Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Stupidburn
Ow! Ow! Ow!Does anyone know how to treat third-degree irony burns?
The Discovery Institute has issued a press release (the closest it ever gets to science) that should only be viewed after applying a thick layer of SPF 100 sunscreen or above. Be warned before reading further!
SEATTLE, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "We're celebrating Charles Darwin's birthday by supporting what he supported: academic freedom," says Robert Crowther, Director of Communications at Discovery Institute. "Like Darwin, we recognize the importance of having an open and honest debate between evolution and intelligent design."
Discovery Institute today announced the launch of Academic Freedom Day in honor of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday on February 12, 2009.
In his revolutionary On the Origin of Species, Darwin wrote, "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." This quote is the cornerstone of the Institute's Academic Freedom Day efforts.
That would be the same Darwin that they're honoring that they've called a racist and an eugenicist, who would have probably advocated forced sterilization if only the technology was available in his day and age. And, of course, that would be the same Darwin whose ideas lead to Nazism and the Holocaust.
How, might you ask, does the DI "honor" Darwin? Why, by quote mining him, of course!
Here is the actual quote in context, with the quote-mined part in bold:
How, might you ask, does the DI "honor" Darwin? Why, by quote mining him, of course!
Here is the actual quote in context, with the quote-mined part in bold:
This Abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements; and I must trust to the reader reposing some confidence in my accuracy. No doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious in trusting to good authorities alone. I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references, on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done.
Contrary to the implication arising from the period the DI inserted at the end, the quote-mined part was not a complete thought. Darwin was not saying that every alleged theory has to be weighed before a fair scientific result can be reached. He was saying that he had many more facts in support of his theory but could not list them all in the scant 490 pages he had at his disposal in the Origin.
Well, the quote mine might be dishonest but they were certainly truthful that such activity is the cornerstone of their Freedom Day efforts. After all, if they didn't have dishonesty to fall back on, the DI wouldn't have any arguments at all!
.
Well, the quote mine might be dishonest but they were certainly truthful that such activity is the cornerstone of their Freedom Day efforts. After all, if they didn't have dishonesty to fall back on, the DI wouldn't have any arguments at all!
.
Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
Saturday, January 12, 2008
'Round and 'Round the Mulberry Bush ...
Anyone who has followed Casey Luskin's "career" ("ministry" would be a better word) knows that nuance is either beyond him or is bludgeoned to death in furtherance of the propagation of the faith. The Discovery Institute's Gofer General is back with a triple play this time. In a screed entitled "Nature Fulfilling Its Charter to Defend Evolution at all Costs," Luskin complains about an editorial in Nature (which he does not bother to link to) praising the new National Academy of Sciences booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism (available for free download at the NAS site or here).Luskin begins by quote mining Peter J. Bowler, the author of probably the definitive history of the notion of biological evolution, Evolution: The History of an Idea, Third Edition. But the quote mine is more subtle than most Luskin has perpetrated and the true story behind Bowler's discussion is not completely flattering to the players on science's side. Luskin quotes Bowler as follows:
By exploiting their position in this network, Huxley and his friends ensured that Darwinism had come to stay. (Ruse, 1979a). They controlled the scientific journals -- the journal Nature was founded in part to promote the campaign -- and manipulated academic appointments. Hull (1978) has stressed how important these rhetorical and political skills were in creating a scientific revolution. The Darwinists adopted a flexible approach which deflected opposition, minimized infighting among themselves, and made it easy for others to join their campaign. Many, like Huxley himself, were not rigidly committed to the theory of natural selection; they were simply anxious to promote the case for evolution.All of which is correctly quoted, ellipses-free and, surprisingly, includes the page number. All that's missing is the history.
(Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, pg. 185 (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2003).)
British society at the time Darwin published the Origin was still in the throes of the Industrial Revolution and the wrenching changes it was bringing to society. The social order, that had for so long been dominated by class, was breaking up and forming again along new lines. The landed gentry, attempting to hold out against the mercantile elite, were losing ground. The established Church of England had slipped into a bureaucratic slumber where piety was slightly discreditable. The new middle class of technocrats were struggling to carve out a place separate (and above) the proletariat, who were, in turn, beginning to pay some heed to the voices demanding the destruction of the old ways altogether.
One reason Darwin was so ready to see what he did see was that he was positioned at the nexus of these competing forces. As the son and grandson of prominent doctors, he was not unfamiliar with the nobility and could move among them on somewhat even terms. Of course, he was related both by blood and, eventually, by marriage, to the Wedgwoods, who were prominent members of the rising industrial gentry. His experience among the dons at Cambridge was so comfortable he was not adverse to a life, as envisioned by his father, in a country parsonage. Finally, he was thrown into the closest possible proximity to the working and technocratic classes aboard the Beagle for five years.
Huxley, on the other hand, had come from a poor background and would have stayed there, despite his medical degree, if Britain's old class system could have had its way. As Bowler describes it in his most recent book, Monkey Trials and Gorilla Sermons: Evolution and Christianity from Darwin to Intelligent Design (p. 76):
Like Darwin he traveled the world aboard a Royal Navy survey ship, but where Darwin was the captain's companion on the Beagle, Huxley was a lowly naval surgeon on HMS Rattlesnake. Still, he had made a reputation for himself describing and classifying the exotic marine creatures they had dredged up, and in the 1850s he was desperately struggling to establish a career as a professional scientist. This was still not easy -- there were few properly paid jobs, and Huxley was lucky to get a lectureship in paleontology at the newly established Royal School of Mines. Once secure, Huxley threw himself into the campaign to establish science as the main source of expertise that the government of an industrial country should call upon to solve its social problems.It was this desire to "professionalize" science, which, up to then, had largely been the province of the wealthy and of churchmen with the leisure to pursue it as a hobby, that drove much of Huxley's public activities. Which brings us back to Luskin's quote mine. With the exception of two sentences about Huxley's sitting on government commissions and his leading role in the "X Club," a group of like-minded backers of a new scientific establishment, the following appears directly before the bit quoted by Luskin:
Given that the details of the theory were controversial, the outcome of the debate would be determined not only by the evidence but also by the rhetorical and organizational skills of the rival parties. As a member of the new generation of professional scientists, Huxley was determined to wrest intellectual authority away from its traditional sources. Evolution was useful because it demonstrated that science could now determine the truth in an area once claimed by theology.So it was certainly true that Huxley had motivations beyond the strict scientific issues of biology. What separates Huxley and his supporters from the IDeologists was that they remained interested in the science and, in opening it up to all capable practitioners, they were, in fact, seeking to improve it. Unlike the drones from the Discovery Institute, the newly professionalized scientific establishment continued to do actual science.
Which leads us to the second, and unintentionally funny, of Luskin's deprecations against sense. Luskin laments
... the National Academy of Science's new version of Science, Evolution, and Creationism because it [in Nature's words] "summarize[s] the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun." Such statements are saddening because they elevate evolution to the status of an unquestionable dogma and thus threaten the prestige of science as an objective voice in society.I was unaware that the existence of atoms or the orbiting of the Earth around the Sun were "dogma," unquestionable or otherwise. Similarly, he kvetchs:
... what are scientists who do question Neo-Darwinism supposed to do when the top scientific organization in the U.S. proclaims that evolution is as unquestionable as the existence of atoms or the heliocentric model of the solar system?Well, the honest thing to do would be to come up with a theory which explains the evidence better than those theories, which can continue to be tested empirically and which can then be used to explain even more of the natural universe -- in the same manner the scientific community did by integrating genetics with evolution or relativity with classical mechanics. Or, on the other hand, you can skip the science part and just go straight to rhetoric, the way the DI does.
Finally, and most weasel-like, Luskin notes that the title of Nature's editorial is "Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why."
Again, we see politics at work: they think scientists should defend evolution because their "research depends on it."Luskin would have the unwary think that the title is a threat of the "or else" sort but, in fact, as the editorial says:
Evolution is of profound importance to modern biology and medicine. Accordingly, anyone who has the ability to explain the evidence behind this fact to their students, their friends and relatives should be given the ammunition to do so. Between now and the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth on 12 February 2009, every science academy and society with a stake in the credibility of evolution should summarize evidence for it on their website and take every opportunity to promote it.It is not an attempt to intimidate; it is a request for everyone who uses evolutionary theory in their daily work to do for science and truth what the DI is willing to do for a lie: to speak out forcefully, though with more clarity and honesty, in the public square.
.
Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
Friday, April 06, 2007
When All Else Fails
So, what do you do when your opponents keep demonstrating your ignorance of the subject matter, make mincemeat of your "logic" and generally shred your arguments? Why, if you are a creationist, you repeat them LOUDER! And maybe you throw in a quote from another IDeologist but without bothering to identify him as such.Dr. Michael Egnor, the Discovery Institute's brainless surgeon is back with a rehash of his favorite oldie: "Darwinism" isn't necessary for modern medicine or modern science in general. As Mark Hoofnagle at Denialism.com has already pointed out, Egnor's "thesis," such as it is, consists mostly of a claim that, if a science existed in any form before Darwin's theory, then evolutionary theory isn't useful to that science in its present form.
Egnor starts by just giving links to his old posts that have already been eviscerated, probably in hopes his target audience isn't clever enough to have mastered Google. Just in case, there is Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance; Hey Dr. Egnor: At Least Galen Dissected Animals, Not Straw Men; and Dr. Egnor's deviously clever plan to destroy Darwinism once and for all, not to mention a few others, that have appeared.
He then tries to add creationist gloss on his previous blather by suggesting a supplementary thesis by way of Philip Skell, from an article "Why Do We Invoke Darwin?," that appeared in the Opinion section of The Scientist in August of 2005. Egnor cites Skell (who has already campaigned in Kansas for the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" ploy) to the effect that "Darwinism is a 'narrative gloss' on biology."
For some reason Egnor gives a link to the article that requires a subscription, despite the fact that Skell's article is on the Discovery Institute's own site. As we will see, there is good reason he might not want you to read Skell.
According to Skell, experimental biology does not need Darwin's theory to be conducted. Besides his own anecdotal experience and an informal "survey" Skell claims to have made of other researchers, the only evidence he offers for this proposition was this quote from A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays:
While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas.Thus, on top of the hooey that any science pre-existing Darwin cannot now also rely on the subsequent 150 years of scientific work, we are also to believe that because the day-to-day work of biologists does not require "particular reference" to evolutionary theory, evolutionary science is therefore irrelevant.
The good reason why Egnor might not have wanted you to read that article now becomes apparent. The quote mine of Wilkins (borrowed by Skell, as so much of ID is, from young-Earth creationists) has already got an entry in the Quote Mine Project. As PZ Myers said back in June of 2004, long before Skell appropriated the quote mine, it comes from "an introduction to an entire issue of the journal dedicated to evolutionary processes." The reason that scientists go about their work without "particular reference" to evolutionary theory is well explained by PZ:
[The] whole point is bogus. Yes, I can go into my lab right now, make up some solutions, run a pH meter, collect embryos, use a microscope, etc., without once using the principles of evolutionary biology. Likewise, I can do a lot of the day-to-day stuff of the lab without even thinking about developmental biology, biochemistry, molecular biology, or physiology; that does not imply that these disciplines are not central to how life works. We don't need evolutionary biology . . . except whenever we want to think about how these narrow, esoteric little experiments we do fit into the grander picture of life on earth. You know, biology.Egnor, and Skell before him, are pushing a version of the creation science bafflegab that the only "real" science is the sort that involves repeatable experiments in a lab. This is obvious from Skell's attempt to make a distinction between "experimental biology" and "historical biology." This notion of science might be called "technicianism." It is rather like saying that astronomers should only investigate the light coming from stars and not try to figure out how stars and solar systems form. Real science goes beyond trying to understand what is right before our eyes and tries to learn how it got there in the first place.
Egnor may be satisfied with being a highly skilled meat cutter, uninterested in the larger picture of life, but, fortunately for the rest of us, his lack of intellectual curiosity has not left us in the dark ages where Egnor and his fellows at the Discovery Institute would feel so much more comfortable.
Labels: DI Quote Mining
Sunday, March 25, 2007
William Dembski Wants You to Think He's a Moron!
The doyen of the Intelligent Design Movement, William Dembski, has announced a new strategy (see Comment 4) in their campaign to unseat evolutionary science. He is now urging the proponents of ID to seek to convince their opponents that the movement is made up of morons!This all started over a quote mine of certain disparaging remarks about the Irish taken from Darwin's The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), that Dembski posted at Uncommon Descent. I'm guessing that he got wind of this passage from a truly execrable article in Commonweal by Peter Quinn, titled "The Gentle Darwinians."
As pointed out by, among others, John Wilkins,* Dembski failed to reveal that the characterization of the "reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society" associated, in a roundabout way, with the Irish, was not Darwin's own views but those of Francis Galton and W. R. Greg, with whom Darwin was in the process of disagreeing.
Dembski now claims to have known the correct context of the quote but intentionally did not include it in his attempt "to highlight Darwin’s attitude toward the Irish and underscore the invidious distinctions of race and ethnicity that his theory engenders," as a decoy for the "Darwinists" to chase after instead of the "the gist" of the quote mine.
.
Besides the fact that it is incredibly dishonest to "highlight" something by misrepresenting the context of another person's words, his claim sinks under its own weight, since, even if Darwin was less than politically correct by today's standards, that's hardly enough reason to ignore a century and a quarter's science since then. As to possible "alternative theories," John pointed out, before Dembski claimed he was only playing a moron on TV:
One might think Dembski is deliberately spinning the truth, or as we call it in technical philosophy, lying.
Denyse (accent on the "Deny") O'Leary has come to Wild Bill's ... um ... "defense" by claiming that the reason The Descent of Man included unflattering characterizations of the Irish was because of "Darwin's Brit toffery"!!! Well, Denyse sure took to Dembski's ploy like a loon to water, didn't she?
Anyway, I think Dembski is really on to something with this plan! In any contest, it's always best to go with what comes naturally!
_________________________________
* John's post is soon to be a major new entry in the Quote Mine Project.
.
Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Down in the Mines Again
This is another entry for the Quote Mine Project being parked here for assitance in editing.[Evolution is a kind of metaphysical speculation]
... evolutionary speculation constitutes a kind of metascience, which has the same fascination for some biologists that metaphysical speculation possessed for some medieval scholastics. It can be considered a relatively harmless habit, like eating peanuts, unless it assumes the form of an obsession; then it becomes a vice. - cell biologist Roger Stanier, in Organization and Control in Prokaryotic Cells: Twentieth Symposium of the Society for General Microbiology, Cambridge University Press, 1970.
Representative miners: Uncommon Descent: Thinkquotes of the day: Why there is an intelligent design controversy; and Creation Science: Teaching Origins in Public Schools.
The strangest thing about this quote is that the ellipsis at the beginning indicates, in this case, that the quote is not the first part of the paragraph rather than indicating that part of the sentence was snipped. It seems that somewhere along the line the capital "E" in "evolutionary" evolved into a lowercase form...
The entire paragraph reads:
What we find by reading the original article is that Stanier is not arguing against or doubting evolutionary theory in any way, but rather has just finished giving an introduction to several different hypotheses regarding the prokaryote/eukaryote relationship and the possible origins of each cell line. The title of the paper itself, "HOW IT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED", tells the reader that the entire paper is simply going to cover various proposed pathways.
The second paragraph from the same paper (the mined portion comes near the end of the last page) should be sufficient to shed light on Stanier's views as to the validity of evolution (emphasis mine):
The strangest thing about this quote is that the ellipsis at the beginning indicates, in this case, that the quote is not the first part of the paragraph rather than indicating that part of the sentence was snipped. It seems that somewhere along the line the capital "E" in "evolutionary" evolved into a lowercase form...
The entire paragraph reads:
It might have happened thus; but we shall surely never know certainty. Evolutionary speculation constitutes a kind of metascience, which has the same fascination for some biologists that metaphysical speculation possessed for some medieval scholastics. It can be considered a relatively harmless habit, like eating peanuts, unless it assumes the form of an obsession; then it becomes a vice. The most appropriate response to such speculations (if they are plausible and logically consistent) is an Italian rejoinder, of which the amiable cynicism cannot be adequately translated:["If not true it is well found" or "Even if it's not true, it makes a good story."]Se non e vero, e ben trovato.
What we find by reading the original article is that Stanier is not arguing against or doubting evolutionary theory in any way, but rather has just finished giving an introduction to several different hypotheses regarding the prokaryote/eukaryote relationship and the possible origins of each cell line. The title of the paper itself, "HOW IT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED", tells the reader that the entire paper is simply going to cover various proposed pathways.
The second paragraph from the same paper (the mined portion comes near the end of the last page) should be sufficient to shed light on Stanier's views as to the validity of evolution (emphasis mine):
Leaving aside for the moment the special question of the origin of chloroplasts and mitochondria, do we really have good grounds for believing that eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells are branches from a common stem of cellular evolution? In other words, might they not have arisen independently from pre-cellular forms of living matter? Mazia (1965) raised this question in a specific context: namely, that of chromosome structure. I think completely separate origins are improbable, even though most of the evidences of homology are to be found only at the deepest level ( i.e. the molecular one). They include the possession of the same genetic code; common mechanisms for the replication, transcription and translation of the genetic message; and largely common mechanisms for the biosynthesis of major classes of cell-constituents. The nexus of shared properties is sufficiently complex to suggest an origin from a common ancestor which could already be described as 'cellular'.The only "dissent" that Stanier can be accused of, in fact, is his hesitance to build detailed phylogenies at the cellular level given the tools available to microbiologists at the time:
I should certainly not object to setting up a separate kingdom for the prokaryotic microorganisms if such an operation would serve as a handy device for emphasizing the fundamental differences between these types and organisms that possess a eukaryotic cellular organization. All the introductory statement meant to imply is that both van Niel and I now consider detailed system building at the microbial level to be an essentially meaningless operation, since there is so very little information that can be drawn on for the purposes of phylogenetic reconstruction. For this reason I prefer to use common names rather than Latin ones for every bacterial group above the level of genus.Not much later in his career emerging technologies and new techniques would lead Stanier to consider a change in his position (emphasis mine):
- R. Y. Stanier to R. G. E. Murray, 21 May 1962, National Archives of Canada, MG 31, accession J35, vol. 6.
In this essay, I shall develop the argument that we have at our disposal a variety of methods for ascertaining (within certain limits) relationships among the bacteria; and that where relationship can be firmly established, it affords a more satisfactory basis for the construction of taxa than does mere resemblance. As the philosopher G. C. Lichtenberg remarked 200 years ago, there is significant difference between still believing something and believing it again. It would be obtuse still to believe in the desirability of basing bacterial classification on evolutionary considerations. However, there may be solid grounds for believing it again, in the new intellectual and experimental climate which has been produced by the molecular biological revolution.- Matt Ford
- Stanier, R.Y. 1971. Toward an evolutionary taxonomy of the bacteria, p. 595-604. In In A. Perez-Miravete and D. Peláez (ed.), Recent advances in microbiology. Int. Congr. Microbiol. Medico.
Labels: DI Quote Mining
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Luskin Goes A-Quote Mining, Part Deux
[This is an article destined to be a "sidebar" at the Quote Mine Project, that is being parked here to assist in editing and htmlization.]Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute has posted three articles at the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution News & Views, entitled "Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire's New Bumper Sticker" Part I, Part II and Part III.
.
Luskin quote mined Judge Jones' decision in Part I of his article above, which I previously addressed.
Here I want to address his quote (in Part III) of an amicus curae brief that was signed by, among others, Stephen Jay Gould, in the 1993 Supreme Court case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Luskin has abused Gould's participation in this brief previously in his article, "New England Journal of Medicine Traipses Into the Kitzmiller Decision (Part II)" and it unsurprisingly appears in the Discovery Institute's hastily thrown together attempt to blunt the effect of Judge Jones' decision, Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision (DeWolf, D.K.; West, J.G.; Luskin, C. and Witt, J. 2006. Discovery Institute Press: Seattle, WA), on pp. 55-56.
.
This is how Luskin presents it in his latest version:
[T]he danger of the TalkOrigins page runs much deeper. It seeks to instill a mindset where concepts must enjoy high levels of support in the scientific community, and the oft-criticized peer-reviewed literature, before being trusted. This mindset threatens to inhibit the progress of science.
In conclusion, this point was made emphatically by Stephen Jay Gould and other scientists to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1993, pleaing (sic) that courts should not disbar scientific evidence from the courtroom simply because it hasn't won a "popularity" contest:Judgments based on scientific evidence, whether made in a laboratory or a courtroom, are undermined by a categorical refusal even to consider research or views that contradict someone's notion of the prevailing "consensus" of scientific opinion. ... Automatically rejecting dissenting views that challenge the conventional wisdom is a dangerous fallacy, for almost every generally accepted view was once eccentric deemed or heretical. Perpetuating the reign of a supposed scientific orthodoxy in this way, whether in a research laboratory or in a courtroom, is profoundly inimical to the search for truth. ... The quality of a scientific approach or opinion depends on the strength of its factual premises and on the depth and consistency of its reasoning, not on its appearance in a particular journal or on its popularity among other scientists. (Brief Amici Curiae of Stephen Jay Gould (and other scientists) in support of petitioners, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (No. 92-102).)Would Dr. Gould approve of the mindset promoted by the TalkOrigins webpage or would he rightly recognize it as dangerous to science?
Would it surprise anyone that Gould may be somewhat misrepresented here? You can see for yourself because the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert and the brief that Luskin quotes from can both be found on the web, though you would not know that from Luskin's article.
.
The ellipses in Luskin's version are interesting. The first leaves out a single short sentence:
Science progresses as much or more by the replacement of old views as by the gradual accumulation of incremental knowledge.
It seems a strange omission until you remember just what it was that Darwin's theory replaced. Perhaps the faithful were not deemed ready to contemplate that ID, in its earlier and more honest manifestation as Natural Theology, was the dominant view that was displaced by evolutionary theory.
The text represented by the second ellipsis is much more extensive, covering several paragraphs and moving into a completely different section of the brief. Normal conventions for quoting would have at least had the text following the second ellipsis set off in its own paragraph. Among those issues omitted along with the missing text is the fact that the brief is complaining about the Circuit court relying solely on whether or not a proposition has made it into the scientific literature as a mechanistic test of its admissibility. As the Brief put it:
The [Circuit] court thereby converted that editorial tool into something no scientist or journal editor ever meant it to be: a litmus test for scientific truth. This is not the way scientists work in their laboratories and symposia, and it is not the way that science should be used in the courtroom if the goal is to ensure the most accurate and valid judgments possible.Specifically, the Brief complained that the:
. . . Court of Appeals did not even purport to investigate the soundness or professionalism of the expert's approach. Instead, it simply asserted, without reference to any authority drawn from the scientific community, that [a procedure] is "generally accepted by the scientific community" only when it is subject to peer-review and published.
Of course, Judge Jones did nothing of the sort. The section where he addressed the issue of peer review was only 3 pages out of a 25 page discussion, most of which was devoted to three main reasons why ID is not science. Those reasons were [p. 64]:
Only then does Judge Jones mention:(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation;
(2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and
(3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
Thus, Judge Jones clearly recognized that the lack of peer-reviewed publications (or the pathetically few peer-reviewed publications, even allowing for the five whole articles, after almost 20 years, that Luskin cites) was not definitive but was just one, and not the most important, of the diagnostic criteria for a scientific theory. Luskin's failure to reveal the actual argument that was made in the amicus brief Gould signed is quote mining. His attempt to use it against Judge Jones' thoughtful and nuanced decision is merely bad sleight of hand.As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (Emphasis added)
.
I think is safe to say that, if the only reason anyone gave for rejecting the claim that ID is science was because it wasn't publishing peer-reviewed articles, Stephen Jay Gould would have strongly objected. But his objection would have been that such an argument only begins to scratch the surface of why ID fails as science.
Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Luskin Goes A-Quote Mining
.
[This is a revised article to be used as a sidebar to the Quote Mine Project. The Discovery Institute has become more sophisticated about quote-mining, but they, as good creationists, simply cannot resist the temptation.]
Luskin has posted three articles at the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution News & Views, entitled "Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire's New Bumper Sticker" Part I, Part II and Part III. The purported occasion for the articles is "a brief review of Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision by John Derbyshire at National Review Online." Derbyshire's blurb is less a "review" than it is an incidental mention of one claim contained in the book in a reference to an interview with the authors, including Luskin himself.
But the real business at hand for Luskin is an attack on the "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CI001.4" at the Talk Origins Archive and, more importantly, on Judge Jones' decision. There are many valid objections to Luskin's arguments, not least of which is the real nature of the articles the Discovery Institute cites to, but I want to concentrate on the way the Discovery Institute is misrepresenting Judge Jones in aid of its bait and switch.
Essentially, both Pennock and Luskin make the claim that, since the Judge made a "universal generalization" that there have been no peer-reviewed articles supporting ID, he is "refuted" if a single counterexample is produced. Or, as Luskin put it, "[t]he question of 'complete absence of peer-reviewed publications' is a simple black and white, binary question: either ID has published peer-reviewed publications, or it hasn't."
In support of this contention that Judge Jones made that flat-out claim, Luskin quotes five passages from the decision. Luskin refers to these parts of the decision by the page numbers in the Federal Supplement Second, a case law reporter. [1] For those without access to a law library, I include below the page numbers from the original decision that can be found in a pdf file on the District Court site or in html format at The Talk Origin Archive. In addition, as a number of Luskin's examples are only sentence fragments, I give the full sentence that they are pulled from, with Luskin's quoted bits in bold:
Thus it is clear that Judge Jones' point was not that there are no peer-reviewed articles that allegedly favor ID (since he discussed the Behe and Snoke article) but that those articles merely attack some aspect or other of evolutionary theory. The critical fact that Judge Jones found was that there are no articles that actively support ID, at least among those the ID advocates were willing to introduce at the trial and expose to cross-examination. [2] Even if there were such articles (and that is a matter of great dispute [3]), the Discovery Institute's complaints are hardly fair, since Judge Jones did not have them before him in evidence. Luskin's snippets did not reveal that context and that is the quote mining aspect of his article.
So now we see that Luskin's and Pennock's simple black and white, binary statement that Judge Jones found that there were no peer-reviewed articles at all has itself been falsified. Applying their own standards then, if they can miss so simple a question, how can we trust their understanding of issues which do not have "black-and-white" answers, such as whether those articles they cite really support ID? But let's not rest content with such feeble arguments.
Given that Luskin can only point to five articles after nearly two decades of ID "research," far less than the output of peer-reviewed papers supporting evolution in one week, the whole argument boils down, at most, to a quibble as to when "vanishingly small" counts the same as "none."
But, beyond that, there remains the issue of what it would take to actively support ID. The DI has been sensitive about accusations of argumentum ad ignorantium, as in this response by Jonathan Witt to an essay in the Wall Street Journal by Kevin Shapiro. Stephen Meyer’s article "Not by chance," which is regularly trotted out by the DI as an example of the positive evidence for a designer, has no such evidence at all. In point of fact, Meyer's contentions are a classic argument from ignorance layered over what Judge Jones rightly called a "contrived dualism":
Until they can come up with that, there is no reason at all to doubt Judge Jones' finding that ID completely lacks support in the scientific literature.
_______________
[1] As an aside, Luskin cites to the Federal Supplement, a case law reporter that is rarely available outside a law library rather than to the page numbers contained in the original decision which anyone can obtain on the web. After a pretty thorough search, it does not appear that a copy with the Supplement's pagination is available on the web. It has been frequently noted in connection with the Quote Mine Project that, if there are two possible citations to any work, the one cited by creationists is often, if not invariably, to the one more difficult to find.
[2] Lest anyone repeat Pennock's mistake (which Luskin, as an attorney, would not, of course) mere mention of citations in an Amicus Curia brief does not constitute evidence in Federal or any other court and Judge Jones properly limited himself to the evidence submitted during the trial.
[3] Concerning the actual nature of the books and papers the ID advocates point to, see "Claim CI001.4: Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books" and, on a more mundane level, my article elsewhere, "On Whistling and Graveyards II."
Other articles generally on the claim of peer-reviewed ID research include:
[4] "Diverse voices discuss the forces at work on today’s faithful," by Bill Tammeus, The Kansas City Star, July 22, 2006. Accessed July 29, 2006 at:
[This is a revised article to be used as a sidebar to the Quote Mine Project. The Discovery Institute has become more sophisticated about quote-mining, but they, as good creationists, simply cannot resist the temptation.].
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute has reprised complaints, previously made by Keith Pennock, also of the DI, about the alleged mistake made by Judge Jones in saying there was no peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting Intelligent Design. Both articles involve a simple bait and switch with, particularly in Luskin's case, a touch of quote mining thrown in.
Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute has reprised complaints, previously made by Keith Pennock, also of the DI, about the alleged mistake made by Judge Jones in saying there was no peer-reviewed scientific literature supporting Intelligent Design. Both articles involve a simple bait and switch with, particularly in Luskin's case, a touch of quote mining thrown in.
Luskin has posted three articles at the Discovery Institute's blog, Evolution News & Views, entitled "Peer-Review, Intelligent Design, and John Derbyshire's New Bumper Sticker" Part I, Part II and Part III. The purported occasion for the articles is "a brief review of Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision by John Derbyshire at National Review Online." Derbyshire's blurb is less a "review" than it is an incidental mention of one claim contained in the book in a reference to an interview with the authors, including Luskin himself.
But the real business at hand for Luskin is an attack on the "Index to Creationist Claims: Claim CI001.4" at the Talk Origins Archive and, more importantly, on Judge Jones' decision. There are many valid objections to Luskin's arguments, not least of which is the real nature of the articles the Discovery Institute cites to, but I want to concentrate on the way the Discovery Institute is misrepresenting Judge Jones in aid of its bait and switch.
Essentially, both Pennock and Luskin make the claim that, since the Judge made a "universal generalization" that there have been no peer-reviewed articles supporting ID, he is "refuted" if a single counterexample is produced. Or, as Luskin put it, "[t]he question of 'complete absence of peer-reviewed publications' is a simple black and white, binary question: either ID has published peer-reviewed publications, or it hasn't."
In support of this contention that Judge Jones made that flat-out claim, Luskin quotes five passages from the decision. Luskin refers to these parts of the decision by the page numbers in the Federal Supplement Second, a case law reporter. [1] For those without access to a law library, I include below the page numbers from the original decision that can be found in a pdf file on the District Court site or in html format at The Talk Origin Archive. In addition, as a number of Luskin's examples are only sentence fragments, I give the full sentence that they are pulled from, with Luskin's quoted bits in bold:
As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. [p. 64]
A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. [p. 87]
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. [p. 87]
In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. [Judge Jones cites to testimony by defense witnesses Steven Fuller and Michael Behe. Fuller's testimony on this point can be found in the transcript of the afternoon session of October 24, 2005 at pp. 114-15 and Behe's can be found in the transcript of the morning session of October 19, 2005 at pp. 22-23 and 105-06.]
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. [pp. 88-89]
Both Luskin and Pennock are making their own black and white claim about Judge Jones and his decision. Their argument critically depends on whether Jones was saying that there were no peer-reviewed articles at all by ID advocates. Let's look at this in the proper context. The following is found on pp. 87-89 (citations are omitted) and encompasses all of Luskin's snippets, except the one from page 64 which is simply a pointer to a discussion that is to come later in the decision:
A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory. Expert testimony revealed that the peer review process is "exquisitely important" in the scientific process. It is a way for scientists to write up their empirical research and to share the work with fellow experts in the field, opening up the hypotheses to study, testing, and criticism. In fact, defense expert Professor Behe recognizes the importance of the peer review process and has written that science must "publish or perish." Peer review helps to ensure that research papers are scientifically accurately, meet the standards of the scientific method, and are relevant to other scientists in the field. Moreover, peer review involves scientists submitting a manuscript to a scientific journal in the field, journal editors soliciting critical reviews from other experts in the field and deciding whether the scientist has followed proper research procedures, employed up-to-date methods, considered and cited relevant literature and generally, whether the researcher has employed sound science.
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."[17] In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. ...
[17] The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (Citations omitted)
We see from this that the Judge, in fact, discussed a peer-reviewed article by Behe and Snoke but found it did not support ID. Instead, the article tried (unconvincingly) to rule out one common genetic mechanism of evolution but not all such mechanisms. For a more detailed discussion about this, see the article "Theory is as Theory Does" at The Panda's Thumb.
Thus it is clear that Judge Jones' point was not that there are no peer-reviewed articles that allegedly favor ID (since he discussed the Behe and Snoke article) but that those articles merely attack some aspect or other of evolutionary theory. The critical fact that Judge Jones found was that there are no articles that actively support ID, at least among those the ID advocates were willing to introduce at the trial and expose to cross-examination. [2] Even if there were such articles (and that is a matter of great dispute [3]), the Discovery Institute's complaints are hardly fair, since Judge Jones did not have them before him in evidence. Luskin's snippets did not reveal that context and that is the quote mining aspect of his article.
So now we see that Luskin's and Pennock's simple black and white, binary statement that Judge Jones found that there were no peer-reviewed articles at all has itself been falsified. Applying their own standards then, if they can miss so simple a question, how can we trust their understanding of issues which do not have "black-and-white" answers, such as whether those articles they cite really support ID? But let's not rest content with such feeble arguments.
Given that Luskin can only point to five articles after nearly two decades of ID "research," far less than the output of peer-reviewed papers supporting evolution in one week, the whole argument boils down, at most, to a quibble as to when "vanishingly small" counts the same as "none."
But, beyond that, there remains the issue of what it would take to actively support ID. The DI has been sensitive about accusations of argumentum ad ignorantium, as in this response by Jonathan Witt to an essay in the Wall Street Journal by Kevin Shapiro. Stephen Meyer’s article "Not by chance," which is regularly trotted out by the DI as an example of the positive evidence for a designer, has no such evidence at all. In point of fact, Meyer's contentions are a classic argument from ignorance layered over what Judge Jones rightly called a "contrived dualism":
The only "positive evidence" the article advances can be summed up in this analogy from Meyer:1) "Either life arose as the result of purely undirected material processes or a guiding intelligence played a role."
2) There is an "appearance of design."
3) This appearance is "unexplained by the mechanism -- natural selection -- that Darwin specifically proposed to replace the design hypothesis."
DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers.Indeed, Luskin just recently [4] defined ID itself in those very terms:
Luskin said the media often misidentifies intelligent design. He offered this definition: It's "a scientific theory that says some aspects of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because they are identical to objects we commonly know were designed by human intelligence."
And yet none of the articles mentioned by Luskin or Pennock [3] provide any evidence, peer-reviewed or not, that this analogy is coherent on its own terms, much less that it holds in the case of biology. They know that mere arguments from ignorance and scant attacks on evolutionary theory are not good enough, but that is all they have been able to get into the scientific literature. The analogy that they need to support is entirely lacking in scientific evidence. Indeed, Judge Jones noted in his decision (p. 81):
Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies (Citations omitted). [5]
Thus, the bait and switch in Luskin's article is in the DI's attempt to substitute arguments from ignorance for what they have yet to supply: evidence for a designer.
Until they can come up with that, there is no reason at all to doubt Judge Jones' finding that ID completely lacks support in the scientific literature.
_______________
[1] As an aside, Luskin cites to the Federal Supplement, a case law reporter that is rarely available outside a law library rather than to the page numbers contained in the original decision which anyone can obtain on the web. After a pretty thorough search, it does not appear that a copy with the Supplement's pagination is available on the web. It has been frequently noted in connection with the Quote Mine Project that, if there are two possible citations to any work, the one cited by creationists is often, if not invariably, to the one more difficult to find.
[2] Lest anyone repeat Pennock's mistake (which Luskin, as an attorney, would not, of course) mere mention of citations in an Amicus Curia brief does not constitute evidence in Federal or any other court and Judge Jones properly limited himself to the evidence submitted during the trial.
[3] Concerning the actual nature of the books and papers the ID advocates point to, see "Claim CI001.4: Intelligent design in biology has been supported by several peer-reviewed journals and books" and, on a more mundane level, my article elsewhere, "On Whistling and Graveyards II."
Other articles generally on the claim of peer-reviewed ID research include:
EvoWiki article "Peer-reviewed ID articles"
The Panda's Thumb: "Peer Reviewed Research"
The Panda's Thumb: "Meyer’s Hopeless Monster"
[4] "Diverse voices discuss the forces at work on today’s faithful," by Bill Tammeus, The Kansas City Star, July 22, 2006. Accessed July 29, 2006 at:
.
[5] You can read where Michael Behe invokes science fiction movies in defense of this analogy in the transcript of the afternoon session of October 19, 2005 at pp. 61-73.
.
Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Gee Whiz, A Quote Mine
..
The folks over at the Discovery Institute have been working the quote mines again, leaving nothing but scant tailings of their intellectual and moral integrity..
Latest victim of note is Henry Gee, biologist and editor at Nature, who has complained about being used by Jonathan Witt as follows:
Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature... [wrote:] "No fossil is buried with its birth certificate" ... and "the intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge that we cannot say anything definite about their possible connection through ancestry and descent." It's hard enough, with written records, to trace a human lineage back a few hundred years. When we have only a fragmentary fossil record, and we're dealing with millions of years -- what Gee calls "Deep Time" -- the job is effectively impossible... Gee concludes: "To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story -- amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific."
As Gee puts it:
I have become somewhat irked lately at the way that some creationists continue to attribute beliefs to me to which I do not subscribe. For example, creationists of the 'intelligent design' tendency have used my book Deep Time (sold in the US as In Search of Deep Time) to suggest that whereas I don't support their views, my own work somehow legitimises them . . .
He notes a previous correction of this quote mine and then gives a long email exchange he had with Witt, which is well worth the read. Here are some other abuses of Gee, as previously explained here and here.
.
Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Bill Gates Quote Mined
DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created. - Bill Gates
Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more complex . . .
Representative quote miners: Tom Bethell: Banned in Biology; Stephen E. Jones: Creation/Evolution Quotes: Origin of Life #3: Information and Professor Knockout Quotes!: Encyclopedic Information.
The truncated version apparently originated in an article by Stephen C. Meyer, "DNA and Other Designs" in the journal First Things that can be found in many places, including the following: Catholic Culture; The Center for Science and Culture and Access Research Network.
This quote mine has been promoted quite a bit recently by intelligent designer advocates. I found an early use of it by Stephen C. Meyer, Discovery Institute Fellow and young earth creationist. He used it this way, "If, as Bill Gates has said, "DNA is similar to a software program" but more complex, it makes sense, on analogical grounds, to consider inferring that it too had an intelligent source." in "DNA and Other Designs" Stephen Meyer First Things 102, April 1, 2000 but without citation..
The correct quote was used in 2004 by "Harun Yahya", the pseudonym of Adnan Oktar, the head of Bilim Arastirma Vakfi ( Science Research Foundation), an Islamic creationist organization based in Turkey. As far as I could learn, Meyer did not correctly quote Gates until just a few months ago. "As Bill Gates has noted, 'DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we've ever created.'" Stephen C. Meyer, "Not By Chance" National Post, (Canada) December 1, 2005.
.
In rapid succession the quote was used in several other publications targeted at politically conservative, and religious audiences. These included "What Is Intelligent Design?" by Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute in Human Events, and "Jefferson, Marx and Intelligent Design" by L. Baer for the Reverend Sun Myung Moon's newspaper The Washington Times, and "DNA Evidence of an Intelligent Designer" by Tom Ashby in the Huntington News. It is nearly certain that these later authors have not read Bill Gates' book for themselves, they all use the mistaken wording used by Steve Meyer's original article.
.
They all claim that this is somehow "evidence" in favor of IDC, but is it? Bill Gates wrote the sentence (or one nearly like it), but he wrote it in chapter about education and the Internet, and not in the least related to evolution or creationism. Chapter 9 of his book is titled "Education: The Best Investment, and the context of the quoted sentence is how Gates realized that biology was an interesting topic to study. The paragraph follows:
We have all had teachers who made a difference. I had a great chemistry teacher in high school who made his subject immensely interesting. Chemistry seemed enthralling compared to biology. In biology, we were dissecting frogs - just hacking them to pieces, actually - and our teacher didn't explain why. My chemistry teacher sensationalized his subject a bit and promised that it would help us understand the world. When I was in my twenties, I read James D. Watson's "Molecular Biology of the Gene" and decided my high school experience had misled me. The understanding of life is a great subject. Biological information is the most important information we can discover, because over the next several decades it will revolutionize medicine. Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created. It seems amazing to me now that one great teacher made chemistry endlessly fascinating while I found biology totally boring. (Gates, The Road Ahead, Penguin: London, Revised, 1996 p. 228)
There you have it -- Gates is not investing a great deal of attention to the facts of genetics -- he is talking about his experiences as a high schooler and the importance of good teachers. Further, there is nothing in the sentence or the idea behind it that attacks science or backs supernaturalism.
.
- Gary S. Hurd, Ph.D. *
____________________
.
It should be noted that this use of the Gates' quote commits the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam or the appeal to authority. Gates may well know a lot about software, but he is in no position to assess how much DNA is, if at all, like a computer program. In point of fact, anyone who read the above passage would doubt that Gates had even a high school level understanding of biology and anyone interested in honesty would make that clear if they still wanted to use the quote.
.
- John (catshark) Pieret
__________
.
* This is adapted, with the kind permission of Dr. Hurd, from a letter to the editor in response to Tom Ashby's opinion piece in the Huntington News referred to above.
.Labels: DI Quote Mining, Quote Mining
