace (for a crinoid, that is). Despite their resemblance to flowers, crinoids are animals, belonging to the Echinodermata, to which starfish also belong. In fact, we're closer related to crinoids than we are to flies. Think about that the next time you try to swat a too-fast-to-catch fly.

Hunter R. Rawlings III, Interim President of Cornell University has weighed in on an "urgent matter" "“ the ID debate. He warns, "The issue in question is the challenge to science posed by religiously-based opposition to evolution, described, in its current form, as "intelligent design." This controversy raises profound questions about the nature of public discourse and what we teach in universities, and it has a profound effect on public policy."

Yet Rawlings is concerned about something more. He claims, "Even here at Cornell, there are sharp divisions on the issue." But pay close attention to the nature of this sharp division:

Each year in his large course on evolution for non-majors, Will Provine, the C. A. Alexander Professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, asks his students a set of questions about evolution. The exact percentages vary a bit from year to year, but typically about half the students come out in favor of some sort of "purpose" informing the process through which life develops and half come out on the side of mechanistic evolution.

Did you catch that? Rawlings starts with a concern about religious opposition to evolution that quickly becomes a concern about students daring to think that evolution may be "informed" by some sort of "purpose." Even a modest expression of teleological thinking among non-majors is cause for concern. Oh my.

Read the rest of this entry »

One of the strategies of ID critics seems to be an attempt to convince theists that a Darwinian form of evolution is fully compatible with their belief system. There are many examples of this in books and on the web: here, here, here, and particularly here. Now the focus of this blog is not normally on theology, but since theology is being used as an argument it bears a closer look. Is Darwinian evolution compatible with mainstream theism? Do the ID critics present a fair and complete argument for this supposed compatibility or is the case incomplete and possibly misleading? These are the questions I would like to pursue. First a bit on theism in general.

Read the rest of this entry >>

In a previous post, I referred to an account of in ID presentation from student Josh Dill, cautioning: "It would be nice to have an account from the professor as well, as we all know that people have a tendency to place themselves in the best light when telling a story." Well, a poster describing himself as "one of the Highline College biology professors mentioned in Josh Dill's blog" has just written a comment, disputing Josh's account. Go read it, keeping in mind my comments about people placing themselves in the best light.

Update, a few seconds later: An identical comment was posted on Post-Darwinist, which originally ran the story. Josh Dill has posted his response to the professor there. Go read that as well, remembering my yadda yadda about skepticism.

According to Celeste Biever, writing for the NewScientist.com, "Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science."

Biever also writes:

Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.""¦"¦Behe said he had come up with his own "broader" definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. "The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it," he says. Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions.

Let's think this through.
Read the rest of this entry »

I've been too busy to blog lately, but I ran across something in the comments section of one of our blogs that looks interesting. Rock writes:

If the IDers don't do research then what are we arguing about? It could be that we are arguing about the research they've done! I've read a book by Dembski, which I thought was original research"”"The Design Inference." Aagcobb will now disabuse me of my impression that it is "research." I also read Michael Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box." Mostly he compiles research done by others (which I thought took some research), and I don't believe he refers to any of his own published research, but I suspect that his thoughts are to some extent based on his own research. I could be wrong about that and he could just pulled it outta his"¦ uh, hat. I recently asked if Mike Gene had continued to "research" an idea he had about cytosine deamination, which I thought was an interesting "research" topic. I don't think I would have asked the question if I hadn't read his preliminary "research." Maybe Aagcobb could tell us what he thinks "research" is? How in the world would you know if "there is anything substantive to IDism" (or not) if you are completely unaware of the research they've done?

I would think that we can all agree that not all research is equally valid or equally rigorous. Yet Rock raises a good question "“ what is research?

At The Panda's Thumb Andrea Bottaro has a post about prions, and how they "contradict century-old biological assumptions and seem to defy the expectations of Darwinian evolutionary theory" (see also our own Bipod's post about them here). Of course, Bottaro thinks that "what must be truly baffling for conspiracy-minded ID advocates, the inflexible "Darwinist orthodoxy" seems to positively dig this "heresy"." For the record, I've never played the "conspiracy" card, since others do that so well.

At Post-Darwinist Denyse O'Leary has a post about paleontologist Simon Conway Morris' recent article about mass extinctions (subscribtion required). A common argument against front-loading is that evolution is simply too random: In Stephen J. Gould's words, rerun the tape of evolution, and you'll end up with some completely different lifeforms. In his latest books Conway Morris has disputed this argument, and he also touches on it in this article:

The bolide misses and the dinosaurs go home for tea... You know the mantra: no K/T impact, no dinosaur extinctions, so no mammalian evolutionary radiations, so neither primates nor in due course apes and so ultimately no us. True, but trivial. Imagine a counterfactual Earth, with no K/T impact. Twenty million years later the planet still sails into major glaciations. Dinosaurs are doing fine, thank you, but look what's happening in the cooler temperate and polar regions. Warm-blooded critters are taking the initiative. Both birds and mammals are intelligent, social and have a tendency to make tools. This means that sooner or later a sentient species with technology will emerge: the demise of the heavy brigade is inevitable. Mass extinctions may accelerate (maybe postpone), but they never cancel.

In Nature Peter Andolfatto has an article on non-coding DNA, or, as some like to call it, "junk DNA". He reports that there are signs that non-coding DNA in fruitflies is being maintained by natural selection, which indicates that it plays a functional role after all. The article, "Adaptive evolution of non-coding DNA in Drosophila", is only available to subscribers, but the editor's summary can be read for free. It suggests:

Time to junk the term 'junk DNA', or to reserve it for DNA of proven uselessness. Geneticists favour the less judgmental term 'non-coding DNA' for those parts of the genome not translated into protein, and there is growing evidence that it is important in disease, development and evolution.

At The Panda's Thumb, there's a report of the Geological Society of America's meeting on evolution and creation. Here's University of Massachusetts Amherst geologist Don Wise on using catchy tunes and sound bites to combat intelligent design:

Don Wise stood up and the first slide was a photo of cow dung on the white-line of the road that had been run over by a car. He pointed out it's relevance for being able to decipher the relative sequence of events and also his attitude about Intelligent Design. The punch line is that we need to clean up the dung and make the white line pristine again. He then made usual points about incompetent design (using the back, the eye etc). What made it special was that he used a song "Incompetent Design" to make his point. He also noted that we should take our cues from politics. We live in an age of sound bites and using words like "incompetent design" can be more effective than trying to explain in scientific detail why it's bad science. Wise encourages geologists to take lessons from politics; (1) don't be defensive (2) keep your points simple and easy to remember (3) use humor to make your points (4) aim your points at the voters.

Ah yes, the politicized scientist. Who better to perform an objective and openminded investigation? We've already heard the sound bites "pseudo-science" and "God of the gaps". Now, get ready for the refrain (pun intended) of "incompetent design".

It looks like PZ Myers isn't the only one who'd like to "break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots." From an anonymous computer science Ph.D. candidate at The Abstract Factory:

Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution versus Intelligent Des—

(Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

(Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly, all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I am holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a mere preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap was designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic" explanation you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating pain that you are experiencing right now.

By way of... well, PZ Myers.

Questioner: As a pro-ID guy, why do you reject common descent? I mean, there's all these fossils…

Krauze: Actually, intelligent design isn't incompatible with common descent, and I'm myself an evolutionist. Check out these essays by myself and other intelligent design evolutinoists.

Q: But isn't it true that many intelligent design people reject common descent? I mean, there's that Paul Nelson guy, right?

K: Yes. I said that intelligent design was compatible with common descent, not that all proponents of intelligent design accepted it.

Q: Now I'm confused. You say that some ID proponents accept common descent, while others reject it. So, what is ID's position on common descent?

K: ID is a general approach to investigating the world, not a description of natural history. In this regard, it is similar to the non-teleological approach to the origin of life. Some origin-of-life researchers think the first lifeforms consisted of replicating RNA molecules. Others think it was a set of metabolic hypercycles. And others think it all started with tiny particles of clay. Origin-of-life research doesn't have a "position" on how the first organisms looked, either.

Q: Well, at least they're doing real research, unlike you guys. You're just a bunch of fundamentalist post-modernists, quoting scientists out of context and using the Wedge to turn the US into a theocracy and send all of our jobs to Taiwan. And besides, who designed the designer?

K: Whatever, dude.