We haven't had an open thread in a while. So here's some links I've been meaning to post for a while.

Mike Dunford criticizes the notion that humans are just a third species of chimp:

The suggestion that we are the third species of chimp is one that is made mostly for political or philosophical reasons. It is made to reinforce the story that science has been telling us, and that we have been telling each other, since the start of the scientific revolution - humans are nothing special. …

We are not chimpanzees. We, unlike the chimpanzees, have the capacity to understand our effects on other living things. We, unlike the chimpanzees, can see the possible effects of our actions. We, unlike the chimpanzees, can see, can understand, and can -if we so choose- act to mitigate the harm that we have done and are doing to the planet. We, unlike the chimpanzees, can choose to do our human best to ensure that our children's children's children get the chance to live on a planet that is as safe and pleasant as the one our grandparents borrowed from us.

It looks like Dawkins has been using fabricated and out-of-context quotes from the founding fathers on religion. Check out this post by John Lynch and the comment by Ed Brayton.

Biologist J. Scott Turner has a book out, The Tinkerer's Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself, that looks to be of interest to ID evolutionists. From Amazon:

Physiologist Turner (The Extended Organism) addresses a tricky question: if trial-and-error Darwinism rests on solid research and plentiful evidence, and Intelligent Design is little more than religion's hollow Trojan horse, from where does the "self-evident design of the living world" spring? Taking on "modern biology's most glaring blind spot," the "phenomenon of design," Turner argues here that design is a true physiological force that works organically, in accord with DNA, to produce ever more environments "upon which homeostasis can be imposed." He makes his case in a way that's as scientific as any biologist's, using thorough research and enlightening illustrations to demonstrate how, for instance, gut design is shaped "as much under the influence of 'foreign' organisms as it is the organism itself." He also uses pop culture analogies (including Spiderman comics and Terry Gilliam's film Brazil), a friendly voice and personal anecdotes, making this a largely welcoming science book-though he occasionally lapses into technical language when simpler speech would do. His unwavering passion for the topic, combined with a sharp focus, makes Turner's latest ideal for science types, design lovers and anyone who's unashamedly analytical about everyday life.

In my post, "Lying liars and the goofs they make", I demonstrated the inconsistency of many ID critics, who make the most uncharitable interpretations to label ID supporters as "liars", while they bend over backwards to avoid making the same accusation of people who agree with them. A recent example was provided by reporter Karen Armstrong. In an opinion piece in British The Guardian she put an embarrassing quote in the mouth of ID supporter Paul Nelson, which he had never said. To his credit, ID critic Nick Matzke exposed the fabricated quote over at The Panda's Thumb, but couldn't get too worked up about it, suggesting that Karen Armstrong had merely "Goofed Big Time." The tone quickly changed once ID supporter Robert Crowther commented on the story, writing that there was an urban legend "being helped along by Darwinists". ID critics replied that it was Matzke who had exposed the fabricated quote, and wasted no time accusing Crowther of telling a "baldfaced lie", to quote Ed Brayton.

Read the rest of this entry »

Critics of intelligent design have long had an unhealthy obsessions with painting ID supporters as liars. As the Information Project Director of the NCSE, Wesley Elsberry, advises his comrades:

If you want to drive a wedge between an audience of evangelical Christians and the professionals in the ID movement, you need a third approach: show that the ID advocate on stage with you has been lying to his followers. Show misquote after misquote; demonstrate error after checkable error, and make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves. Evangelicals do want to take Christ's message to the world, but they also have a deep loathing of liars.

The recent events surrounding reporter Karen Armstrong cast more light on this tactic. In an opinion piece in the British newspaper The Guardian, Karen Armstrong quoted ID supporter Paul Nelson talking about "a mighty army of cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors" who would rise following the Rapture. Only problem was, those words came from a website called "David's Tent", and had never been uttered by Paul Nelson. ID critic Nick Matzke, to his credit, broke this story, writing that "there is no evidence whatsoever of any connection between Paul Nelson and the quotes from the David's Tent webpage."

Read the rest of this entry »

I often poke fun at the chicken-littles among the ID critics, who are afraid that intelligent design is going to destroy Science, Democracy, and the American Way of Life. But the ID-friendly community also has its chicken-littles, worried that teaching children about evolution causes them to have abortions, do drugs, and kill innocent little puppies. In a post at the KCFS discussion board, "dmvprof" makes fun of those worried with a list of Top 10 Actions by new School Board:

Now that the power has been won, it is time to execute Plan 666.

10. No religious paraphenalia allowed in public schools. Searches are to be performed at the school entrance.

9. Any appeal to God or any prayer offerred will result in immediate expulsion.

8. In order for students to pass biology, they must denounce YECism.

7. School on Sundays.

6. Free abortions by High School nurse.

5. Gay sensitive curriculum and Gay Bathrooms.

4. Don't ask don't tell drug policy.

3. End football programs and replace them with soccer.

2. New curriculum to include the study of the "FSM".

1.Replace the symbol for a failing grade from "F" to "Dembski".

The list is obviously a joke ("Plan 666", anyone?), and "dmvprof" makes that abundantly clear in laters posts. Nonetheless, the list is being showcased on Teleological Blog, where Salvador T. Cordova presents it under the heading, "KCFS supporter speaks his mind", as if the poster was serious.

We often criticize ID critics when they engage in sloppy scholarship, and we should demand the same standards of those who are on our own "side". Salvador's use of that list is misleading and irresponsible. The only right thing would be to remove it, replace it with a post saying that the previous post had been misleading, and offer an apology for what happened.

Paul Nelson has posted the letter he sent to The Guardian concerning an article by Karen Armstrong, in which she falsely attributed a quote about "a mighty army of cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors" to him. As he writes:

Please publish a retraction or correction. I never said the remarks attributed to me by Ms Armstrong. If you contact Armstrong about this and ask her about the source for the error, she will agree with me. This is inexcusably slovenly writing.

In a comment to the letter, Paul Nelson also notes that Armstrong never interviewed him for the article. My, that looks like its becoming quite the habbit among self-styled defenders of science and democracy.

Check out this quote, from a Guardian editorial opinion piece by Karen Armstrong:

The fundamentalists' rejection of science is deeply linked to their apocalyptic vision. Even the relatively sober ID theorists segue easily into Rapture-speak. "Great shakings and darkness are descending on Planet Earth," says the ID philosopher Paul Nelson, "but they will be overshadowed by even more amazing displays of God's power and light. Ever the long-term strategist, YHVH is raising up a mighty army of cutting-edge Jewish End-time warriors."

As a service to those of you who know Paul Nelson, I'll wait until you've picked up your jaws from the floor. ID critic Nick Matzke had a hard time believing it as well, and to his credit, he checked out the quote and posted his findings at the anti-ID blog The Panda's Thumb.

Since spurious quotations are bad in general, and not just when the creationists use them, I figured I should check this one. Googling the quote reveals exactly one hit, to a website named "David's Tent". This is apparently the website of Final Frontier Ministries, which is headquartered in Nashville. … [T]here is no evidence whatsoever of any connection between Paul Nelson and the quotes from the David's Tent webpage. For that matter, the word "Nelson" does not appear anywhere on the entire David's Tent website, according to google. The only mention of "Paul" on the page with the quotes is the Apostle Paul … Unless Karen Armstrong has some really amazing evidence that none of us have ever heard of before, She Goofed Big Time.

Read the rest of this entry »

I know that ID critics like to claim that intelligent design is nothing but creationism, but they're usually smoother than this. A British newspaper article manages to quote ID supporter Michael Behe so badly out of context that a point about bad design gets turned into a claim that dinosaur fossils are fake! Check out Evolution News and View to see the chutzpah.

Apparently, there'll be a "Ask the ID people tough questions" event at Biola today (Friday). John Rennie, the editor of Scientific American, complains that the ID critics invited don't hold the "qualifications and readiness to participate in this event" (in case you're wondering about the "readiness" part, it seems to refer to the fact that one of the invitees, Bruce Weber, has been critical of neo-darwinism, suggesting that we need "a more solid framework for evolutionary biology"). But, as Paul Nelson points out, Biola invited far more menacing critics, who all declined. Turns out that critics were working behind the scenes, telling those "in the know" to stay away.

Now, I'm not real big on these kinds of debates in front of a crows as a means of settling the question of intelligent design - in fact, when I first heard of this, I sent Paul an e-mail, asking why he was wasting his time on it. But I do find it amusing that Rennie would complain that the "cool kids" haven't been invited to the party, when word went out to everyone but the un-cool kids to stay home.

Update: John from Verum Serum has a report from the event. He thinks the evening went well, but would have liked there to be some "more agressive questioners". Meanwhile, in the comments, Art is comparing the event to the "show-trials that were all the rage in the Stalin era of the Soviet Union", so the organizers should be ashamed of even asking Mark Perakh, who used to live in the Soviet Union, to attend. Yeah, I think I'll take hyperbole for 200.

While on the topic of Steve Verdon, who accused an ID supporter of potentially quote-mining, here's a snippet from the NYT review of Daniel Dennett's book:

Dennett flatters himself that he is Hume's heir. Hume began "The Natural History of Religion," a short incendiary work that was published in 1757, with this remark: "As every enquiry which regards religion is of the utmost importance, there are two questions in particular which challenge our attention, to wit, that concerning its foundation in reason, and that concerning its origin in human nature." These words serve as the epigraph to Dennett's introduction to his own conception of "religion as a natural phenomenon." "Breaking the Spell" proposes to answer Hume's second question, not least as a way of circumventing Hume's first question. Unfortunately, Dennett gives a misleading impression of Hume's reflections on religion. He chooses not to reproduce the words that immediately follow those in which he has just basked: "Happily, the first question, which is the most important, admits of the most obvious, at least, the clearest, solution. The whole frame of nature bespeaks an intelligent author; and no rational enquirer can, after serious reflection, suspend his belief a moment with regard to the primary principles of genuine Theism and Religion."

This Friday, ID supporter Paul Nelson quoted some snippets from a recent article by developmental biologist Eric Davidson and paleontologist Douglas Erwin about the origin of body plans. On his blog, Deinonychus antirrhopus, Steve Verdon was quick to accuse him of quote-mining, concluding, "Bottom line, you can't trust these guys to give you an accurate picture of whatever they are talking about."

In this regards, he seems to have borrowed a leaf from Wesley's Wedge, according to which you should "make the audience understand that if the ID advocate claims that the sky is blue, their next step had better be to look out the window to see for themselves." But let's leave that for the moment and instead look at some of Steve Verdon's charges:

Only a dishonest or superficial reading the paper would lead one to believe that ID played any role in the process. Further, the claim that neo-Darwinism doesn't work for the pre-Cambrian is also suspect. Maybe it is correct, but that wasn't the focus of Davidson and Erwin's article. Further, while the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn't some supernatural designer.

I have yet to read Davidson and Erwin's article, so I can't speak to Steve Verdon's characterization of what their focus was. But notice this charge: "[W]hile the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn't some supernatural designer."

Here's a little challenge for the reader: Use your browser's search function to search for the phrase "supernatural designer" in Paul Nelson's post. You'll probably find, as I did, that the phrase is nowhere to be found: Nelson did not claim that Davidson and Eric were proposing a supernatural designer to account for the origin of body plans.

So, considering that Steve Verdon has just been caught misrepresenting someone else's words, does that mean that he shouldn't be trusted to give an accurate picture of whatever else he is talking about?

Update: Paul Nelson has responded himself here.