Sad Smoke and Mirrors
by Joy[h/t to PZ]
Seems Ken Miller has a guest post on a Discover Magazine blog, entitled Smoke and Mirrors, Whales and Lampreys that pretends to re-live Kitzmiller and foretell exactly where those ever-evil IDists will be going in the future with their brilliant plot to enslave the world. Mwahahahaha!!!!
I just had to pipe in on this one. But only because it looks a lot like the DD crowd is really starting to miss the DI and all persons/dot-orgs that comprise the hated "ID Movement" [IDM for short] now that it looks a whole heck of a lot like that IDM is effectively DOA. Not a moment too soon or too late, per my own estimation, but that's entirely beside the point to be made. Some of this stuff is positively paranoid, with a weird overtone of Stockholm Syndrome thrown in for good measure.
Wait. I hadn't read the actual post before I started this, I'd only read the Dum-de-dumb intro, which desperately attempts to make the whole Miller versus Behe thing pertinent because Miller NEEDS it to be pertinent or else HE is not pertinent. Turned out there's nothing to see here, folks, it's the same old same old and incredibly boring at that.
[Emily Litella moment] Never mind.
Maybe there was something interesting in the next installment – The fingerprint of evolution left in whale DNA – that doesn't rely upon Nick Matzke's hopelessly ho-hum refutation of flagella, which is as dismissible as it ever was for missing the point. But I'm already too bored to go find out.
Poor Ken Miller. He finds that he's entirely irrelevant without his favorite bogey-man Behe. Must not be getting those big, big speaking fees these days. Is Matzke going to find himself in similar straits soon despite going ahead and taking the requisite courses to become an "expert?" Will PZ Myers have to limit himself to pure anti-religion hate speech sans bio-coupons he can trade for night vision goggles? Will the Swamp denizens have to turn on each other in order to satisfy their daily caloric needs? Will we be treated to the sad spectacle of a Miller-Behe World Tour as soul-crushing as the Tim O'Leary-G. Gordon Liddy "Gnarly Old Guys Who Missed the Bus" Tour?
God! Now I know for sure I'm way, way too old. Pardon me while I go buy a ticket to the upcoming Led Zeppelin Not-Reunion Tour. At least I can dance to that…
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
You missed the first two acts of the comedy. It was Casey Luskin who picked on Ken Miller. Casey is still re-fighting the Dover case in his imagination. He's written two mini-series on the subject just in the last week: A Partisan Affair: False Attacks on Traipsing Into Evolution in Edward Humes’ Pseudo-History of Kitzmiller, “Monkey Girl” (4 episodes so far, plus 3 prequels) and How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade (3 episodes and counting). (Casey, if you're reading this, do us a favor and shorten your titles in the future: they're tedious beyond belief.)
Among other silly things Casey wrote this perl:
At first I thought that Casey never heard of unicycles, but no! He then went
completely off the rails:
Of course it took someone 5 minutes to find a video of a boy riding a bicycle with one wheel removed. The video is linked in Carl Zimmer's post Oh No! I’ve Seen the Impossible! My Eyes!
Then things got serious: Carl invited Ken to address Luskin's ramblings and Casey was taken to the woodshed to learn a bit about blood-clotting systems.
Comment by olegt — January 3, 2009 @ 11:06 pm
January 3rd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
olegt:
Oh, honey. I have two unicycles hanging from rafters in the shed (along with puppets), and two "Skatecycles" that were the big thing back in the '80s in California – one cycle wheel with axle and pedals, skateboard trucks and wheels on the front. I think they're rusted beyond repair by now.
Bad analogies are just bad analogies. And for all I know Luskin may be as date-less for 2009 as Miller is. I could book a circus, you know. Would they care to come for training? I do have the ropes course installed by those Russian riggers who were quite pretty and used crossbows to string the stuff through my forest over the bowl…
Vegas. We've got the Female Fire Eating Union, this one will fit right in at Circus Circus, even have contacts in the Cirque de soleil…
Comment by Joy — January 3, 2009 @ 11:16 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:39 am
As Joy already pointed out there are poor analogies but if you insist on going with the bicycle consider the following:
So by Dembski's own acknowledgement if the irreducible core consists of one or only a few parts, (wheels, seat, frame, axle) there may be no insuperable obstacle to it coming about gradually through classical trial and error approaches. (Stretching this for bicycles.) Consider though a more realistic analogy. ATP. How did a cellular function allowing for phosphorylation initially come about? What would have been the irreducible core of that irreducibly complex system? ATP plus an enzyme enabling the transfer of a phosphate? Would there not also have to be in place a system enabling the recharging of adenosine diphophate? Is this the entire irreducible core? I believe IC provides a good perspective within which to assess possible pathways. How is Dembski's depiction so off the mark or is it?
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 2:39 am
January 4th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Bradford,
Casey's bicycle analogy illustrates a fundamental problem with the IC argument: functionality is in the eye of the beholder. Casey thinks a bicycle with one wheel is not functional, the boy in the video clearly disagrees. People who cannot ride a bike may view its irreducible core as including four wheels.
I am not a biologist, so I won't argue about ATP with you. However, the blood-clotting cascade, discussed at length elsewhere, is a great illustration. Behe delineated what he thought was an irreducible core. Miller pointed out species lacking some of those parts. So much for irreducibility.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 10:51 am
January 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Olegt:
This can't be true or you might as well dispose of the concept of function altogether. A bicycle with no wheels would be dysfunctional. You could argue that one could push a frame with feet but I would respond that you are not pushing a bike. Parts within a whole have roles to play. Exploring minimal function is not some esoteric idea. It has its uses.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Bradford,
My problem is that functionality of a bike is a subjective characteristic.
Let's define n as the minimum number of wheels that make a bicycle functional. There is no objective way to determine n. Probably everyone agrees with you that n>0, but that's where the consensus ends. Some people (like me) think that n=1, others (Luskin) maintain that n=2, and I'm sure there are those who would say n=4. So n is a fuzzy number and IC becomes a fuzzy concept.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Olegt, n could equal any number greater than zero and one could reasonably argue that a bike exists assuming something more than wheels exist. If n=0 there is a problem as the transport capability is removed (a basic feature of bikes). Once a definition is agreed upon minimal function becomes a matter of observing operations when parts are selectively removed. An irreducible core would correspond to complete inoperability. If a definition includes a maximum number of wheels m then one could state that a bike includes a range in the number of wheels n>0. n < (m+1).
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Bradford wrote:
So that would make n=1, right?
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 1:49 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Right.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
So Luskin is wrong?
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
He's wrong about bikes.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
I actually find Casey's analogy very interesting and useful, but not in the way he intended.
For instance, take the front wheel off of MY bike, and I guarantee that I will go nowhere. But take the front wheel off of Joy's bike and she will likely cruise merrily away.
If bike riding were a necessity for survival, I'd get eaten every time while Joy would scamper away unharmed.
The difference is that Joy practiced for weeks or months and I didn't, ergo Joy has acquired some information that I did not. It took information to make it happen. Because of this information (or lack therof), my bike is effectively "IC", but Joy's bike is not.
And of course, the notion that Casey was "pwned again!" offers us not a single iota of data about how we learned to ride the bike in the first place, or where bikes came from.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Embrace the fuzz, oleg. Embrace the fuzz…
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
olegt:
Okay, maybe Behe might have been wrong about what he believed to be an irreducible core. In other words the IC core is much smaller than either he or Luskin describes. But, does it follow there is no irreducible core?
Please notice, that Miller writes: “The lamprey genome does contain a single gene, somewhat related to Factor X and Factor V, but not identical to either.”
So what is he arguing? Because lampreys use different Factors the lamprey blood clotting cascade it isn’t IC? And, therefore vertebrate blood clotting cascades aren’t IC? In other words, if you perform a knock out experiment: remove, for example, one of the equivalent factors the lamprey blood cascade will it continue to function? Unfortunately, Mr. Miller doesn’t bother to deal with any these questions. So much for his criticism.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 4, 2009 @ 2:17 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
chunkdz,
Luskin is too narrowly minded about what constitutes a functional bike. He thinks the function of a bike is limited to riding with both wheels on the ground. As we've seen, it can have other functions.
And how about an exercise bike? It may not have wheels at all and still be useful to its owner.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 2:26 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
olegt:
Actually, your objection to the bicycle analogy is just as flawed, on definitional grounds. A unicycle has one wheel, hence "uni," and is not particularly useful (i.e., functional) for getting from point A to point B. It's a stunt-mobile, useful mostly for entertaining people who think it's terminally ridiculous and for breaking your own bones. Which, after all, can be quite humorous to watchers who see it as ridiculous.
A bicycle has two wheels, hence "bi." There are no bicycles with one wheel that serve the function of a bicycle, since one wheel does not a bicycle make. A tricycle has three wheels, hence "tri." Surely you can grasp this. Wheels turn, can be used in a number of locomotion contraptions employing any number of wheels. It's plain dumb to argue that a bicycle is not a proper analogy for bicycle function because semis have 18 wheels.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 2:52 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
olegt:
Sorry, were you talking to me?
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2009 @ 2:54 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Joy wrote:
I'm afraid this argument is pure semantics. In Russian both the bicycle and the unicycle (and the tricycle) are denoted by the same word велосипед. Your objection would not work in that language, so it cannot be valid.
As to unicycles looking ridiculous, who cares? They're functional in their own way, aren't they?
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 3:55 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
You're saying like it's not a big deal that Behe was wrong. He drew a line in the sand and said: animals lacking any part from the core cannot survive. Miller pointed out several counter examples (which Behe should have known), so Behe's line in the sand was fiction. Now you're saying, oh, we'll draw another line. Fine, but don't tell us this is science. It's a standard creationist argument: nature can't do this or that.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Olegt, your commentary is fine but would it be accurate to describe you as the Swamp's designated hitter?
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 4:34 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Bradford,
I volunteered.
The swamp doesn't care much about TT to designate a hitter. The Telic Thoughts Thread hasn't been refreshed since Christmas. UD, as always, provides much more entertainment. Particularly now that Steve Fuller is posting there.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 4:39 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
I found this in the archives at IS:
http://intelligent-sequences.blogspot.com/2008/01/casey-luskin-on-irreducible-complexity.html
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Olegt:
Christmas?!? Isn't that around the same time you resumed your TT commentaries. Maybe they don't think you are provocative enough.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
olegt:
Unicycles have no "function," they exist purely for entertainment/stunt purposes – though they do qualify as machines. They are NOT useful in any other application, including the primary function of all other wheeled vehicles (such as a bicycle), which is getting a person/load from point A to point B with a minimum of effort. A ball has no "function," though humans use them as toys, for exercise, to juggle (entertainment), for sports and games. We use sticks as digging tools, bats, for throwing, to steady our walking and to beat animals and other people. Balls and sticks aren't machines.
The IC machine in question – which you recognize but not as specific to the function Luskin uses for example – is wheel and axle. When the wheel turns the axle turns at a differential rate depending on size, usually the axle turns much faster than the wheel. Power (force) applied to either component will turn the other component. This is true of all wheel and axle constructs, no matter how they are powered or how they are put to use.
A wheel alone is not a machine, it's just a round thing. Only if it has an axle is it a potentially functional machine for our purposes, thus "wheel and axle" is an IC machine. A rod may exist alone, but it won't serve the axle's functions unless it's attached to the wheel. Either could be classified as "tool" or "toy" or "weapon" humans use because they can. To be a functional machine the necessary parts must exist together in particular arrangement.
Living cells produce the most complex machines in existence, so it's a bit difficult to analogize them. I do not think it matters for the purposes (function) of those machines that pieces-parts in isolation may (or may not) be adaptable to another application, any more than it matters to a wheel-axle screw pump that the wheel-axle could be used to grind grain or turn brushes in a generator.
Sure, Miller could maybe make a living arguing analogies with Behe or Luskin if Behe and Luskin were willing to go on tour with him and someone out there was willing to pay them to watch. Or their war can go on forever in some other medium, whether they get paid or not. But who the heck really cares? I don't think Irreducible Complexity is all that big a deal anyway, since the sheer complexity of the machinery in cells makes our locomotives and printing presses look pretty puny.
Yet we never see locomotives or printing presses (or 747s) assembling themselves out of stray round things, sticks, rocks, rain, wind or scrap metal, nor has anyone ever seen a complex functional molecular machine assemble itself by happenstance in a living cell. Miller tells us they do it accidentally anyway, because he believes that. Ho, hum.
I believe I can reasonably presume design in any complex functional machine regardless of whether I know who built it. I don't think an argument to IC matters, because I don't buy the finished machine as accidental no matter how many simple machine parts go into its construction, how many steps there are in the assembly instructions, or what other uses those simple parts could be put to in another application.
I don't believe in magic matter, so I'd still rather pay to see Led Zeppelin than Gen-X's version of the O'Leary-Liddy tour.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Joy wrote:
You got it backwards, Joy. Ken Miller makes a living as a professor of biology at Brown. It's Casey Luskin who is a professional clown.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 5:34 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Well, what do you know: Joy's thought on the lack of function in unicycles made it to the swamp. And I agree with the commenter that it's funny.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
olegt:
First of all, I did not say Behe was wrong. I said “maybe Behe might have been wrong” (about the size of the irreducible core)
“…does it follow there is no irreducible core?” You didn’t answer that question. My point was even if he was wrong about some of the details it doesn’t counter his main argument.
By the way, I don’t think Behe was wrong. I think his analysis on the (vertebrate) blood clotting cascade (BCC) still stands. Notice neither you or Miller refuted Behe, or have you been able to explain how the blood clotting cascade evolved in the first place. All Miller establishes is that the BCC is different and perhaps simpler(?) for one particular invertebrate the lamprey compared to vertebrates. He then tries to insinuate that because we find a different BCC in lampreys that now the vertebrate BCC in is no longer irreducibly complex.
Behe is not creationist and doesn’t argue that way. I give you some arguments from DBB.
Look at you, you arguing about analogies. Is that science? Are you an Aristotelian?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 4, 2009 @ 5:45 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
JOHN_A_DESIGNER wrote:
Miller quoted a recent paper that showed the lack of Factor V in lampreys. Factor V is part of Behe's irreducible core. And note that Miller didn't have to show how the system evolved from scratch. It suffices to show that systems lacking parts from the irreducible core actually exist.
And it's not me who came up with analogies, it's Casey. Tell him to stop.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
olegt:
Um… nope. I am a professional clown, oleg. Luskin is a lawyer, which is the technical title for professional liars. And a sometimes earth scientist, he says.
A wheelbarrow has function as a one-wheeled conveyance – a machine to make transferring loads easier (i.e., does "work") – but perhaps I should have specified "useful" function in the case of a unicycle. I don't consider a machine designed to break bones while stubbornly thwarting your every attempt to get from here to there to be particularly "useful," but I suppose your mileage must differ. I'm sure the local mountain bikers would just love to feature you and your unicycle in the Assault on Mt. Mitchell next year, for entertainment value of course. Making people laugh is all it's good for.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
As olegt has pointed out, Miller is actually responding to those ever-evil IDists. He goes on to outline this plot to enslave the world:
Joy, do you want to go on record as stating that IDists in "Louisiana, Texas, and other states" will not try to influence science education (specifically undermining the teaching of evolution) in the next couple of years? With Meyer appointed to the six-member committee reviewing the draft set of Texas state science standards, that would be a brave claim, so it is no surprise that you do not make it, prefering instead to merely imply that Miller is scare-mongering to consider the threat. I know this will be dismissed as "theatiness", and yet I doubt you will want to go so far as to assure us it will not happen. Personally, I think this is the real issue that the OP raises, and not whether a bicycle with one wheel can be ridden!
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 4, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Pixie:
Are you sure Miller wrote his own introduction, referring to himself in the third person? Because that would strike me a whole lot odder than the so-scary hyperinflated threatiness of the intro compared to the actual 'meat' of the post, which was certainly a lot less red than whatever dead things are used to make Spam.
Of course not, that would be dumb. Somebody's always trying to influence science education, it's a regular way of Culture War life in this country. It doesn't strike my heart with abject, debilitating terror. But then, neither does Osama bin Laden. Guess I'm weird that way.
The unicycle as means of transportation was oleg's red herring, not mine. I know about unicycles, have a couple of them myself (along with the scars to prove it). They are NOT useful for that purpose and were never designed to be, whether any of us thinks that design is particularly intelligent.
The Skatecycles, on the other hand, are really quite fun and actually WILL get you from point A to point B without busting your head open or gifting you with terminal road rash. Heck, they've even got a loop-handle welded to the front of the banana seat so you can hold on, a chain drive, and back-brakes. Maybe I'll replace tire and chain, grease up the gears, get new trucks and skateboard wheels and show off in the grocery store parking lot when the weather warms up! You can't believe the ease of 360s with one of those. And I've always been befuddled as to why they never took off big time, considering how dangerous unicycles are and how popular freeform skateboarding is.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Wasn't Behe using human blood clotting in his example? If so how is the lamprey condition relevant in evolutionary terms? Doesn't the concept of IC relate to causes and effects when all is said and done?
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Just in case anyone cares, mountain unicycling has been around for awhile. Does this mean that bicycles are not IC? Hardly. Does a unicycle require more non-hereditary acquired information to be as useful as a bicycle? Definitely.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2009 @ 9:09 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Gee Oleg, if you don't believe Behe then just remove all the Factor V from your body and slit your wrists. You will be remembered as a brave and valiant culture warrior. They'll probably post a fine memorial to you over at the swamp.
Comment by chunkdz — January 4, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
chunkdz:
ROTFLOL!!! Aw, geez. Now I'm going to have to get knobbies for both the cycle wheel and the skate wheels – plus SuperTracker trucks. I promise to take pictures as I make the climb (and ford the creek in three places) all 3 miles from here to the Indian ruins at Heartbreak Ridge. But no, I will NOT be taking those unis down again in my lifetime, and not even my grandchildren have ever asked me to. They know better… §;o)
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 9:56 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Bradford wrote:
No, he discusses the possibility of evolution of blood clotting, so he definitely means animals in general. Here is a quote from his Dover testimony:
As Miller pointed out, proaccelerin, a.k.a. Factor V, is missing in lampreys.
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Please notice again what I wrote earlier. I quoted Miller as saying “The lamprey genome does contain a single gene, somewhat related to Factor X and Factor V, but not identical to either.” So, even if it lacks Factor V (proacelerin) and factor X (the Stuart factor) there is a lamprey gene that is related and carries out the same function.
Behe describe this process in quite some detail. On page 83 of DBB he explains that it’s something of a chicken and egg paradox. He writes: “Even activated Stuart factor can’t turn on prothrombin. Stuart factor and prothrombin can be mixed in a test tube for longer than it would take a large animal to bleed to death without any noticeable production of thrombin. It turns out that another protein, called accelerin is needed to increase the activity of Stuart factor. The dynamic duo– accelerin and activated Stuart factor– cleave prothrombin fast enough to do the bleeding animal some good… [But] accelerin also exists in an inactive form called proaccelerin…” [This is factor V which also must be activated.]
The chicken and egg paradox is that proaccelerin (factor V) must be activated by thrombin which actually occurs later in the process. How does that happen? Why don’t you read Darwin’s Black Box and find out.
Now which part of this process can you leave out and still have blood clotting occur in vertebrates? Just because the process occurs differently in lampreys doesn’t mean that it is suddenly not IC for vertebrates.
The whole point Behe had in writing Darwin’s Black Box was to challenge Darwinists to explain how such systems could evolve in a gradualist step by step way.
So is Darwinian evolution something we must take on faith?
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 4, 2009 @ 10:32 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
This is unclear writing. "Beyond the fork" but in what direction, towards or away from the human evolution end? But, I'm interested in the details of both systems. Since the overarching theme to IC was design the means by which irreducible cores were developed is a key question.
Comment by Bradford — January 4, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
I went to Kris Holm's site. That's not mountain, it's salt-flats!!!
Here is a useful (for fun and entertainment without serious injury) machine…
…and it's a "Skate Bike" as opposed to "Skatecycle." That's what it was given to me as, perhaps a real title back in the early-mid '80s.
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Bradford,
the fork is not in the evolutionary tree, it's in the blood-clotting cascade of an animal.
JOHN_A_DESIGNER,
Are you sure that gene "carries out the same function" as Factor V? Maybe you should ask Ken Miller or Carl Zimmer directly?
Comment by olegt — January 4, 2009 @ 11:02 pm
January 4th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Oh, y'all really have to read this one…
History for Kossacks: Lizard People
As always with Unitary Moonbat, priceless. §;o)
Comment by Joy — January 4, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
January 5th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Joy, I believe you were made for this event!
I saw this guy in last month's issue of Backpacker magazine and I thought it was a spoof or something. But it's for real and this guy is one of the pioneers. Amazing!
Comment by chunkdz — January 5, 2009 @ 12:35 am
January 5th, 2009 at 6:40 am
Joy
No, I do not think he did. And I do not see why you might think that I do. The bit I quoted was Miller, not Zimmer introducing Miller.
Right. Miller is reacting against that. You like to trivialise it as "threatiness", even while you admit the threat is real.
Do you really, honestly think Miller is saying that it strikes his heart with "abject, debilitating terror"? Of course he is not. But this sort of hype sure does help fuel the culture war, eh, Joy?
It was Luskin who brought it up originally. If you want a real discussion about the science, talk about the ICness of the blood clotting system; tell us how Luskin is right and Miller is wrong.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 5, 2009 @ 6:40 am
January 5th, 2009 at 9:25 am
I see there is another respond to Luskin's articles at Panda's Thumb.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/god-of-the-gapsin-your-own-knowledge-luskin-behe-blood-clotting.html
A brief extract:
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 5, 2009 @ 9:25 am
January 5th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Pixie:
I don't see any threat, Pix. It's only True Believers in the strange idea that near-adults in the deepest throes of rampaging hormones are some sort of "blank slate" onto which an absolute faith in provisional (and already outdated) theory can be carved into neural stone who are terrified of alternative points of view. I am not one of those.
I think you may have me confused with someone who cares what Luskin and/or Miller have to say. My OP was pretty clear, or I sure tried to make it clear, that it's a tempest in a teapot, makes Miller look a lot like a desperate schmuck, and that the whole Chicken Little act is beyond boring. Notice the post tags, Pixie. Humor, Just For Fun, The Critics. If I had wanted a real discussion about the science I'd have gone looking for some halfway interesting science to have a discussion about.
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2009 @ 12:22 pm
January 5th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Joy
You seem to agree with Miller and I that the DI CSC will attempt to undermine evolution education. I appreciate that that does not bother you, and therefore you do not see that as a threat. It does bother Miller and I, so we perceive it as a threat.
Excellent culture warrioring, Joy!
You make it sound as though there is no point in educating teenagers at all and yet I am sure you do not really believe that. My personal opinion is that school pupils should not be taught that astrology is science. They should not be taught that UFOlogy is science. And they should not be taught that intelligent design is science. None of them are science, none of them should be taught as science. I do not think the level of hormones in the students is at all relevant to that.
I see. You do not care what Miller says, your only point is that Miller is a "desperate schmuck" for responding to a series of posts by Luskin that specifically address what Miller has said in the past. Basically, the OP is an ad hom. directed at Miller.
So what does that make Luskin, who made the initial posts? Oh, wait. Luskin is on your side of the culture war, so naturally you will not call him a "desperate schmuck" for dragging up a debate that is three years dead.
Strange it was not tagged ad hom. as well.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 5, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
January 5th, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Pixie:
Then I fully expect you and Miller to be steadfast culture warriors until you get old enough to realize living your life in fear is a waste of precious time. I don't think the DI is doing much of anything these days but sending out emails, and I've no idea what a CSC is. US high schools will continue to teach evolution just as they have been doing for the past 40+ years, though the textbooks aren't quite so full of falsehoods and theological arguments these days, and there is a lot more honesty about open questions plus some criticisms, plus some introduction to systems bio and 'controversial' new sub-theories and OOL ideas these days. Perhaps some schools will place copies of ID books in their libraries without it outraging anyone enough to file suit, so you might not hear about it and Miller might not get 'expert witness' fees.
The world won't end, science will be just fine anyway. Really.
Nobody's going to be teaching ID as science. Nor astrology, alchemy or UFOlogy. Students will inevitably learn about these things as part of the history, from their classmates, or on TV, in newspapers and magazines, in books, online, and in movies (where UFOs are ever-popular). A large percentage of the girls will begin the daily habit of reading their horoscopes that will last most of their lives regardless of you or anyone else telling them it's bunk. Some will spend their hefty allowance on luck charms, healing crystals, magic amulets and love potions. Some will even try their hand at casting spells. That sort of thing tends to go away relatively quickly once the girls grow up, engage in serious relationships and go to work in the real world. A few will become full-fledged witches, assume silly aliases like "Madame Ruby" or "Priestess Fawn" and make a pretty good living casting spells for teenage girls with more money than brains. It has always been thus.
The world won't end, science will be just fine anyway. Honest.
I don't pay much attention to one-trick ponies. Looks like you pay enough attention for both of us, so there's no reason for me to bother.
The OP is a humorous take on a PZ referral to a guest post on some other blog that didn't live up to the hyperbolic rhetoric of the intro. Same old same old same. I lampooned Miller, Matzke, Myers, Swamp denizens, Timothy O'Leary, G. Gordon Liddy and Gnarly Old Guys. Which one do you think will be the first to sue me, an obscure internet pseud, for my opinion? Should be great fun.
I don't follow what Luskin says. I don't follow Miller either, but PZ's referral included cites from the threaty-threat intro, so I had to go look. Found nothing of interest. There is no law or intertubes rule that requires me to find interest – or threat – in whatever interests or frightens you. That's reality, Pix.
The world won't end, science will be just fine anyway.
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
January 5th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Joy wrote:
Pot calling kettle black.
Lawyers and witnesses for the plaintiffs (Ken Miller included) worked on the case pro bono [1]. All of the defendants' witnesses (the ID side) charged a $100/hour fee. With one exception: Dr. Dr. Dembski, who did not even testify, charged the Thomas Moore Law Center $200/hour for his estimated 115 hours of work. Dembski even threatened to sue TMLC if they didn't pay up [2].
[1] Barbara Forrest, The “Vise Strategy” Undone: Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District.
[2] Denyse O'Leary, Key ID theorist threatens to sue intelligent design supporters in Dover, Pennsylvania case.
Discuss.
Comment by olegt — January 5, 2009 @ 11:32 pm
January 5th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
LOL!!! That tells me these guys aren't as dumb as you think, know which side their toast is buttered on. Though it's ever so noble of your gang to do it all for free. I'm sure that rates brownie points with the supporters, and I'd expect 'em to continue providing their expert testimony for free if there are any future lawsuits. They've set the precedent, that's what people will expect.
I once had to pay expert fees to people I sued, to testify for the other side. Just one of the many things I discovered about the Amerikan Injustice System that confirmed my long-held opinion of lawyers.
Comment by Joy — January 5, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Joy
Joy, I cannot help but notice that you are a major contributor to a blog that is waging the culture war. This reads like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
You really do not know what the DI CSC is? Wow!
I agree that the world will not end. Is any one suggesting that it will, or is this just more of your culture warrioring, Joy?
Will science be fine? I am not so sure. My guess is that many creationists would like creationism taught as science. I think it is worthwhile trying to stop that. Perhaps you do not think that is so, or perhaps you do not care if creationism is taught as science.
That is right, because people like Miller are making a stand to stop it.
You pay enough attention to dedicate a thread to Miller, but not enough to read what he says. I understand that fine now.
Joy, you ae of course free to post whatever you like. I am disappointed your post comes down to a personal attack, but not exactly surprised. I am glad you give me the freedom to put across my point of view.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 6, 2009 @ 5:41 am
January 6th, 2009 at 9:39 am
More on "threatiness":
Here is an article at NCSE about how two bills designed to undermine evolution education were stopped in Michigan.
http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/12/antievolution-bills-dead-michigan-003397
And here is one about a failed attempt to get the DI's "strengths and weaknesses" propaganda into Texan science education.
http://ncseweb.org/news/2008/12/strengths-weaknesses-nixed-texas-003446
The reason these attempts failed is because people like Miller take the threat seriously, and make the effort to stand against the attempts.
Here in the UK, a creationist web site claims:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/blogcategory/51/63/
"Three in 10 science teachers believe creationism should be taught in science lessons, according to a new survey."
Personally, I consider that to be a threat to science education. All three of these articles were published just last month, by the way.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 6, 2009 @ 9:39 am
January 6th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Pixie:
Actually, this is "an independent blog about intelligent design," not a dot-org, not a function of a dot-org, not affiliated with any politician or political party, not affiliated with any church or denomination, not a commercial enterprise, and not a fund-raiser. No one here (at least on the ID side of things) is paid to play, there is no editorial board or gatekeeper to filter posts and comments, no Mission Statement, no plans of action, no list of characters, weapons and magic powers, no twelve-sided dice.
There is nothing wrong with computer literate individuals discussing biology, evolution, intelligent design or any other subject of interest. That is what a blog is supposed to be. No horses, dogs, cats, rabbits, hedgehogs, scientists or humans were harmed in the making of this blog or any of its posts, and while I do admit that I am in material possession of a guillotine (it's out in the shed along with those dangerous unicycles), it cannot actually chop anyone's head off. It's just an expensive magic show prop.
I didn't come here by way of the DI, or Dembski's blog or on rec by any notable in that dot-org or its religious base. Don't pay much attention to the goings on, either. I come here to discuss ID, biology, evolution and any other subject of interest on the bill today, with people who share those interests.
It is illegal in this country to teach creationism in public schools. Yes, it is occasionally tried anyway, but so far no state legislatures or school boards have managed to circumvent the law as established by the SCOTUS. Eventually even the most tireless of warriors will have to give up and settle for teaching creationism in sunday school or at home.
In the meantime there are many brave and stalwart Culture Warriors scouring the nation's legislatures, school boards and classrooms to prevent any possible heresies, challenges to scientific orthodoxy, critical thinking, exposure to current research and understanding of the philosophical basis and limitations of the scientific endeavor. Obviously there is no need for me to concern myself with the all-consuming fear that some teenager somewhere might hear about or be taught something unorthodox in science class.
Comment by Joy — January 6, 2009 @ 11:56 am
January 6th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Pixie to Joy:
Pixie, you should take note of the fact that although Joy and I generally agree on ID issues we tend to disagree on "culture war" matters. The evidence for this is found in some TT threads. That fact tends to refute your idea that this blog is waging a culture war. Hard to do that when TT contributors have different views on the war.
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 12:11 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Joy
Ah, right. So when you blog, it is "computer literate individuals discussing biology, evolution, intelligent design or any other subject of interest". When Miller blogs, he is living his life in fear and it is a waste of precious time. Strange how this culture war colours your perception Joy.
Hence they devised intelligent design, teach the controversy, stengths and weaknesses, and so it goes on.
Do you honestly believe Miller has an "all-consuming fear", Joy? Or is this just more of the culture war hype?
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 6, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Pixie:
No, when Miller blogs he's just doing the same old pony trick that is his Culture War claim to fame. He can re-hash it for the rest of his life, probably will. It was the intro – by Carl Zimmer – that contained all the hyper-threaty hyperbole, no doubt an attempt to generate some interest in Miller's pony trick, which is old and not particularly interesting.
"They" who? ID is much older than the last anti-creationism ruling. In fact, it's older than Neodarwinism, Darwinism, Lamarkism or any other ism. It'll still be around long after the DI no longer exists. It won't be science, but I'd suspect that when the dust clears something that looks more like EAM than Darwinian Orthodoxy will be science. The world will not end, science will be just fine.
No, I believe he has a pony trick and is apparently insecure enough about it to be very concerned that it might not be as important as he would like others to believe it is. So he is motivated to keep defending the DI's validity as a terrible threat to science and human civilization so he still has an excuse to cling to his Culture Warrior fame.
But I'll just let Miller speak for himself on this, from Part 3 of his guest postings…
"What mischief are they [Luskin and the DI, ed.] planning now? The only conclusion I can draw is that they must be maneuvering for the next round of state board hearings or legislative sessions – and I'm concerned."
Miller admits he is striving to keep his walk-on part in the war alive, and to evangelize his cause to potential new recruits. Because he's "concerned" that Luskin and the DI might someday manage to get a law passed or a curriculum set that would pass Constitutional muster and allow some high school student somewhere to entertain the thought that life and evolution might not be entirely accidental and purposeless.
Culture Warriors must have a designated Very Scary Enemy [VSE] in order to justify their warrior-hood. I don't think Luskin and the DI qualify.
Comment by Joy — January 6, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Joy
Joy, he was responding to a series of three articles by Luskin. Articles that mention Miller by name. Articles entitled:
* How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade (Part 1)
* How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade (Part 2)
* How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade (Part 3)
I mean, okay, you are trying to spin this for the culture war, but really, Joy, get a grip on reality. Miller was not just rehashing an old argument for the sake of it, he was responding to specific accusations by a DI CSC hac. If he does continue to re-hash it for the rest of his life, it will probably be because the DI CSC will be continually trying to respin their defeat at Dover for many years to come.
Oh. See I was imagining your OP was about Miller, and not Zimmer. What with you mentioning Miller FIVE times. And Zimmer ZERO times. If I was cynical, I would now be thinking that you had changed your argument…
The DI CSC.
The ideas behind ID are as old as the hills, sure. I was thinking more of the ID strategy, devised as a way to sneak creationism into schools. In the same way, strengths and weaknesses have been around a while, but the particular strategy of using strengths and weaknesses as a way to undermine evolution education is (as far as I know) a very recent thing.
Or we can spin it the other way. Miller is concerned the ID/creationists will continue in their attempts, and wants to do his best to stop them. I guess it is a question of which side of the culture war you are on.
By the way, Bradford, have you noticed that Miller and I are on the same side of the culture war – even though we have very different metaphysics, what with him being a Christian and me an atheist. You might like to ponder how that can possibly be.
This is why we see the word "materialist" thrown around so much. Those creationists need a VSE to scare the Christians to their cause.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 6, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Pixie:
The culture war covers a lot of ground Pixie. I don't know enough about Miller's views on other culture war matters. Do you?
Comment by Bradford — January 6, 2009 @ 6:02 pm
January 6th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Pixie:
I know. I also think it's cool that this new technology allows in-science Culture Warriors to battle it out in public without having to jump the hurdles of peer review or editorial censorship. And I imagine quite a few people are more interested than I am, which is why I posted and provided links.
I just don't find it to be particularly interesting, it doesn't peg my threat-o-meter, and it's not even pertinent to anything but Kitzmiller, which was decided three years ago and not appealed. Though it is somewhat ironic to once again see that the tactics of scientific orthodoxy in defense of dogma have not changed since the Velikovsky Affair.
I've long wondered at what level of scientific training they teach Defense Against the Dark Arts. Of course, I've also long wondered about the precise timing of when lawyers sell their souls. Mere curiosity.
Um… nope. I'm just expressing my opinion of how pointless the interminable re-hash is. For Luskin as well as for Miller. THEY are Culture Warriors, I am merely opinionated.
Who cares (besides old Culture Warriors)? It's over.
You know, it wouldn't hurt you a bit to actually READ the post, under the guidance of the tags I attached to it, to see if you are capable of parsing its nature and intent. But yeah, I know that's too much to expect.
I'd be careful of that stereotype, Pix. It's riddling your responses with error. Perhaps Luskin is a creationist (I don't know), but Behe's not, and the subject both ways in these charges/refutations is Behe.
The way science works is that it develops provisional theories about things that are purposefully limited to the state of empirical knowledge (observation and testing of facts and the technology to do so). Often new technologies and new ideas render those provisional theories passe, they are eventually put on the shelf of history while new theories are developed. And at some later point in the march of ever-changing science, new textbooks are written to reflect the new knowledge and theories. In some fast-moving fields (like biology at present), the textbooks are already out of date – IOW, not very accurate at representing the current state of knowledge and theory – by the time they get into the hands of teachers and students.
Thus teaching students about the philosophy and nature of science itself, critical thinking skills, and a hearty respect for its entirely provisional-in-time incompleteness is good. If students are interested in science – and a great many in the public are interested – the best tool they could come out of school with is the ability and desire to keep on learning. Anyone who stubbornly holds to provisional theories they received decades ago as some sort of Absolute, Inviolable Truth is going to look mighty dumb asserting those outdated theories long after they've been shelved.
Thus I do not consider examination of strengths and weaknesses in current theory to "undermine" science education at all.
Perhaps that is true for creationists. I wouldn't know, because I am not one. Though I do view materialism as anachronism, since science demonstrated its essential vacuity before you and I were born. It has no more business being taught as science than creationism does.
Comment by Joy — January 6, 2009 @ 9:00 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Bradford
Nevertheless, I am sure that Miller and I hold some very different views on some fundamental issues, and I am also sure that Miller and I are on the same side in this culture war thing. So when you say you and Joy disagree, I find that less than convincing that this blog is engaging in the culture war. n the last month or so several new contributors to TT have been announced. All of them firmly on your side of the culture war. Strange that.
Perhaps you could state for the record if you side with Joy on the issues she mentions in the OP? Go on, surprise me; be on my side for once. Like I can see that happening…
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 7, 2009 @ 4:26 am
January 7th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Joy
Reading the OP, I got the impression you were using Miller's articles as evidence that Miller is a "one trick pony", and that his reason for posting the articles was merely to prove his own relevance. You did say: "which desperately attempts to make the whole Miller versus Behe thing pertinent because Miller NEEDS it to be pertinent or else HE is not pertinent", which seems to entirely miss the point that Miller was responding to Luskin's accusations about about Miller. Or how about this: "Poor Ken Miller. He finds that he's entirely irrelevant without his favorite bogey-man Behe. Must not be getting those big, big speaking fees these days." Again, you appeared to be trying to paint Miller as someone re-hashing an old argument for his own glorification. Now that might be the case, but the evidence in this instance points to Miller wanting to defend himself against Luskin's accusations.
With regards to this new technology, it would seem entirely appropriate for Miller to respond to Luskin on a blog, given that Luskin made the accusations on a blog.
You just figured you could use it to score a few points for your side in the culture war, eh?
No problem.
Makes you wonder why Luskin is trying to respin it. It was – as you well know – Luskin who dragged up the issue in the first place. So why direct your post at Miller? Oh, yeah, Luskin is on your side, Miller is on mine. It is all culture war, is it not?
How odd that Luskin is not mentioned in your OP, when he was the one who brought up the issue in the first place. Why was your OP directed at Miller, who merely responded to Luskin, while not mentioning Luskin at all, who started the exchange? Are you sure you are not a culture warrior?
Sure, poking fun at the critics, and ignoring that those on your side are doing the same thing. Hilarious, Joy.
Remember the Kitzmiller trial? Judge Jones examined the evidence presented by both sides, and determined that ID was being used to sneak creationism into schools (that does not mean all IDists want that, but I only said ID was used as a strategy to achive that end).
Behe was an author of Of Pandas and People, a school textbook with the aim of getting creationism into schools (again, as was proved in a court of law at Dover). Why Behe would do that as he is not a creationist, I do not know, but do it he did. This page suggests Luskin is indeed a creationist.
All well and good, but…
I might agree if this was not a stratgey by the ID movement that specifically targets evolution. Here is an article by Jonathan Witt of the DI CSC, which advocates teaching the strengths and weaknesses of evolution:
See, Joy, these people are not interested in showing how science in general is provisional and tentative. This is about attacking specifically evolution.
Creationists, eh? Maybe. Here is a Google search of TT for the word "materialists". 173 pages with the word. I guess there are a lot of creationists around here. Here is a thread by someone called Joy. From the OP: "I do not know why the reductionists and materialists I've encountered resist this likelihood with so much emotional investment."
Of course, you are right about materialism. It has been disproved long ago, and I doubt any scientist today holds to materialism. That is what makes it so obvious that the use of the word is just shield bashing by the culture warriors.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 7, 2009 @ 6:57 am
January 7th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Pixie:
I don't wonder about Luskin, don't pay any attention to what he's up to. I've explained this several times, so why are you being such a twit about it? Miller obviously cares about what Luskin's up to, and PZ obviously thinks whatever Miller does is big time 'Important'. It was PZ who had the link to Miller's piece, so it was Miller's 3-parter that re-hashed ho-hum old news as if he were a one-trick pony. Boring. Yes it IS all Culture War, all the time. Looking ever more desperate and lonely by the day.
If Miller were to simply shrug and mention that Luskin's re-hash is a throw-away because the decision came in three years ago and IT'S OVER, then Luskin would look like the one-trick pony and the Culture Warriors would have a laugh at his expense (though hardly anyone else – including me – cares what Luskin has to say). Instead, Miller got sucked into being the one-trick pony and looking like the old soldier who tells the same old war stories every day to people who stopped listening years ago. Sad.
Proper teaching of the nature, methodology and philosophy of science should begin in the first grade, as soon as kids are introduced to science. It should be expanded and reinforced in every science class along the way, all the way through grade 12. Along about grade 9 or 10 the science course is evolution. Physics, earth science, space science, ecological science, sociology, archaeology or forensic science are not taught in the same course as evolution.
It is the specific concern of "these people" that evolution be challenged, in what is taught and how it is taught. IOW, *not* taught as if provisional theory were some sort of Received Wisdom. Because "these people" don't buy the Darwinian anachronism any more than increasing numbers of scientists buy it.
I'm sure you can find a blog or message board out there dedicated to arguing some other science or some other front in the Culture Wars. I suggest that you go find what you are looking for rather than complain about this blog's focus on the evolution front.
Comment by Joy — January 7, 2009 @ 11:55 am
January 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What do you mean by this culture war thing? Kitzmiller?
Then maybe you can inform me as to what JJS P Eng's positions are regarding culture war issues. I have yet to see him make his views known. How about Techne? I've followed his blogs before he became a TT contributor. He is pure science. I thought that is what you critics have been demanding.
My take on Miller and Kitzmiller has not changed. I thought the actions of the Board made Judge Jones's decision a foregone conclusion. My beef with Jones was his delving into broader issues not needed to resolve the case at hand. His courtroom was an inappropriate venue in which to decide matters like irreducible complexity. As for Miller, he is productive when staying within the boundaries of biology. When he strays into legal matters or takes strong anti-teleology positions I might have differences with him.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Is it possible that he honestly saw this as a legal issue that was, in fact, within his purview? I think his actions were perfectly reasonable: the question of whether IC and other ID proposals are science was central to the issue. I wouldn't have been surprised if Jones had dodged around ID because, as you suggest, he could have ruled against the school board without ruling on ID. The fact that he felt he needed to and could address ID head on tells me that he was sufficiently convinced that there was a legal question and that he could answer it.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 2:18 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
This is precisely the point. You judge Miller without even considering the context of his comments.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 2:21 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
dp:
I didn't judge Miller, I said it's the same old same old same, an instant replay of his testimony in Kitzmiller which was OVER three years ago. Boring, and certainly not anywhere close to the threaty-threat the hyper-threaty intro tried to suggest. Nothing to see here, move along.
Comment by Joy — January 7, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
That was the thinking before the case went to court and before the stupid tactics of some board members were exposed. It was anticipated that this was Scopes II. It was not. Judge Jones knows very well that cases can be won and lost on what one might describe as procedural issues. He is eminently qualified to assess such purely legal issues. To address the broader "what is science and does IC and other concepts fall within its purview?" is something about which Judge Jones has no expertise. He is dependent on expert witnesses who in turn wrestle with concepts that great minds of prior generations could not conclusively adjudicate. And after all is said and done the views of a district court judge in Pennsylvannia about IC etc. is a very provincial event- not a big deal to the world or the history of science.
It would have been smart jurisprudence, not a dodge. When a judge can rule on narrow grounds that is the advisable course of action.
Noone doubts that a case could arise in which issues he addressed would have to be decided. It was simply not needed in his court.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Joy
I find it bizarre that you take such an interest in Miller to start this thread (though not enough to care about what he actually wrote), but you have no interest in Luskin. Now if you were a culture warrior, I could understand that; Miller would be your enemy, and you would want to attack him at any opportunity. But you assure me you are not a culture warrior. Very perplexing.
Well, Miller obviously cares when Luskin directs a series of three articles making accusations specifically at Miller. Do you find that behaviour surprising? Do you find that behaviour "sad"? I cannot imagine why you would.
So boring you decided to start a thread up about it. Now I can see why you might do that if you wanted to score points in the culture war, Joy, but you assure me you are not a culture warrior. So what was the point?
I think Luskin has annoyed a few people with his accusations of smoke and mirrors, and not just PZ and Miller. It is a culture war, and the evolutionists are retaliating to an unprovoked attack by the IDists. If you find it boring, shut up about it.
May be. I guess Miller disagrees with your assessment.
What do you base that on?
Here is a Google search for the phrase "evolution news" on TT. 193 pages. Sure, not all will be links to the DI CSC's Evolution News & Views blog, but it looks like a lot of them are. That make me think that a lot of people at TT read the blog posts there. Which further leads me to suspect that a fair number of TTers will have read Luskin's articles.
You may not be interested in what Luskin has to say, but do you really think you are representative of the typical IDist?
Exactly. They do not care one jot about how physics is taught – physics does not threaten their faith based beliefs. It is only evolution they want taught as tentative.
Where do you get this idea about an increasing number of scientists rejecting modern evolutionary theory? Or are they only rejecting Darwinism?
Ironic that by starting a thread about it you have actually generated interest in the issue.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 7, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Bradford
Kitzmiller was certainly a part of it. For those on my side of the war, the war is modern evolutionary theory (and to some degree science in general) vs creationism/ID. For those on the other side, the war is about theism vs materialism.
I am going to stick my neck out here and suggest that both JJS P. Eng and Techne are on the ID side of the war (and I also suspect JJS P. Eng is a creationist too). That is okay; you can pick anyone you like to be a contributer. But out of fourteen contributers (including Mike), how many of them are notID advocates, but instead advocate modern evolutionary theory? I think the number is a big fat zero. And that make me think culture warriors.
Well I guess you missed what the issues are in the OP then.
Let me spell it out for you: Do you think that Miller responding to a series of articles entitled "How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade" by Casey Luskin is good evidence that Miller is a "one trick pony", and that Miller's reason for posting the articles is first and foremost a NEED for the subject to be pertinent so that he is himself pertinent?
Has Miller strayed into legal matters? Certainly, he was called as an expert witness, but as far as I know he talked only about his area of expertise, i.e., biology, and did not give any legal advise or opinions. And as he is a theistic evolutionist, I really doubt he would take indulge in "strong anti-teleology positions".
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 7, 2009 @ 5:29 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Pixie:
You're at an ID blog Pixie. Of course the contributors will have views favorable to ID. The culture war is a much broader topic. Ed Brayton has a blog on culture wars. It covers many things. What makes you think I'm a culture warrior and Ed is not? Or are we all culture warriors in which case what is the point in using the phrase?
BTW, are either Luskin or Miller saying anything new?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
I have a general question for ID critics. Assume I cite a biological system found in humans and identify its components and find that in humans all components cited are needed for function. How is it relevant to point to another species and say that a like function lacks an IC component found in the human system and yet functions fine? Unless of course you are going to draw a evolutionary link between the other species and humans.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 6:45 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Are you or I saying anything new?
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 6:55 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Bradford:
Your last sentence answers your own question.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
It is relevant because it shows that your identification of "a system" and its "components" and its "function" are all arbitrary.
Of course, it may also help establish that there is, in fact, an evolutionary precursor to the "impossible" IC structure, but that's another matter.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 7:00 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Unless of course you are going to draw a evolutionary link between the other species and humans.
Miller writes the following in the linked article:
What is the evolutionary relationship between the lamprey and humans?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 7:04 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
dp:
Biological systems are not arbitrary. They have specified functions within identifiable species.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
The Pixie:
Telic Thoughts' About Us:
(emphasis mine)It's pretty clear from their statement what this blog is about and what brings these particular bloggers together. How would a MET advocate fit/meet this criteria?
Why is it that all of your comments are culture warrioring and almost nothing else, yet you seem to have much disdain for such things? Why do you spend time here, when you seem to have such disdain for the people whom blog here?
Is it just your style to come into someone else's house and shit on their floor, then bitch about how there's nothing but shit on the floor?
Strange that. Wonder why it matters to you so much?
Oh and on an even lamer note (as if such a thing is even possible):
Oooooooh. Move on Pix, this can't be good for the soul… look at those poor obssessed AtBC guys. Sad. Lame. Pathetic. There has got to be better things to do with one's time. Not that making fun of Kansas housewives and retired Dell programmers (etc.), for years on end, isn't loads of fun and intellectual stimulation.
Good.
Grief.
Comment by Rob R. — January 7, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Bradford:
We share a common ancestor very early in the evolution of vertebrates. It seems that lamprey miss 5 of the blood clotting factors that we have. This is evidence that the supposedly IC blood clotting system of humans has evolved from a system with fewer components. It kills Behe's argument.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
What are those factors, Raevmo?
Does it lack fibrinogen, prothrombin, Stuart Factor and proaccelerin?
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
hmmmm, how to respond to this:
1. Aw, Pixie, you make it sound like a BAD thing!
2. You looking to out me, Pix?
3. Uhhh, what a cretin-ist?
Seriously, define what you think a creationist is (and be as specific as possible), and I'll let you know if I am.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 7, 2009 @ 7:35 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
JJS P.Eng,
To be safe he might simply leave it at "if you believe in an eternal, necessary, immaterial being………. you might just be a creationist".
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 7:40 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
GringoRoyale:
Why don't you read the paper for yourself: Doolittle et al. 2008, as referred to upthread.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
You're the melodramatic one: "it kills Behe's argument"
It's a simple question.
Just answer it.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 7:49 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
But that shared ancestor would reveal nothing about the evolution of uniquely human blood clotting components unless you want to endorse a front loading scenario.
This is dissapointing. Behe was familar with the evolution from fewer components argument. But the lamprey citation fills in no empty blanks. Why not instead illustrate possibilities with an organism much closer in an evolutionary time frame to the origin of humans?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Gringo: give me your email and I will send you the paper.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 7:51 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Come on, R.
You said it kills the argument. It very well does.
Yes or no, does it not have those 4 components?
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 7:53 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Bradford:
I'm not following you here. What is unique about human blood clotting factors, and what does this have to do with front loading?
I understand why this is disappointing to you. It shows that Behe was wrong. The vertebrate blood clotting system is clearly not IC.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
And now Raevmo is going to support this by affirming that indeed it doesn't have fibrinogen, prothrombin, proaccelerin, and Stuart Factor.
Raevmo…………..
Also,
Raevmo you said:
Then you don't understand what he is saying. Bradford said in that 1st part of his that you quoted something which is tantamount to saying that "sure, the blood clotting cascade very well could have evolved from a precursor system". And maybe that system doesn't even have those 4 factors I've been pressing you for. So would you mind explaining why that would be a disappointment to him?
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 8:05 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Gringo:
I don't know. I'm not familiar with the names of the components. It has 5 fewer components according to my information. Do you want the paper or not?
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 8:09 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Why? Who better?
The ID claim is that ID falls in some fuzzy debated area of the philosophy of science. The claim of the scientific community is that the reasons ID is not scientific are conclusively established.
I look at it the other way: it is important and revealing that a district court judge thought the matter was so cut and dried that even he could authoritatively answer the question.
Well, I'm no legal expert. Are you? I hear Judge Jones is, so I'd guess he thought there were, in fact, good legal grounds for releasing a more encompassing ruling.
I guess it depends on what we consider "needed". Didn't both sides of the case had asked him to rule on the broader issue? I thought that's what I heard, anyway.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
:putnam:
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 8:12 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Fair enough.
Then how can you say it kills his argument?
Would you like me to read the paper and let you know if it does in fact not include those four factors?
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 8:14 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Gringo:
Why don't you ask Bradford what's disappointing to him? Let me explain my point: Behe argued that the blood clotting system is IC. Yet functional blood clotting systems with fewer components exist. Therefore it is not IC. Therefore no need to suppose that God intervened to create the system.
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 8:24 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Gringo:
Do I really need to know the names of the factors to make my point?
Comment by Raevmo — January 7, 2009 @ 8:27 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Critics of Behe have found that in organisms, which are very distantly related to humans, you can find blood clotting systtems that function without proteins found in human blood clotting systems. So what? The divergence occurred so long ago that any subsequent events that are relevant to explaining the origin of proteins found in humans, but not lampreys for example, are asserted as having resulted from unknown events and unidentified organisms. Refuting Behe means showing a trail with some specificity accounting for the newly evolved proteins. Lampreys are unhelpful in this regard.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
I'm not sure what to make of this. "Biological systems" are entirely arbitrary; we humans identify them based on how we're looking at the organism.
But that's somewhat tangential. The point here is that one system is identified in humans and declared "IC", while another system in another creature that is a reduced example can be arbitrarily declared unrelated.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 8:31 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
If this is true, then IC is entirely useless: all it says is "we don't know how this evolved, therefore it is IC."
Originally IC meant something: "there's a logical reason to call this system IC, and therefore there cannot be an evolutionary path." This form of IC is an interesting assertion, but in that case the IC label is refuted for any given system by showing some other system that's a reduced example of the first. Whether they have a biological relation is unimportant (although invariably they will because that's how evolution works).
This is one of those examples that shows me just how dead ID is. IC was originally proposed to refute evolution, but IDists have worked so long and hard to support this failed ploy that they see no irony in their demands that evolution be used to refute IC.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Instead of lampreys why not look to mammals. How far down the descent trail must we go to find missing some of these?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Yes, you really do need to know the significance of those four factors if you're going to make that statement.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Bradford:
D.P replies with:
Don, how does Bradford's request lead you to that conclusion? Because even if we really, really, really believed we had something that constituted IC then that's exactly what we would at least need to engender some reasonable basis to start doubting the possibility of IC.
Even with that incorrect definition that you state, that you were more pleased with:
You would still need something in line with what Bradford is claiming if you ever hoped to disprove it.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 8:52 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Refuting Behe means showing a trail with some specificity accounting for the newly evolved proteins.
I'm surprised at the lack of intellectual curiosity. Surely there are better starting points than lampreys. Actually Behe's challenges sparked an immense amount of interest and investigation into evolutionary pathways. Organisms have many systems which are rendered dysfunctional by the removal of a single component. Yet when I point to some I invariably get blank stares (or the internet equivalent) unless they are one of Behe's.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Hi GringoRoyale. Assessing pathways to IC systems also entails distinguishing between different ones and evaluating the significance of causal pathways for ID as this brief entry indicates.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
No. Behe accepted both common ancestry and a universal ancestor.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 7, 2009 @ 8:57 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Comment by Jay Thomas — January 7, 2009 @ 9:05 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
DP:
I'm new to the conversation and I'm not a biologist (or scientist of any discipline), but it seems to me that systems are not arbitrary. A blood clotting system is defined by it's function and the parts that make it work. How is this arbitrary. Likewise for any other defined system.
I also don't see why the lamprey blood clotting system invalidates the IC for the human version. Can the lamprey system function with fewer parts as is? Perhaps the lamprey's system is IC for it's kind
and the human system is IC for the human.
Otherwise, this is like saying; since the Wright brothers plane can fly with fewer critical parts than a 747, this invalidates the IC of a 747. Not so, the IC for the Wright brothers plane is of a different order.
Jay
Comment by Jay Thomas — January 7, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Hi Jay Thomas. That is quite a quote. It's as if biological systems have no objective means by which they can be described if you take it seriously. Does a cell cycle vary according to the way I look at it. What if I frown at it?
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
No. We defined a blood clotting system based on its function if we want to look at that function. And we might very well disagree about what is and isn't in the system and what, exactly, it's function includes depending on what we consider important or what we want to illuminate or, indeed, many other factors.
Perhaps that's because of the confusion about what IC means. If you see IC as a conclusion based on the absense of an evolutionary path, than you'd need detailed information about the relation between the two blood clotting systems, something well above either of our abilities to judge. My point on this aspect is that IC isn't really very interesting as a conclusion: let's just use the more accurate "conclusion" that says "we don't know" instead of inventing a fancy name "irreducibly complex" to apply to systems whose origin we don't know.
If, on the other hand, you think IC is an observation based on a system having the quality "irreducibility", then any system that is a reduction of that system refutes the observation a priori: a reduction refutes its irreducibility. It does not matter whether the reduction is actually a precursor. Indeed, all I have to do is think up a functional reduction, I don't even have to present one that actually exists.
This is a truly bizarre example, but I can't blame you: it is, in fact, quite in line with "modern" thinking about "IC". But it simply makes no sense to say a 747 is IC: of course a 747 can be reduced in any number of ways. Claiming a 747 is IC is nothing more than claiming anything complex is IC. It's just silly.
What's particularly odd about your example is that there's really no question that the Wright Brothers' Flyer is a perfect example of a reduction of a 747.
What do you mean by IC's having "a different order"? That seems like a completely novel idea I've never heard of before.
Comment by don provan — January 7, 2009 @ 10:04 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Only with this caveat. The reduction would have to be passed along in revised form to offspring until the evolutionary pathway ended with humans. If this does not happen (and noone is claiming it did with lampreys) then you have some causally disconnected events that do not explain the human IC system.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
dp:
IC entails the concept of function. Complexity not necessarily so.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 10:16 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
DP:
The function exists whether we define it or not.
DP:
Brevity is not always a good thing.
I was implying the function of flight both aircraft do. I realize the 747 can be broken down in many ways, but eventually you reach a situation where the next part eliminates the function. Likewise the Wright Brother's plane. My hurried analogy was simply trying to say that the final number of parts that allow flight will be different for each aircraft and so thier level of IC will be different.
DP:
Nothing novel at all. Just looking at IC systems as applied to individual items/organisms. So, for my example, the Wright Brother's aircraft would have a different order or level of IC than the 747. I'm also not assuming the Wright Brother's aircraft is an "ancestor" of the 747 in an evolutionaly sense.
Jay
Comment by Jay Thomas — January 7, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Jay, if you use an emocicon (one of the faces that appear above the comment box), leave a space on both sides of it. So put the period at the end of the sentence, skip a space and then click on the face and hit the spacebar again.
Comment by Bradford — January 7, 2009 @ 11:13 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Pixie:
Luskin's a lawyer, a front-line Culture Warrior for the DI. I don't think he's ever even tried to pretend he's some sort of supposedly 'unbiased scientist', expert biologist, or anything remotely resembling that. That he's still harping on Kitzmiller isn't the least bit surprising or particularly sad at all. It's his job, – he lost, needs to justify that to those who pull his strings (or just to those who fund his position).
Miller, on the other hand, DOES claim to be some sort of expert scientist, something that allowed him to testify as such in Kitzmiller. He won hands-down, no contest, three years ago. So yes, I do find it sad that he feels compelled to keep on defending what was already decided. Luskin and the DI had no standing in that case, Luskin is not a scientist, it's long over.
Does Miller really need to make himself just as irrelevant? In fact, per the rules of evidence in most court cases where the issues are specific to scientific issues, he's making himself unemployable as said 'expert' if there ever are any further cases by publicly revealing his bias and his personal, emotional and ongoing involvement in the whole Culture War.
Of course, he might just want to ensure he's never called upon to waste his own time, money and expertise in another court of law as some sort of unbiased 'expert'. In which case he's doing just the proper thing.
I read an interesting monograph today about just this sort of thing.
Objectivity and Ethics in Environmental Health, Steve Wing, Environmental Health Perspectives, V.111, Nov. 2002.
It discusses limitations on expert testimony as well as epidemiological studies of possible health effects from environmental pollutants – something that gets huge class actions into court all the time, something not even as rare and esoteric as the definition of science itself.
No, Pix. I will NOT "shut up" about anything I care to comment about. Including the incredible amount of Dumb on your side of the battlefield. Keep this up and you'll find yourself banned from this and any future threads. Your emotional display is downright silly, like the cereal aisle hissy fit of a 4-year old whose Mommy won't let him have chocolate junk food disguised as breakfast.
Ridiculous. It's not my job to police what anybody else reads (unless it's a minor living in my house). Perhaps you are an overanxious librarian and wannabe book-burner, but that would be your problem, not mine. I don't care what other TTers or IDists care to read or not read.
Nifty how that works, isn't it? §;o)
Comment by Joy — January 7, 2009 @ 11:18 pm
January 7th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
Thanks for the tip Bradford
Comment by Jay Thomas — January 7, 2009 @ 11:50 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 8:45 am
Bradford
What makes you think that I do not think Ed is a culture warrior?
Okay, an ID blog, is it? So what have these threads to do with ID? To my mind they are all culture war.
* Where's the NCSE? [seems to be attacking the NCSE to me]
* A Trend? [seems to be attacking mainstream physics to me]
* Sad Smoke and Mirrors [seems like a personal attack on Miller to me]
* Getting Funding for Evo-Psych Research [a jibe about sciece funding]
* Peter Singer remembers Harriet McBryde Johnson. Sort of. [seems like a personal attack on singer to me]
* More Pop Evo-Psych as Science [attacking an article of why people are religious]
Compare to the recent ID threads:
* An Ode to ID
* Happy New Year: Computers Making Computers?
* Saturn's Hexagon
Looks to me like culture warrioring out numbers ID by two to one. It is your blog, and obviously you can post what you want. But please understand why I will continue to believe this is a culture blog first, and ID second.
Why not read them and decide for yourself.
Finally, here is that question you are dodging again: Do you think that Miller responding to a series of articles entitled "How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade" by Casey Luskin is good evidence that Miller is a "one trick pony", and that Miller's reason for posting the articles is first and foremost a NEED for the subject to be pertinent so that he is himself pertinent?
Rob R.
He would not. This is clearly a partisan site. That was my point.
My comments are culture warrioring beecause I am reacting to culture warrioring. Joy's OP is clearly a personal attack at Miller, it is clear that the same argument can be better made against Luskin, but she made the choice instead to point the finger at Miller. She is culture warrioring, and I am pointing it out.
Bradford said he had not seen enough of these people contrbutions to be able to determine where they stand in the culture war. I responded that I thought I could, and therefore stated what I believe JJS P. Eng's position to be. But hey, you have to spin it for the culture war, right? I understand that.
JJS P. Eng
I define a creationist as someone who believes the various "kinds" were created in isolation, i.e., someone who rejects universal common descent.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 8, 2009 @ 8:45 am
January 8th, 2009 at 9:10 am
Joy
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Miller to respond to articles by DI culture warriors that attack him personally.
Make up your mind, Joy. If you care to comment on it, you go right ahead. But why do you care, if you think it is boring?
What makles you think I am emotional about this, Joy? I am just trying to highlight that this thread (the OP anyway) is about culture war, and not ID. I can see how that would get me banned; last thing you want is the rubes noticing.
You made a specific claim that hardly anyone cares what Luskin has to say. I suspect you are wrong. Your go off on some tangent.
Can you support the claim that hardly anyone cares what Luskin has to say? I guess not. That is okay, as long as we are all clear what the situation is.
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 8, 2009 @ 9:10 am
January 8th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Just so this can still be pointed out.
I'm looking for how the lamprey example kills Behe's argument. It should be kind of clear to anyone familiar with Behe's DBB argument regarding the blood clotting cascade as to why I am asking if the lamprey doesn't have fibrinogen, Stuart Factor, proaccelerin, and prothrombin.
Maybe it doesn't have those and actually does tear apart the argument. I would be fine with that.
Also to Don P who said:
How could you make this mistake, Don? How many times has it been discussed that Behe accepts evolution, descent with modification, common ancestry. This is one of those examples that shows me just how unreasonable some ID critics are.
It's an argument against the abilities of chance and natural selection to yield such a multipart/integrated product. Maybe Mike Gene's notion of front-loading can account for an IC structure. It seems like Behe was leaving the door open for some type of explanation to be able to account for their appearance. But an explanation that ruled out the creative abilities of chance and natural selection.
But chance isn't a causal factor. Like natural selection, chance can't even begin to work until there exists something for it to work on. It's a short-handed way to account for the probabilities of something already extant.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 8, 2009 @ 9:36 am
January 8th, 2009 at 11:02 am
According to your defiinition, it looks like I am not a creationist. (and there was much celebration!)
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 8, 2009 @ 11:02 am
January 8th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Hi JJS P. Eng
Actually, I realise I goofed on that. I found a thread you started, Common Descent & Common Design – An Unexpected Outcome, and after reading the first couple of paragraphs, I thought you were arguing against common descent (in particular, "Evolutionary biologists consider common descent to be a "fact", due in large part to the lack of competing and "credible" explanations. IMO, this overlooks an obvious explanation: common design (well, obvious to an engineer)."). Looking at it again, I see you conclude, "The differences between common descent and common design evaporate and the two concepts become essentially one, thus removing a contentious issue from the evolution/ID debates." I apologise for thinking you are a creationist!
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 8, 2009 @ 11:43 am
January 8th, 2009 at 11:45 am
While essential in terrestrial vertebrates, jawless fish don't have Factor V (proaccelerin). There is evidence that gene duplication and divergence explains much of the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting.
Jiang and Doolittle, The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes, Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003.
In other words, the 'irreducible' terrestrial vertebrate blood clotting system has a plausible evolutionary pathway. Indeed, this is a simple counterexample to the entire concept that IC cannot evolve.
Comment by Zachriel — January 8, 2009 @ 11:45 am
January 8th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Pixie, no need to apologise. Being a "creationist" is a not a bad thing.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — January 8, 2009 @ 11:50 am
January 8th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hi Zach,
Thanks for stating the factor.
A question though.
Vertebrates have: Stuart Factor, Proaccelerin (Factor V), Prothrombin and Fibrinogen. As well as factors futher upstream.
Jawless lampries have: Stuart Factor, Proconvertin (Factor VII), Prothrombin and Fibrinogen. As well as factors further upstream.
Behe stated in DBB:
Behe focused on these four because he stated:
He saw these four factors as representing an IC core.
So yeah, it looks like this is wrong. Proaccelerin is not part of that core for jawless fish.
Let's look the pathway for both.
Humans (excluding what Behe didn't consider to be part of the IC core: Tissue Factor —-> Stuart Factor (X) – - Proaccelering (V) – - Prothrombin – - Fibrinogen.
Lamprey:
Tissue Factor —-> Stuart Factor (X) – - Proconvertin (VII) – - Prothrombin – - Fibrinogen.
I don't know.
It still needs four factors. It's not simply 3 factors as opposed to 4. It's 4 factors for both.
This kills Behe's argument?
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 8, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Behe accepts evolution in general, but the point of IC is to illuminate cases where evolution cannot be the answer.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
The concept of function entailed in IC can be applied to any complex object if it can be applied to a 747. There's literally no function inherent to a 747 that cannot be reduced other than "functioning like a 747". "Functioning like a 747" is, of course, entirely vacuous.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
This makes IC a conclusion based on the lack of known precursor. You may think this is useful, but logically it is not: IC is only useful in supporting an ID origin if it is something that can be seen directly without examining its origins. As soon as you say, "you can't prove they're related", the justification for an ID origin rests purely on the current state of our ignorance. You can always say, "you can't prove the origin is not ID": IC doesn't help you make that argument.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Where chance and selection cannot be the answer.
Comment by GringoRoyale — January 8, 2009 @ 3:02 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
It is an attempt to illustrate selective criticism by the NCSE IMO.
It was an attempt to get some feedback on a matter about which I retain an open mind. The effort was successful. Olegt, a physics professor, gave his thoughts which I paid close attention to. Mainstream physics, in any case, does not accurately depict some of the ideas brought out.
I thought some good dialog about pertinent issues emerged from that thread.
I think much evo-psych research lacks rigor. Funds are finite and we need to be careful about who gets them.
All criticisms are not personal attacks. Singer's actions have not aligned well with his words.
I think it attacks the validity of the underlying scientific approaches.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Does it? Sure, something keeps doing what it's doing whether we define what it does as a function or not, but isn't "the function" part of our analysis?
You've reached the true core of the IC scam. (Well, the original IC scam, anyway. Nowadays, as we're seeing in this thread, the IC scam is to redefine "IC" as a conclusion based on known development paths and pretend it's still useful in that role.)
The original IC scam was based on pretending "function" is something observed in the system, i.e., leverage exactly the mistake you are now making. Then when someone identifies an evolutionary precursor, according to IC it can be dismissed because the "function" is gone, even though the function was only part of our analysis, not something essential to the system that had to be present in a precursor.
I don't think your concept of order or level of IC is really part of IC theory, by the way, so I think the rest of your arguments are just making stuff up. The bottom line remains: if a 747 is an IC system, then just about anything, man made or biological, can be an IC system.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
No, it sifts out irrelevant "precursor systems" from those which conceivably could have been precursors to the system in question.
The function of a 747 is to fly passengers to their destinations.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
If you like. Now that we've agreed on the exact terms you want us to use, I will restate my point in them so you can understand it:
This is one of those examples that shows me just how dead ID is. IC was originally proposed to refute an origin involving nothing but chance and selection, but IDists have worked so long and hard to support this failed ploy that they see no irony in their demands that a path involving nothing but chance and selection be used to refute IC.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 4:12 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Good example. Based on this claim of function, we can rule out a precursor that doesn't carry passengers even though that distinction is not logically interesting.
Indeed, to look at this in evolutionary terms, IC boils down to nothing but an entirely unsupported assertion that no "added function" can be explained by, as GringoRoyale wants us to say, "chance and selection".
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 4:25 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
But, of course, you're the one that insists we call it "chance". When I used the term "evolution" which is a "causal factor", you told me I couldn't because that isn't what IC addresses.
I actually think you're on to something here, though: IC addresses the strawman "chance", which even you agree isn't a causal factor to begin with.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I'd have to agree that something's function depends on how you analyze it. For example:
The function of a 747 is to haul cargo, not passengers.
The function of a 727 is to provide shelter.
The function of a 747 is to provide building materials for houses.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 8, 2009 @ 4:57 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
747s can haul cargo. They have multiple functions. So do some cellular constructs. Nothing new here. But it would be erroneous to state that function is in the eye of the beholder. 747s do not fly to Jupiter. They are not equipped for any and all functions.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 5:35 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
But that's a perfect example: there was no point other than to criticize someone on "the other side".
And, in addition, the blog presented its "case" in a very culture war manner. The blog entry, you'll recall, presented a case for the inappropriate use of race in biology text books and then went beyond that case to assert with no supporting argument whatsoever that the NCSE would never ("don't hold your breath") address the issue. And when I asked for a supporting argument, my comments were denied, deflected, and finally deleted. It was a classic case of mudslinging, just exactly what you'd expect from a cultural warrior.
As it happened, the entry also sparked an interesting discussion of "race" as it applies to various disciplines, but the OP was, nevertheless, an obvious shot in the culture war that Pixie is speaking of. Indeed, the fact that you sum the thread up as a criticism of the NCSE when it was almost exclusively about the issues raised by the sociology paper underscores how important some people consider such cultural bullets relative to frank and open discussion of ideas.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 5:40 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
But the question is this: if an evolutionary descendent of the 747 did develop the ability to fly to Jupiter, would we have any reason to think, a priori, that it could only be because of purposeful intervention? I claim that such a conclusion would be a complete non sequitur.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 5:53 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I did not intend my remark to be a summary. It was made in response to this statement of Pixie:
His focus was the NCSE.
Yes. 747s lack reproductive capacity. Any changes in their design, enabling flights to Jupiter, must come about through modifications by intelligent designing engineers.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Factor VII is common to vertebrates.
Many moons ago Doolittle proposed that the clotting cascade evolved by a series of gene duplications followed by functional divergence. He has accumulated substantial evidence to support his hypothesis.
Jiang and Doolittle, The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation as viewed from a comparison of puffer fish and sea squirt genomes, Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003.
The interesting question is how vertebrate coagulation pathways evolved from dissimilar invertebrate ancestors.
Comment by Zachriel — January 8, 2009 @ 8:37 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Biological systems have reproducive capacity.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
dp:
What led to that capacity?
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 8:59 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Dunno. Why do you ask?
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 9:24 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
It's just a belief that one who takes an atelic position should be interested in tracing the entire causal trail.
Comment by Bradford — January 8, 2009 @ 9:34 pm
January 8th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
I'll be sure to tell that to anyone I meet that claims to be taking an atelic position.
Comment by don provan — January 8, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
The more I think about this, the more intrigued I am. What is it about a telic position that makes one taking it uninterested in tracing "the entire causal trail"? What makes a telic explanation a better place to stop than a non-telic explanation?
I actually think I have an answer: being able to explain that Y causes Z yet being unable to explain what causes Y is an ambiguous situation. People that are intolerant of ambiguity are upset by this condition, so they invent a super cause, X, that they imagine is somehow fundamental and needs no explanation.
But, of course, it needs an explanation just as much as "reproduction" or "life" or "the big bang" need explanations. People tolerant of ambiguous information have no problem understanding and using the fact that Y causes Z even when we don't know what caused Y.
When we look at this specific case more carefully, the situation becomes even clearer. I say, "We don't know what steps led to reproduction," and you consider my position deficient. You say, "We don't know what steps led to reproduction, but it must have involved intelligent intervention," and you think you've said something not merely more legitimate, but absolutely final. You don't seem to care how reproduction was caused. Most IDist flat out deny that how non-biological intelligence accomplishes its feats is even a legitimate question. Scientists, on the other hand, are interested in explaining how reproduction came about, and they float ideas that might someday be confirmed or refuted by experiments or other observations. Until that day, the situation is ambiguous. Can you deal with it, or do you have to invent an unambiguous explanation?
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
That's an interesting interpretation in view of the fact that the default interpretation is a non-telic one for biological and cosmological events. There currently is no ambiguity. It is as ID critics like it. So if we explore unknown, unexplained scientific events how would a possible dual interpretation be upsetting to an IDist. I would think it would be the reverse.
Comment by Bradford — January 9, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I don't know what you mean by "the default" or what it has to do with my statement. I describe the situation as "unable to explain", not with some invocation of a "default" explanation.
Of course there's ambiguity: we can explain biologic diversity at one level by discussing the effects of reproduction, but we cannot explain it at the deeper level that includes an explanation for reproduction. This is a perfect example of the kind of situational ambiguity that Mike Gene was talking about.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand this. Perhaps if you went into more detail? Your statement seems to be built on some preconceptions about what ID critics like and what upsets them that I'm not familiar with. At any rate, it doesn't seem relevant to the amibuity I pointed out and the security blanket some people seem to use in order to protect themselves from it.
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 7:01 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
The security blanket is the one used by anti-IDists who insist that all results from mindless, purposeless processes. Science sez. Or so I've been told for many years.
Comment by Bradford — January 9, 2009 @ 7:26 pm
January 9th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Dunno who told you this. They were wrong. Science insists on no such thing. So far we've detected nothing else. That's it.
Anyway, that would have nothing to do with the security blanket I'm suggesting, the one that some people use to protect themselves from the amibiguity inherent in the fact that we do not know everything, so we can only explain things to a certain level. The key point, I think, it the fact that, invariably, teleological thinking involves only detecting "the purpose". No telic thinkers ever try to explain or even consider what caused "the purpose", at least in my experience. This almost institutional lack of curiosity makes me suspect that teleology's value is emotional more than intellectual.
Comment by don provan — January 9, 2009 @ 8:29 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 12:47 am
Don Provan wrote:
Are you quoting Behe or some other ID’ist here or is this a quote you just made up?
Again what ID’ist said this?
So we just assume this? Behe points to something that a gradualist theory has difficulty explaining and we just make an airy wave of the hand and say, 'Oh well, it evolved somehow’
Or, maybe you don’t understand what Behe said in DBB. Furthermore, if its so dead why don't you and the other resident critics just declare victory and go so someplace else?
Did Behe say anything like you have quoted above? This is what he wrote in Darwins Black Box:
“If natural laws peculiar to life cannot explain a biological system, then the criteria for concluding design become the same as for inanimate systems. There is no magic point of irreducible complexity at which Darwinism is logically impossible. But the hurdles for gradualism become higher and higher as structures are more complex, more interdependent.
Might there be an as-yet-undiscovered natural process that would explain biochemical complexity? No one would be foolish enough to categorically deny the possibility. Nonetheless, we can say that if there is such a process, no one has a clue how it would work Further, it would go against all human experience, like postulating that a natural process might explain computers. Concluding that no such process exists is as scientifically sound as concluding that mental telepathy is not possible or that the Loch Ness monster doesn’t exist. In the face of massive evidence we do have for biochemical design, ignoring that evidence in the name of a phantom process would be to play the role of the detectives who ignore an elephant.” (p. 203)
Behe never claims that a natural evolutionary pathway for IC structures is metaphysically impossible. For sure he does see such explanations as highly unlikely. But that is not the same as claiming that it is impossible.
His argument is not really could vs. could not but how. The mission of natural science is primarily one of explaining how things in the world around us work and then maybe how they came to be.
The burden of proof is on those who claim to have empirically supported explanations. Darwin himself set this standard when he wrote, “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.”
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — January 10, 2009 @ 12:47 am
January 10th, 2009 at 2:22 am
How absurd. There is hardly a day that goes by when it is not thought of.
Earlier in this same thread I had written:
That's copyright infringement.
Comment by Bradford — January 10, 2009 @ 2:22 am
January 10th, 2009 at 10:10 am
Not only are IC structures possible, they are a natural consequent of evolutionary processes. Behe's argument is logically flawed.
Comment by Zachriel — January 10, 2009 @ 10:10 am
January 10th, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Would it be hard to provide an example?
Actually I think I'm just detecting projection.
Comment by don provan — January 10, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I'm sorry, was there something in what I said that suggested I was quoting what someone else had actually said? I apologize if that's the case. I was just quoting what, in my opinion, IC tells us based on Bradford's logic.
Again, I was quoting what "IC meant", not quoting a specific individual. Why? Is it an incorrect summary of Darwin's Black Box? That's what I got out of it, but perhaps you'd like to point out why it is an inaccurate summary?
Who said that?
Anyway, Behe points to something that is unexplained and claims it will be impossible to explain. And Bradford essentially admits that this position is untenable when he retrenches IC as something that can only be refuted by a confirmed explanation.
Well, at least that's how I'm seeing it. If I'm wrong, you should be able to show me by how a claim of IC can be confirmed. Bradford's attitude seems to me that a claim of IC can only be refuted. Perhaps you can suggest something that shows me the difference, then, between "IC" and "complex and not explained"? At the moment, I'm having trouble seeing any difference.
Or maybe you don't understand what Behe said in DBB. Or maybe you've come to view IC as a talisman.
Sorry, I meant it was intellectually dead.
He says, right there, "cannot". That means impossible. While he does admit that explaining these structures isn't impossible in a logical sense, it is no less a claim of impossibility. Bradford has retrenched IC as a claim of merely "not done yet".
Although in all fairness to Bradford, I'd claim he's just following Behe's lead on this, but I have to admit I haven't really tracked Behe's ideas about IC much lately, so I may have a false impression.
Let's see here. First, are you admitting that IC is not empirically supported? That's a good start.
Second, who are you talking about that claims to have an empirically supported explanation without baring the burden of proof? IDists are the only ones I see shirking that burden by using techniques such as yours: claiming it's someone else's problem to prove ID wrong, otherwise ID must be accepted.
Comment by don provan — January 10, 2009 @ 3:11 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
I agree the IC argument is flawed, but this statement plays into the flaw by conceding that IC structures exist. The IC argument begins by asserting a structure is "IC". The "proof" of IC was, initially, just some intense handwaving, but, as we've seen here, it has devolved to nothing more than claiming IC and then insisting that the claim must be disproved by finding an evolutionary explanation. There is no longer anything inherent in the structures that allows them to be labeled "IC", so we can plainly see that the concept of an "IC structure" is just imaginary.
The problem with your statements is that IC advocates can now demand that you support the statement, "IC structures are a natural consequent of evolutionary processes." I.e., they've shifted the burden of proof onto you. And how are you going to prove that when there's no concrete definition of "IC structure" other than "something that cannot be a natural consequence of evolutionary processes"? You've fallen into the trap.
(That's not to say a more rigid exposition of the IC claim couldn't be accomplished, but we're not seeing one here and, truth be told, I haven't even heard tell of one for a long time. As I said elsewhere, last I heard even Behe has retreated to this vacuous "IC" means "not explained" position.)
Comment by don provan — January 10, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I fully invite such a demand. (That's why my statement was terse and unelaborated.)
{Shhh. Don't spook the game.}
Comment by Zachriel — January 10, 2009 @ 6:56 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
It's funny how Don and Zach here are openly treating responses to ID claims/perspectives not as open and honest critical evaluations, but as maneuvers in a greater game. Darn it, Zach, the problem with saying what you did is that it could assist an ID proponent in an argument! You're here to help negate a worldview! Keep your eyes on the prize!
You two need more smoke and mirrors, lest people suggest science isn't your principle concern in these discussions.
Comment by nullasalus — January 10, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Actually, I consider most IDers to be honestly confused.
My concern *is* science. The ID Community falsely claims scientific validity. The ID Argument consists primarily of poorly defined terminology mixed with a dose of fallacy. I insist upon clear definitions with demonstrable properties. So if someone says CSI is an objective measure, then I want to see the actual calculations for a variety of examples. If someone says that something is IRC, then I want to know exactly how this is being defined and measured, and how they account for the inevitable exceptions. Then and only then can a reasonable argument begin.
The mathematics community has ignored CSI, and the biological community has not found ID arguments about IRC to be persuasive. I am willing to look at these arguments afresh, but I'm not willing to overlook their significant problems.
Comment by Zachriel — January 10, 2009 @ 11:15 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Consider this example from CJYman, sometime Telic Thoughts commenter, made over at Uncommon Descent,
In order to determine whether 'noise plus laws' can produce CSI, we need an *independent* test for CSI. If you define CSI as that which can't be produced by 'noise plus laws', then you have merely redefined the problem. Similarly for IRC. It's smoke and mirrors.
Comment by Zachriel — January 10, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Zach,
Good strategy. A small blunder was made, but you can recover by downplaying that blunder and striking a conciliatory tone – don't let it come across that you're motivated by metaphysical concerns or otherwise. Insist that you just want to alleviate confusion, and try to cast yourself as a well-meaning outsider.
Just make sure not to say anything that ID proponents can use against you in the future. Whatever the content, that's not a desirable outcome. Just ask Don Provan.
Comment by nullasalus — January 10, 2009 @ 11:48 pm
January 10th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
I'm not concerned about metaphysics.
Nor am I concerned about winning arguments.
I am concerned with trying to pin down concise definitions as a prerequisite to any reasonable discussion. Conflation is prevalent in the ID Argument, and I look for opportunities to highlight this fallacy.
By the way, any chance you can provide us a workable measure of CSI?
Comment by Zachriel — January 10, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
January 11th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Fat chance.
Comment by olegt — January 11, 2009 @ 12:07 am
January 11th, 2009 at 12:28 am
You're slipping up again. Maybe Don Provan can lend you more advice about what to say and not say. Remember, keep your eyes on that prize.
Comment by nullasalus — January 11, 2009 @ 12:28 am
January 11th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Let's see.
Apparently not.
Comment by Zachriel — January 11, 2009 @ 9:52 am
January 12th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Well, if by "blunder" you mean giving ID arguments too much credence. Ironically, despite the fact that I don't personally think IDists should have any trouble defeating the line of argument Zachriel was taking, no one here appears capable of actually stepping up to the task.
But the most telling point is that you find it so remarkable that we can criticize each other's arguments and keep bringing it up as if it were a weakness. Bloggers here at Telic Thoughts are very proud of their diversity, but for some reason never try to work out the reasons for their differences. A tendency to support arguments by fellow IDists no matter how absurd ("747's are IC") has a long tradition in the ID world, of course, a typical trait of political movements but impossible in an honest scientific investigation.
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 3:39 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
In order to make the argument, they would have to grapple with a clear definition of IC, in particular, how we categorize and identify 'parts' and 'functions'. (This is related to the previous discussion of boundary conditions and the nature of 'objects'.) I might modify my contentious statement accordingly. That would be a worthwhile discussion, but would also show why Behe's argument is fallacious.
Comment by Zachriel — January 12, 2009 @ 4:36 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Well, of course, my claim is that in order to make the argument, all they have to do is make you grapple for a clear definition of IC.
Discussing a clear definition of IC would be worthwhile, but I've stopped expecting it to happen. In my experience, IDists take for granted that IC is well defined and typically argue that claiming ID is fallacious merely indicates a failure to understand it.
Comment by don provan — January 12, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
January 12th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Well, that line of reasoning has been successfully defending Theism since Apes first developed language. Are you surprised to see ID supporters using the same reasoning?
Comment by Todd Berkebile — January 12, 2009 @ 5:44 pm