Dime-a-Dozen
by MikeGeneTaylor Kessinger has written a column complaining that Intelligent Design is a "unintelligent idea." Since it is always fun to see how the anti-ID memosphere would stack up against my ideas and position, I thought I'd kick back and have a look.
His column was apparently inspired by Ben Stein's recent appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor." He writes:
What the movie, due in February, won't tell you is the truth regarding intelligent design. The "theory" is so embarrassingly poorly argued and devoid of scientific merit that even the Rev. George Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory - not exactly a bastion of anti-theistic vitriol the last time I checked - has denounced it as an unscientific idea that simply "pretends to be" science.
Okay, Kessinger supports his views with a denouncement by someone from the the Vatican.
Stein elucidates in a blog on the film's Web site that science operates under a form of "anti-religious dogmatism" under which scientists "are not even allowed to think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator." In a ham-fisted reference to the First Amendment, he asserts that freedom of speech in this country ought to include freedom of inquiry.
Here Kessinger is trying to pick a fight with a movie promo. Does Kessinger undertand the purpose of movie promos?
But freedom of speech doesn't protect the rights of professors to make claims with no scientific backing without repercussions. Universities don't stand for professors who waste funds and time researching astrology, parapsychology or other pseudoscientific ideas, and they never should.
So Kessinger is explaining why university professors should be Expelled, thus helping to support the basic message of Stein's movie. Remember that when some critics demand to see the peer reviewed studies that support ID, they also think any attempt to produce such papers is reason to be Expelled.
Stein and his fellow design advocates don't care about equality or fairness. They want intelligent design to be "special" in this regard, so that they can pretend their belief in God - a faith-based belief - somehow has scientific backing.
After supporting his position with denouncements from the Vatican, picking a fight with a movie promo, and explaining why professors should be Expelled, Kessinger now relies on his psychic powers to tell us what "Stein and his fellow design advocates" really care and don't care about.
Contrary to the popular belief among beleaguered design theorists, there is no conspiracy to destroy religion in science. University faculty members continue to hold a multitude of religious positions even in evolutionary biology departments, and in the dozen or so biology textbooks I've looked through, I have yet to find the phrase "God does not exist."
Kessinger finally manages to hit on a decent point, but he fails to achieve balance. Yes, I would agree there is no conspiracy to destroy religion in science. But there is an Anti-Religion Movement that does want to destroy science and it is led by legendary Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. In fact, another leader in this Movement is activist Sam Harris, who wrote a popular essay about religion and science. What was the name of that essay? Hmmm. It's on the tip of my tongue. Oh, yeah, I remember - Science Must Destroy Religion
While it is true that there is no conspiracy to destroy religion in science, leaders in the Anti-Religion Movement are trying to change that. For example, Harris recently pleaded with the scientific community that Scientists should unite against threat from religion. While Harris is wasting his breath, it is worth balancing Kessinger's point.
On the other hand, does science discriminate against proponents of intelligent design? Well, sure, but only in the same sense that a university discriminates against bad students or the stock market discriminates against people who make poor financial decisions.
If anything, the problem is that there isn't enough discrimination against this idea.
Okay, so we not only should we discriminate against proponents of intelligent design, the problem is that there isn't enough discrimination. Like I said, this guy is supporting the basic theme of Stein's advertising blitz.
Evolution makes specific predictions regarding the physical and genetic structure of living and fossil organisms, as well as patterns and relationships we see between them. Every time a scientist studies a fossil or living creature, examines the biochemistry of an organism or sequences DNA from a cell, he "tests" the theory of evolution - and the theory has withstood every test thus far.
I'll betcha Kessinger doesn't know there are some of us who would agree with this paragraph.
Intelligent design simply asserts that structures like the human eye and bacterial flagellum couldn't possibly have formed by random chance, so an intelligent designer is needed.
No, some intelligent design proponents simply assert that structures like the human eye and bacterial flagellum couldn't possibly have formed by random chance, so an intelligent designer is needed. I've been at this topic for over seven years and I have never made this argument. Could it be that the guy calling for more discrimination also happens to be trafficking in stereotypes?
Such statements demonstrate flagrant ignorance of evolution, whose driving force, natural selection, is the exact opposite of random chance.
Now just how do we define "driving force" and is there evidence that natural selection was indeed the "driving force" behind the origin of the bacterial flagellum? From what I have heard, something called co-option has been a crucial ingredient in stories about the origin of the flagellum. And co-option, from a non-teleological vantage point, is indeed an appeal to random chance.
Worse yet, they take the form "we can't explain it, so maybe God did it" - a logical error known as the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy.
No, it would be a logical error to say "we can't explain it, so God must have did it." But this whole gap issue is actually quite interesting. It is the critics who demand gaps. That is, without gaps, they deem ID to be superfluous. If the ID proponent seeks something to satisfy this demand, the same critic will hold up promissory notes and decry this as the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Heads, I win, tails, you lose.
But don't take my word for it. Stein himself admitted on O'Reilly's show that the theory is merely an attempt to "fill in some of (the) gaps" left by evolutionary theory.
No, that is what Stein believes. Stein is in no position to "admit" anything about ID.
To circumvent these obvious failings, intelligent design theorists fall back on unscrupulous tactics. Stein's movie hand-picks out-of-context quotes from evolutionary biologists to make the evolutionary position seem weaker - a multitude of evolutionary scientists appear in the film, and many, including legendary Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, have complained that they were misled regarding the film's nature.
Actually, I think the word "satanic" would work better than "unscrupulous" here. But note the switch. Kessinger begins with "intelligent design theorists" and then quickly begins to complain about a Ben Stein movie. I've been following this debate for some time now, and I don't recall anyone ever referring to Stein (or any of the movie producers) as "intelligent design theorists." Nevertheless, Kessinger must be a lucky guy, as he must have already seen the movie to know that "Stein's movie hand-picks out-of-context quotes from evolutionary biologists to make the evolutionary position seem weaker."
If Stein and his ilk really want to leave their mark on the debate between science and intelligent design, the absolute best move on their part would be to define intelligent design in unambiguous terms, outline exactly what the theory predicts and explain how it can be tested. Until then, apparently, 90-minute "documentaries" filled with soundbites and rhetoric will have to do.
Three words "“ It's a movie.
Stein's supporters apparently can't tell the difference between science and pseudoscience. But for the rest of us, the difference is clear. Clear eyes, unclouded by wishful thinking, enable the rest of us to see that intelligent design belongs in theology, not in biology.
Y'gotta love it when people who peddle stereotypes and call for more discrimination also claim to have the unclouded, clear-eyed view of things. But hey, you have to credit Kessinger for missing two other popular memes; he forgot to tell us that ID is a Threat and he forgot to use the word "˜creationist.'
October 27th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Here's a little essay I wrote on this topic.
Comment by GilDodgen — October 27, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Why do they keep saying that natural selection is the driving force of evolution, anyway? It isn't. Now, that's a piece of heresy, I know, and I'll probably hear from people wanting to expel me over it. But here's the deal. Evolution involves both variation and selection. Variation is the driving force. Selection is the conserving force.
Nothing new gets selected for unless something new happens; and it is not selection that causes that something new to happen. It's variation–which in almost all versions of evolution, is random. Once something advantageous appears through this process of variation (according to evolutionary theory), then selection will hold it for the next generation, and ultimately hold it longer than the alternative forms or functions. That's not creating, that's not driving, that's conserving.
But evolutionists keep saying that natural selection is the driving force, and that it's therefore not a random process. I think they're pulling the wool over their own eyes.
Comment by TomG — October 27, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I think it's quite amusing that an article in a student paper at a school where (to my knowledge) no controversy exists surrounding ID is getting a fair amount of attention. It sort of makes me want to try and convince our staff at my paper to let me write an article denouncing ID just for the publicity.
Comment by thechristiancynic — October 27, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
TomG:
Consider this. The driving force was initially completely unfettered- at least in theory. The drive was not impinged by those genomic repair mechanisms that allow for only a small percentage of variants to make it to the selection queue. Those mechanisms would have had to evolve if they were not front loaded at the outset. Variation currently occurs within a tolerable range because of genomic repair mechanisms. When there is no speed limit on the driver genomic meltdown is the effect. Some things need to be conserved before the race starts.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2007 @ 5:38 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
All mutational change is thought to be random with respect to fitness. Co-option is not any different in this respect. Co-option occurs in both microbiological and macrobiological adaptations.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
It's also interesting that morphological, physiological, behaviroal traits, that are usually multigenic may not be overcome by drift even in extreme cases, where Ne is small and sustained for thousands of years.
Comment by Guts — October 27, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Zachriel wrote:
[Emphasis added]
Thought by some. But is it even true?
Well, let's consult the expertise available at talkorigins:
[Emphases added]
Hmm. Perhaps Zachriel is mistaken.
Comment by stunney — October 27, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Do all mutational changes result in cooption?
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Most mutations are neutral.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Are most cooption events neutral?
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
As co-option is defined as a novel function, no.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Over in the comments section of Taylor's column, we find that some critics are getting into the Bunny Fright Week spirit!
Thank you, for hopefully opening a few more eyes to the slow progression of theocracy in this country. "“ Tim
the"¦..ID cultists"¦.are themselves the perpetrators of a campaign to eradicate all intellectual and scientific progress since the Enlightenment. "“ Mark
Comment by MikeGene — October 27, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
lol
Comment by Guts — October 27, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Some mutations are beneficial. Some are detrimental. Some result in co-option. But the occurrence of any particular mutation has been shown to be random with respect to fitness. So?
Lederbergs, 1952
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Zachriel:
Even if that were so, any means of adjusting the varients (increasing or decreasing the rate of mutation) presented for selection, in response to selection pressure, would provide a directed element to the process.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2007 @ 10:51 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Zach:
No, they've been shown by population analysis to be statistically random across the population in stress. That a population in stress generates more than the normal level of mutations is well known to biology. Worse, the pertinent adaptive mutations occur more often in relevant sequences of the genome.
Humans harbor 42 different mutations of the PrP prion gene, as of the year 2000 when Nobel Prize winner Prusinger went private with the research. Why would an overall population need that many mutations, only one of which has thus far demonstrated susceptibility to the prion-caused vCJD (Mad Cow)?
People with these variants readily interbreed with people who have other variants, nobody's a new species yet. It's just that some are more susceptible to this TSE than others, but #2 of 42 will be susceptible to a different version. And so on down the line. What a great species-wide built-in robustness, eh?
I am the same species of being as that pygmy in Brazil or northern Luzon. They are the same species as Watusi or Osage (average 7 feet tall). They are both the same species as Tom Thumb the famous midget, and we are all kin to the occasional two-headed baby or joined-at-the-hip twins, and even to those Thalidomide babies who were born so grotesquely deformed.
Dog breeding (even more than general stock breeding) demonstrates this as well as anything can be demonstrated objectively and scientifically. Why is it so difficult for y'all to admit it's all about expression? If you've mutations (and we all have 'em), what is expressed shapes the karma you've got to deal with. Our difference makes us no LESS human. There are occasional legendary individuals that peers in their time labeled MORE than human. It's a relative judgment, consensus in science is that we're all one. Holding different dealt hands, we get to play them however we can.
Research just last week demonstrated that presumed precursor hominid species all walked upright. It's much more ancient than science thought, thus throws the LCA between us and chimps much farther back than presumed under the NDS. Why don't scientists just say "we don't know," and then offer their evidence for what they care to interpret?
Comment by Joy — October 27, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
That's still considered non-directed mutation. If you are an individual in a population, your chance is no better than anyone else's to have a fortuitous mutation.
Meanwhile, the point was MikeGene's statement, "And co-option, from a non-teleological vantage point, is indeed an appeal to random chance." We can demonstrate that cooption can indeed occur via orthodox evolutionary mechanisms.
Comment by Zachriel — October 27, 2007 @ 11:11 pm
October 27th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
It's the outcome that matters. If you feed more options into a sifter you will get more fortuitous outcomes as long as the mutation rate does not compromise genomic integrity.
Comment by Bradford — October 27, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
October 28th, 2007 at 1:02 am
LOL. That column keeps on giving. The critics are scaring each other now. Here's a former UA professor embellishing on the Wedge from Hell:
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2007 @ 1:02 am
October 28th, 2007 at 8:33 am
True, but that still doesn't redefine directed mutation. There is no known correlation between mutation and fitness (i.e. mutation is random with respect to fitness).
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2007 @ 8:33 am
October 28th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Zachriel: True, but that still doesn't redefine directed mutation. There is no known correlation between mutation and fitness (i.e. mutation is random with respect to fitness).
From the link:
An increased rate of mutation induced by harmful chemicals may not lead to enhanced fitness but the reason lies in the nature of the problem. Chemicals would reduce genomic integrity- destroying functional sequences related to a number of mechanisms. Even rapidly reproduciing unicellular organisms would have a tough time coping with this. OTOH, if an environmental challenge were one that did not attack the genome directly, but did disrupt environmental conditions, an increased mutation rate also would increase the number of genetic choices upon which natural selection could act. How could that not enhance the likelihood of fitness for a population even if the individual mutations themselves were random?
Comment by Bradford — October 28, 2007 @ 11:03 am
October 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
That would make the rate of mutation correlate with fitness. The mutations would still be uncorrelated.
And indeed, there is ample evidence that rates of mutation are correlated with fitness. Rates are adjusted during the evolution of repair mechanisms. Certain areas of a genome may evolve faster or slower than the norm. Bacteria even have rapid mutators within stressed populations. In individual cells, the repair mechanism may break down and the rate of mutation increase. And when under stress, bacteria are then more likely to integrate genetic material horizontally.
Comment by Zachriel — October 28, 2007 @ 11:41 am
October 28th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
LOL! That column keeps on giving. Sooner or later, you just knew some conspiracy kooks would show up and start yammering about the Coming Theocracy:
Comment by MikeGene — October 28, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Thanks for that link to the article by Sam Harris, Science Must Destroy Religion. Science will eventually destroy religion, and the sooner the better. The evolution deniers know evolution is the greatest threat to their idiotic ancient beliefs, and that's why they are constantly lying about evolution.
Comment by BobC — October 30, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
October 30th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hi BobC,
No problem. It's often useful to remember that many critics of ID have a socio-political agenda where they want to use science to destroy religion (religion is eeevil). Obviously, if the mind of that same critic hears "God/religion" when "˜ID' is spoken or written, they can hardly be considered to have any objectivity about ID.
I appreciate your faith, but we should really stick to reality "“ science will never destroy religion. In fact, my position is falsifiable "“ please let me know when science has finally destroyed religion. In contrast, how does one falsify your belief that science will destroy religion?
Evolution deniers. Idiotic. Lying.
Like I said folks, dime a dozen. [yawn]
Comment by MikeGene — October 30, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 1:18 am
Comment by Guts — October 31, 2007 @ 1:18 am
October 31st, 2007 at 10:22 am
Tell me why invoking magic is not idiotic. That's what Intelligent Design is, a belief in a magic man. Some liars don't want to talk about who the Designer is, but everyone knows the Designer is a supernatural magician.
There's a big business in this country called "Lying for Jesus". Their biggest lie is their pathetic attempts to disguise god-did-it to look like science. They aren't fooling anyone. Every sane biologist in the world knows Intelligent Design is childish supernatural garbage.
The only thing the Disco Institute has discovered is the fine art of constant lying. I noticed the only people who believe their crap is the holy rollers who will believe any nonsense that justifies their childish beliefs in magic.
Comment by BobC — October 31, 2007 @ 10:22 am
October 31st, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Seriously though, I do think invoking magic is idiotic. Ever hear a detailed darwinian explanation of any given evolutionary pathway? There is nothing more idiotic than a person who sneeringly believes in the magic of random mutations producing novel genetic information! Mainstream Origin of Life scenarios are full of such wonders!
There's a big problem in Academia called "Lying for Notheist". Their biggest lie is their pathetic attempts to disguise nature-did-it to look like science. They aren't fooling majorities of voters in the US. Honest scientists and commenters are able to distinguish between theism and a design inference. Mal-informed angry comment trolls apparently are not.
Comment by todd — October 31, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
I think BobC is a fake. Trying to make the opposition look especially bad.
Comment by Doug — October 31, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
October 31st, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Doug:
I disagree Doug. While BobC left his computer one of those lying, evil IDiots took control of it and typed the messages in his name. But you're right about the looking bad effect.
Comment by Bradford — October 31, 2007 @ 4:54 pm