John Timmer commenting on the proceedings of the "Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science" conference had this to say:

Branch's final topic was how to handle a situation where a biology department winds up with a creationist as a graduate student. This was both of general interest, as creationists tend to use their degrees as rhetorical weapons, and of personal interest, as I was part of the Berkeley class that produced the noted Discovery Institute fellow Jon Wells. Unfortunately, his conclusion was that there are no easy answers. He did, however, note that graduate departments exist to serve the scientific community by providing qualified individuals to perform research and teaching services. There is no ethical requirement for graduate faculty to be complicit in the training of someone who is ultimately going to actively harm the field.

An interesting questions come to mind. Who gets to decide what makes a creationist? Is Branch's fellow presenter, Ken Miller, a creationist? Seems reasonable to say that he is. What about our friend Krauze, a good ol' European agnostic? He's telic-minded, but he ain't no theist. Is he on the wrong side of the fence or the right side? Who decides? Do his contributions to an intelligent design blog make him prone to Branch's creationist net?

Also, what do we make of Branch's call for graudate faculty to be soothsayers and predict which of their students will actively harm the field? How does one tell? What should a graduate faculty member be looking for, just to be safe…to protect the integrity of science?

Notice: Hypothetical Only

My personal view is that this whole story is going to amount to a case of an insulated University professor taking part in some innocent fun without fully recognizing the severity of his comments. But this happens all the time in the Academy. So many people speaking so much nonsense.

What I'd like to discuss in the comments section of this post is the following:

Hypothetically, if Pianka has indeed expressed glee at the prospects of Humanity's mass death, what follows? What should the consequences be? Is it something to be ignored as innocent fun? Is it something that demands minor correction? Major correction? Other options?

If you are not willing to consider the hypothetical, then please do not post or else you'll find yourself slip,slip,slipping down the Memory Hole.

Nick Matzke of the NCSE has accused TelicThoughts of being just another wingnut blog because of our commentary on Pianka. Oh well. The truth is that both in public and behind the scenes, we have intentionally kept from strong judgement on this issue. In fact, many of us think that Mims report is probably sprinkled with a dose of sensationalism. And there's little doubt that Dembski's report to Homeland Security was nothing but an over-the-top publicity stunt).

Regarding the objectivity of TelicThoughts, I think our analysis speaks for itself. We are committed to uncovering the complex truth of the matter. Not showing that Mims report was 100% accurate (perhaps it was), nor showing that Pianka is an innocent victim of sensationalism (perhaps he is). Throughout, we have simply been pointing out that some of the facts in Mims report don't stand in lonely isolation, but are corraborated by independent comments from previous students and audience members. Those facts support, at the very least, that Pianka consistently presents himself as giving normative assent to the mass destruction of the human population. He thinks it "should" happen. He has made at least one student think that he "roots" for it to happen. The same student indicates that Pianka "advocates" for it to happen. And another person has given testimony to the fact that Pianka would be "pleased" for it to happen. Pianka can deny that he actually takes these views, but more than once, he's come off as actually taking them.

Read the rest of this entry »

It seems like we keep seeing solid evidence for sympatric evolution leading to the divergence of species. What are some of the implications of these facts? Me thinks they support Mike Gene's Front Loaded Evolution Hypothesis, where the unfolding of genetic programs has trajectory and is not hampered by the absence of geographic separation.

In today's (March 10) Science

Speciation Standing in Place
Elizabeth Pennisi

Surprising some evolutionary biologists, studies of birds, fish, trees, and insects show that it doesn't take a mountain chain, island, or other geographic quirks to create a species.

Drudge headline! Too good to be true, I'm sure. But that would kick ass.

Alving Plantinga, in a recent article on Judge Jones' capacity for reasoning, says something relevant to our longstanding obsession with labels:

Suppose I claim all Democrats belong in jail. One might ask: Could I advance the discussion by just defining the word "Democrat" to mean "convicted felon"? If you defined "Republican" to mean "unmitigated scoundrel," should Republicans everywhere hang their heads in shame?

In their article Intelligent standards or religious design? Omenn and Leshner conclude with the following:

…if children don't understand what is and isn't science, they later may be hard-pressed to compete for jobs in an increasingly technology-based economy. As Michigan works to overcome its high unemployment rate of 6.7% — well above the national rate of 4.9% in December 2005 — we owe every child the best possible science education.

My interest in these statements is largely peripheral to the context in which they occur (I really don't follow, nor do I understand what's at issue in public education debates). What I am interested in is whether any rational person can read these words and agree with them.

Read the rest of this entry »

In his article, The God Genome, Leon Wieseltier takes Daniel Dennett to task for preferring therapy to rational analysis. The following quote applies equally well to ID critics like Barbara Forrest who have decided to replace rational discussion with the genetic fallacy:

You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason.

Somewhere in Europe, our friend Krauze has been the victim of a burglary. The stolen items included his computer (I don't know about him, but I'd feel as if I'd lost my oxygen). He will be out of service at TelicThoughts for at least a few days, if not longer. There is the chance that he could get internet access from time to time at a library, but in the meantime let's wish him the best.

Wesley Elsberry, anti-evolutionist-labeler extraordinaire, has mastered the art of labeling. But as he notes elsewhere, labels don't amount to anything if they don't have the content to match. (Well, they do amount to something: rhetorical magic in the tribal game - but Wesley doesn't play that game, does he;-).

So lately, I've been wondering what it means to be an anti-evolutionist since apparently, Mike, Krauze, me and the other members of telic-thoughts have been labeled such. Unfortunately, understanding the content of this label proves to be more difficult than you might imagine. After all, an anti-evolutionist can believe the following propositions and still be an anti-evolutionist:

1. All living organisms are related by common descent
2. All complex organisms have evolved from simpler organisms
3. Natural selection, random mutation and various other evolutionary mechanisms have played essential roles in the evolution of organisms

I think I am correct in saying that at least Mike, Krauze and I agree with those three propositions or at least think that they are more plausible than not (correct me if I'm wrong, guys).

Now the reader of our blog should ask herself how people who believe propositions 1-3 could be coherently labled "anti-evolutionists." Well, the whole issue turns on the fact that we throw another proposition into the mix (this is the one that makes us anti-evolutionists):

4. It is reasonable to investigate the existince and implications of intelligent causation in biotic history, probably at the origin of life but also manifested in various evolutionary processes and biological facts (see Conway Morris here)

So there you are. We're antievolutionists not because we deny the reality of evolution, but because we posit the presence of intelligent causation as relevant to biotic history. But in that case, the label misses the mark: its words imply that we somehow deny or stand in opposition to evolution. Since that's false about us, the label is either empty or, at best, misleading.

*Actually, my bet is that we get the anti-evolution label because of paranoia resulting from our bad associations and our refusal to fight the good fight for the pro-science tribe. But, if you're like Wesley Elsberry, and you're concerned with the content of labels rather than the labels themselves, then you should focus on the four propositions above and consider whether the anti-evolution label has any content.