- Darwin's Doubt: A Synopsis
- Darwin's Doubt: The Genes Tell the Story?
- The Cambrian Conundrum: Stephen Meyer Says (Lack of) Fossils Trumps Genes
- Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Evidence Must Be Wrong Because Scientists Disagree About the Exact Dates
- Stephen Meyer Says Molecular Data Must Be Wrong Because Different Genes Evolve at Different Rates
- Stephen Meyer Says That Constant Mutation Rates Are a "Questionable Assumption"
- Stephen Meyer Says that "Homology" Is a Problem in Molecular Evolution
I can only assume that they have no rebuttal. I know they read my blog and they should have been on the look-out for my critique in September 2013 because David Klinghoffer specifically challenged me to review Darwin's Doubt.1 [On Darwin's Doubt, Still Waiting to Hear from Big Shots in the Darwin Brigade]. Here's what he said on September 4, 2013 just before I put up those posts.
Where is Jerry Coyne in this debate? Where is Dawkins? Even PZ Myers? Or Lawrence Moran, who promised "I'm planning to read [Darwin's Doubt] as soon as I can get a hold of a copy -- probably sometime in August in Canada." (I'm still puzzled by that one. The book was published in June in Canada as well.) It would seem noble for the generals to go into battle alongside the ordinary foot soldiers, putting themselves at risk as well, instead of hanging back at a safe distance.My ego was assuaged somewhat when I discovered that one of my blog posts got mentioned. It was in Chapter 2: "Gripe-Fest Turns Surreal" by David Klinghoffer. Here's what he says in Debating Darwin's Doubt (p. 23) ...
At a certain point, the prepublcation gripe-fest by Darwinian bilogist-bloggers about "Darwin's Doubt" turned surreal.That's very revealing because it is how those guys think.
Prophylactically, Jerry Coyne and Joe Felsenstein tried to ward off evident anxieties about Stephen Meyer's book by assuring fellow Darwinists they knew what was in it, and then attacking it on those grounds. Larry Moran, who of course also hadn't read it, endorsed Dr. Coyne's delusional summation of the book's contents ("Yes, baby Jesus made the phyla!") and went after Casey Luskin for the ethical violation, no less, of writing about the book prepublication—though of course Casey had read it.
"The Intelligent Design Creationists want you to know that any criticism of what they are saying about the book is unethical unless you've read it yourself. However, it's not the least bit unethical for them to make outlandish claims about the what's in the book months before we can verify whether those claims are correct.Moran took after me too for "speculat[ing] about what the book was going to say.
This is creationist ethics, It's not supposed to make sense." [Soon to Be Released: Another Landmark for the ID Movement ]
"Don't make outlandish claims about what's in the book until it's published and everyone can check for themselves. If you speculate about what the book is going to say then don't be surprised if others do as well." [Darwin Doubters Want to Have their Cake and Eat it too]But I was not speculating—at that point I had read "Darwin's Doubt" too. I had the unbound galley right in front of me on my desk. Moran promised to read the book, though he complained that despite the June 18 publication date he likely wouldn't be able to get hold of a copy till August since he lives in Canada.
Canada? Not Timbuktu. It takes two months to ship a book to Toronto? That is very weird.
Anyway, let's get the Moran logic clear. It's perfectly OK to review a book you haven't read before it's published, if the book argues for intelligent design and you are attacking it in absurd terms as Coyne did. But writing about the same book before it's published, if you have read it and are favorably impressed by its argument, is an ethical breach. You see, this is really how these guys think.
This may come as a big surprise to you, dear readers, but clear logic is not one of the strong points of Intelligent Design Creationists.
I think it's ridiculous to review a book you haven't read but that's not what Jerry Coyne or Joe Felsenstein ever did. What they did was to respond to the increasing hype from the IDiots in the three months leading up to the publication of Darwin's Doubt.
Let's remind ourselves what Casey Luskin wrote on April 9, 2013—three months before publication [Three (or Four) Reasons Everyone Should Read Darwin's Doubt].
Arguments for intelligent design in the Cambrian explosion have certainly been made before. But Darwin's Doubt will be by far the most in-depth and mature development of those arguments to date, addressing in detail many ideas and rebuttals and theories advanced by evolutionary scientists, and showing why the theory of intelligent design best explains the explosion of biodiversity in the Cambrian animals ....That's not a review. That's just speculation and hype.
When published, Darwin's Doubt will be the single most up-to-date rebuttal to neo-Darwinian theory from the ID-paradigm ....
In this regard, Darwin's Doubt does something that's never been done before: it surveys the landscape of these "post-neo-Darwinian evolutionary models," and shows why they too fail as explanations for the origin of animal body plans and biological complexity.
Some of my colleagues reacted to that prepublication hype by pointing out that Stephen Meyer has a history. It was pretty obvious that he was going to say the same sorts of things that he'd said before. They were right.
It was in response to that hype ("Darwin's Doubt will be the single most up-to-date rebuttal to neo-Darwinian theory ...") that I wrote (April 12, 2013) ...
The Intelligent Design Creationists want you to know that any criticism of what they are saying about the book is unethical unless you've read it yourself. However, it's not the least bit unethical for them to make outlandish claims about what's in the book months before we can verify whether those claims are correct.I followed up a few days later with ...
Here's how the strategy works. The IDiots are arguing the merits of Meyer's new book on the leading creationist blogs. They are generating lots of publicity and convincing their followers that the book is going to be a devastating rebuttal of "Darwinism." None of their followers have read the book but that doesn't matter. They won't have to.I think that's pretty clear. David Klinghoffer may disagree with me about the ethics, and hypocrisy, of his friends at the Discovery Institute but who would have thought that he could fail to understand the clear logic?
How are scientists supposed to respond? None of us have read the book so we can't (yet) show that it is just more of the same old propaganda that we've seen before. What we can say is that we are very skeptical of the claims being made and we think it is disingenuous to promote those claims when we can't examine the "evidence." We can confidently speculate about what Stephen Meyer is going to say because he has a history and because he gives away some of his arguments in the publicity surrounding the book. The IDiots only sing one note and there's a very high probability that this isn't going to change.
That's exactly what Jerry Coyne said in his post: A (formerly) reputable publisher sells out to creationists. He puts it very nicely—and undoubtedly accurately— when he says, "But creationist Stephen Meyer, from the Discovery Institute, has apparently wrapped up the story. He’s hit upon the real reason for the Cambrian explosion: it’s intelligent design! Yes, baby Jesus made the phyla!"
Does anyone with an IQ over 50 think Coyne's prediction is wrong?
Now let's address the issue of when I got the books, and how. David Klinghoffer may find this hard to believe but I don't order books on Amazon.com—the American website. I order them on Amazon.ca—the Canadian website—where I pay in Canadian dollars and shipping charges are cheaper.
He may also find it hard to believe that I didn't really care if I got it in June or August. In fact, I received the book on Aug. 1, 2013 but didn't get around to commenting on it until Sept. 5, 2013 [Darwin's Doubt: A Synopsis]. David, Casey, Stephen, and the other IDiots must have been shocked that I didn't put aside everything that I was doing to address yet another IDiot book.
Oh, I almost forgot. Don't bother reading Debating Darwin's Doubt. It's mostly just blog posts from Evolution News & Views (sic), which Klinghoffer runs. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
It's pretty clear what the IDiots are up to as I pointed out last month [Debating Darwin's Doubt].
The book was necessary because there has been so much criticism of the original Stephen Meyer's book Darwin's Doubt. David Klinghoffer has an interesting way of turning this defeat into a victory because he declares,The idea is to snatch victory from defeat. If they can't explain away all the criticism of Darwins'Doubt from the experts, then at lest they can claim that they got their attention and there's a real debate going on.
"... the new book is important because it puts to rest a Darwinian myth, an icon of the evolution debate, namely...that there is no debate, about evolution or intelligent design!"
Psychics, homeopaths, and astologers make the same argument. With the same effect.
I made a prediction ...
It won't take long for us to demolish all the arguments in "Debating Darwin's Doubt." That means we can expect another book in 2017. It will be called: "Denying Debating Darwin's Doubt." The one after that (in 2019) will be "Defending Denying Debating Darwin's Doubt."
1. It would be gauche to criticize Klinghoffer for misspelling my first name but, for the record, it's Laurence. Call me Larry.