I stumbled upon this 2005 letter to Nature by Michael Lynch and I thought I'd share it with you since it emphasizes one of my main pet peeves about intelligent design creationists. I've highlighted the relevant sentences. Check out the video.
Intelligent design or intellectual laziness?
SIR – Much of the concern over ID (Nature 434, 1053 and 1062–1065; 2005) has focused on veiled attempts to inject religion into public education. Sheltered within the confines of academia, most biologists find it hard to believe that the slain need to be slain again. Those in the trenches—school boards, school biology teachers and their national representatives—often don’t know how to respond, in part because they themselves never really achieved a deep understanding of evolutionary biology at college.
However, there is a related and equally disturbing issue: the legitimization of intellectual laziness. Have a problem explaining something? Forget about it: the Designer made it that way. Any place for diversity of opinion as to who/what the Designer is/was? The ID literature makes it very clear that there is no room for scientific discourse on that. Think I’m exaggerating? To get a good idea of what IDers would have the face of science look like, check out the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF.html).
Two factors have facilitated the promotion of ID. First, IDers like to portray evolution as being built entirely on an edifice of darwinian natural selection. This caricature of evolutionary biology is not too surprising. Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity. Building a straw man based on natural selection alone makes it easy for opponents to poke holes in evolution. But features of the genome, such as genomic parasites or non-coding introns, which aren’t so evolutionarily favourable (nor obviously ‘intelligent’ innovations), can be more readily explained by models that include random genetic drift and mutation as substantial evolutionary forces.
Second, IDers like to portray evolution as a mere theory. But after a century of close scrutiny, evolutionary theory has passed so many litmus tests of validation that evolution is as much a fact as respiration and digestion.
Less widely appreciated is that evolution has long been the most quantitative field of biology, well grounded in the general principles of transmission genetics. Yet few students at university, and almost none at high school, are exposed to the mathematical underpinnings of evolutionary theory. The teaching of evolution purely as history, with little consideration given to the underlying mechanisms, reinforces the false view that evolution is one of the softer areas of science.
Here is a missed opportunity. Our failure to provide students with the mathematical skills necessary to compete in a technical world is a major concern in the United States. Mathematics becomes more digestible, and even attractive, when students see its immediate application. What better place to start than with the population-genetic theory of evolution, much of which is couched in algebraic terms accessible to school students?
Michael Lynch
Department of Biology, Indiana University,
Bloomington, Indiana 47405, USA
The human genome has about 14,000 pseudogenes that are derived from protein-coding genes and an unknown number derived from genes that specify functional noncoding RNAs. There is abundant evidence that the vast majority of these pseudogenes are nonfunctional by all measurable criteria.
It would be perverse to deny the existence of pseudogenes. Almost all of them are junk DNA with no known function. Anyone who claims otherwise can be dismissed as a kook and it's not worth debating those people.
The presence of a single well-characterized pseudogene at the same locus in the genomes of different species is powerful evidence of common descent. For example, Ken Miller has long argued that the existence of common pseudogenes in chimpanzees and humans is solid evidence that the two species share a common ancestor. He uses the β-globin pseudogene and the gene for making vitamin C as examples in Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul.
Casey Luskin: ... and, as we all know, or many ID the Future listeners probably know, for years Darwinian theorists and evolutionary scientists have said that our genomes ought to be full of junk if evolution is true
.....
Casey Luskin: So, Dr. Hunter, you think, just for the record, that in the long term there is going to be function found for probably the vast majority of the genome and so, maybe, you might call it a prediction you would make coming out of an intelligent design paradigm. Is that correct?
Cornelius Hunter: Yes, that's correct Casey, I'll definitely go on the record on that. Not to say I have a hundred percent confidence and also I wanna be clear that from a metaphysical perspective, from my personal belief, I don't have a problem wherever it lands. It doesn't matter to me whether it's 10% or 90% or any where in between or 100% ... just from the scientific perspective and just from the history of science and the history of what we've found in biology, it really does look like it's gonna be closer to 100 than zero.
Casey Luskin: Okay, great, I always like it when people put clear and concrete predictions out there and and I think that's very helpful.
I predict that about 90% of our genome will turn out to be junk DNA—DNA with no function. I base my prediction on the scientific perspective and the history of what we've found in biology. That's interesting because Cornelius Hunter and I are apparently reaching opposite conclusions based on the same data.
I also love it when people make predictions. Will the intelligent design paradigm be falsified if I turn out to be right?
Does it sound to you that Cornelius Hunter personally doesn't care if the prediction coming out of the intelligent design paradigm is correct or not?
1. How come in the podcast they never refer to Dan Graur as Dr. Graur? Isn't that strange?
OK, Larry. I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate your claim.
This was the kind of challenge that's like shooting fish in a barrel but I thought I'd do it anyway in case it could serve as a teaching moment. Boy, was I wrong! Turns out that ID proponents are unteachable.
I decided to concentrate on Arrington's published statements about junk DNA where he said ...
I was alerted to this video by a post on Facebook. I had never seen it before. The occasion is the celebration of the 20th anniversary of McLean v. Arkansas— one of the legal victories of Americans who are fighting to keep creationism out of the classroom.
It's a 30 minute presentation by Stephen J. Gould on the fossil record. The event took place in February 2001, just a year before he died. You should watch it for many reasons—too many to mention them all here but here are some of the most important ones.
In my first post [Answering Barry Arrington's challenge: Darwinism] I established that Barry Arrington's version of "Darwinism" is actually "Neo-Darwinism" or the "Modern Synthesis." We all know why Intelligent Design Creationists would rather use "Darwinism"—this explains why they deliberately change the meaning to make it look like they understand evolution
Arrington's version of "Darwinism can be seen in the Uncommon Descentglossary. It focuses on natural selection as the mechanism of evolution and doesn't mention Neutral Theory of random genetic drift.
OK, Larry. I assume you mean to say that I do not understand the basics of Darwinism. I challenge you, therefore, to demonstrate your claim.
Today I'm feeling optimistic—life is good and this evening we're going to a nice restaurant for dinner with our favorite nephew.1 Let's try, once again, to convert this into a teaching moment. Hopefully, at least one or two ID proponents will learn something.2
Turn off your irony meters. Really ... I'm not kidding. They will never survive if you leave them on and follow the link to this post by Barry Arrington on Uncommon Descent.
The answer, of course, is “nothing.” Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits. Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.
One of the most frustrating things about the current crop of Intelligent Design Creationists is that it's impossible to pin them down on what they really think happened in the history of life. We know that some of them are closet Young Earth Creationists so we can guess what they think. They may be arguing that bacterial flagella reveal the actions of a designer but they actually don't believe any of the data used to make that argument. They think that all species (or kinds) were created at once just a few thousand years ago.
Other Intelligent Design Creationists seem to believe in a different form of creation but who knows what it is? Take Stephen Mayer, for example, you can read his books from cover to cover and still not know what he thinks about the history of life. It's clear that the Cambrian Explosion is a big deal for him and it's clear that he thinks god is behind it all but he's remarkably noncommittal about what actually happened according to his interpretation of the evidence.
For those of you who are interested in the evolution of the major animal phyla, let me introduce you to the topic.
See the little red circle on the phylogenetic tree on the right? That's what we're talking about.
Most of the major animal phyla are first observed as primitive fossils in the Cambrian about 540 million years ago. The fossils cluster around dates that only span a few million years (about 10 million years). This is the Cambrian Explosion (see little red circle).
There's considerable debate among evolutionary biologists about what caused this relatively rapid appearance of diverse and disparate large fossils. Intelligent Design Creationist, Stephen Meyer decided that such a debate casts serious doubt on evolution as an explanation for the history of life so he wrote a book called Darwin's Doubt.
The Discovery Institute blog, Evolution News & View (sic) doesn't allow comments. They're beginning to feel a bit guilty about that so there have recently been two posts on the topic.
The problem from their perspective is that their opponents are rude, crude, and abusive so they have to ban all comments. Here's how David Klinghoffer puts it.
So what are we supposed to do when, under a free-for-all commenting policy, Darwinists like Moran -- who is far from scraping the bottom of the barrel as far as online evolutionists go -- post abusive, defamatory, and false comments on our own news site? Should we delete their comments? Edit them? But then we would be accused of "censorship."
Should we perhaps allow them to say whatever they like, fouling the carpet in our own living room? When they have every opportunity to write what they like where they like and receive an answer from us, if the challenge rises to the level of being worthy of a reply? Why in the world would we do that?
If we can't accept providing a free forum for a great deal of nasty, false, and vacuous chatter, the only alternative is to devote significant time to moderating the forum, policing the sandbox, and then defending that moderation at every step as it is challenged. That would require staffing that we can't afford.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that there already is an ID blog that allows comments. Check out Uncommon Descent to see who's fouling the carpet.
What they're really worried about isn't the "Darwinists." It's Mung, bornagain, Vy, Andre, Virgil Cain, Upright BiPed, Mapou and others like them who will dominate the comments section and give the Discovery Institute a bad reputation.
I've been trying to argue a few points on the creationist blogs but I have to admit that I'm not making any progress at all. Even the simplest, most obvious, points are vigorously contested by the ID crowd over there.
My latest attempt was on the post, Suzan Mazur’s Paradigm Shifters is now available from Amazon, where I tried to explain that Denyse O'Leary's version of Darwinism is not the best description of evolutionary theory and that many of Suzan Mazur's "Paradigm Shifters" have missed the revolution that occurred in the late 1960s.
Didn't work.
Now someone named "Florabama" has posted a comment that illustrates the problem we're up against. I thought I'd share it with Sandwalk readers. It may not be possible to teach such a person anything about science.
I think there's some serious attempts to do science among ID proponents but I also think it's bad science. It's fun, informative, and challenging to debate real science with knowledgeable, informed members of the ID community.
However, that same community embraces many, many advocates who are not knowledgeable about evolution and not informed about how science works. They are not scientists by any stretch of the imagination but they pretend to be scientific. Many of them are Young Earth Creationists who seriously think that the universe was created pretty much as it is only 6000 years ago. While it's true that every ID proponent is a creationist (i.e believes in the existence of a supernatural creator) there are some versions of creationism that are more irrational than others.
The theistic evolution version of creationism rejects the views of their anti-science YEC friends but Intelligent Design Creationism embraces all comers as long as they are vehemently opposed to materialism and evolution. That's fine, but then ID can't claim to be scientific. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you try to act like scientists, in which case you have to oppose the kooks and YECs in your movement, or you admit that you are a religious and social movement, in which case you stop pretending to be a science.
I hope that the knowledgeable, informed, members of the ID community will abandon the ridiculous path they've taken where they try to make a scientific case for ID knowing full well that the majority of their supporters disagree strongly with their premises (e.g. common descent). That's an untenable position.
We've seen recently that some ID proponents are attempting to do this. I'm thinking of Jonathan McLatchie and Vincent Torley right now but there are others. How is it working out? Look at the Torley post on Uncommon Descent where he's trying to explain evolution to IDiots: Human and chimp DNA: They really are about 98% similar. It's an uphill battle. The kooks are accusing him of becoming a Darwinist.
But that's exactly what the ID community needs to do in order to gain credibility. They need to shed the kooks and the IDiots who make them look silly. When they do that, they may find that more of us are willing to have a serious discussion about science.
David Klinghoffer is one of the names I mentioned in an earlier post when I identified leading ID proponents who have no clue about the science they are opposing. Others are Denyse O'Leary, Barry Arrington, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin,1 David Klinghoffer, Paul Nelson, John West, and William Lane Craig. These people represent the face of the ID movement and that's how we're going to judge Intelligent Design Creationism unless they clean up their act. (We also judge it by the people who post comments on blogs and Facebook and by those politicians who support it in the public sphere.)
Klinghoffer posts on Evolution News & Views (sic)—a site that doesn't allow comments. His latest post is a classic example of the problems that the ID movement faces: Here's Why We Answer Some of Our Less Cogent Critics.
As you can see, he avoids the issue I raised in favor of an ad hominem attack. Wouldn't it be nice to see a scientific debate between Michael Behe and David Klinghoffer on the meaning of evolution? Not going to happen as long as ID is primarily a religious movement.
1. Casey Luskin can't decide how old the universe is but he leans toward Young Earth Creationism. Yet he's a leading spokesman for the "science" of intelligent design.
Listen to Jonathan McLatchie's explanation of irreducible complexity and why it represents a problem for the "neo-Darwinian paradigm." Keep in mind that he has been asked to do this by a Christian pastor on an Christian apologetics podcast. I wonder why?
McLatchie claims that an irreducibly complex system consist of a number of subfunctions where the removal of one subfunction renders the whole system nonfunctional. He implies that such systems can't be explained by evolution. Do all ID proponents agree? If we can show you a reasonable evolutionary explanation of the evolution of a single irreducibly complex system, using McLatchie's definition, would that refute his claim that such systems present a challenge to evolution? How about if we show you two examples? Three?
Because science is defined by its methodology, any attempt to discredit a field such as Intelligent Design by casting aspersions on the motives of its leading practitioners completely misses the point. No matter what their motives might be, the only question which is germane in this context is: do Intelligent Design researchers follow a proper scientific methodology, and do ID proponents support their arguments by appealing to that methodology? The answer to this question should be obvious to anyone who has read works such as Darwin’s Black Box, The Edge of Evolution, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt. Intelligent Design researchers and advocates commonly appeal to empirical probabilities (which can be measured in the laboratory), mathematical calculations (about what chance and/or necessity can accomplish), and abductive reasoning about historical events (such as the Cambrian explosion) which bear the hallmarks of design.
This is a video from One Minute Apologist. Really, I'm not kidding. There actually is a man called Bobby Conway who is the One Minute Apologist.
He became a devout Christian when he was 19 and subsequently went off to Bible school then got a Doctorate of Ministry in Apologetics from Southern Evangelical Seminary. He's now a Ph.D. candidate in the Philosophy of Religion department at the University of Birmingham (UK). I'd love to be on his thesis committee but I'm not a philosopher. Maybe they'll invite John Wilkins to serve as external reviewer at the thesis defense?
The theme of his videos and website is ...
We provide quick, credible answers to apologetic questions that resource people with a hunger to defend their Christian faith.
Here's an interview with Jonathan McLatchie where McLatchie tires to pretend that ID is a legitimate scientific investigation that has nothing to do with creationism. Keep in mind that he's doing this while being interviewed by a Christian Pastor in a Christian apologetics video. Watch the video, it's only one minute.
Having narrowly escaped one catastrophe—the end of the world on October 7th—there's another looming on the horizon. Denyse O'Leary tells us that Jonathan Wells is preparing an "update" of his book Icons of Evolution [What’s happened since Icons of Evolution (2002)?].
You know what's going to happen next year if she is right? We are going to deluged with pre-publication publicity promoting the book that we can't see. We'll be told that it refutes evolution and builds on the outstanding success of the first book. We'll be told that Jonathan Wells addresses and refutes all of the criticisms of his first book and adds some more devastating proofs that the Rev. Sun Myung Moon is right.
None of this will be true, of course, but that's why the IDiots will get in their licks before we can prove it by reading the book. This is the standard ploy taken by the Discovery Institute over the past few years.
I know a lot about Icons of Evolution because for seven years it was required reading in my course on critical thinking. All my students had to write essays on one of the chapters. They had to analyze the arguments that Wells was making and decide whether they were valid or not.
Some of you may have forgotten about Icons of Evolution so you may have to refresh your memory by reading the short summary and reviews on the Wikipedia site [Icons of Evolution]. You can see that Wells has his work cut out for him if he's going to reply to all of the criticism.
Here's a few posts that I have done over the years to show that Icons of Evolution is seriously flawed. Some of them show that Jonathan Wells is dishonest—something that my students usually discovered on their own.1
I'm hoping to get a response in his new book but I'm not holding my breath. I spent a lot of time showing that his last book, The Myth of Junk DNA was flawed but here's how Jonathan Wells responded [see Jonathan Wells Sends His Regrets] ...
Oh, one last thing: “paulmc” referred to an online review of my book by University of Toronto professor Larry Moran—a review that “paulmc” called both extensive and thorough. Well, saturation bombing is extensive and thorough, too. Although “paulmc” admitted to not having read more than the Preface to The Myth of Junk DNA, I have read Mr. Moran’s review, which is so driven by confused thinking and malicious misrepresentations of my work—not to mention personal insults—that addressing it would be like trying to reason with a lynch mob.
Denyse O'Leary warns us that there may be more "icons" in the next book. She quotes someone named Stephen Batzer who claims that there are three new "show stoppers."
That Darwin’s finches are simply races of the same bird. There has been no speciation.
That the tree of life is not viable. “It’s a bush!” they respond. Well, then Darwin was wrong, and the model is wrong. If it’s a *bush* it isn’t a *tree*. The Darwinian model is common descent and gradual differentiation. That has been shown to be false, because of #3.
ORFAN (Orphan) genes. Where do novel genes come from? If common genes mean common descent, then novel genes mean intervention and an innovator.
I wish I were still teaching my course. These are so easy to refute that all my students would have gotten A's on their essays. It shows you that the level of biology expected by Denyse O'Leary and the IDiots is nowhere near as elevated as second year university.
1. Every year I would have students setting up an appointment to see me in my office to discuss a problem they were having with their essay. They had discovered that some things in Icons seemed inconsistent with the truth and they wondered where they were going wrong.
This month marks the tenth anniversary of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case in Pennsylvania [Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.]. The legal victory will be celebrated by NCSE and Panda's Thumb and by many other supporters of science and evolution. If American law is your thing, then please join in the celebration of a legal victory.
It's much more interesting to evaluate whether the legal victory in Pennsylvania had any significant effect on the general public. Did it cause people to change their minds and abandon Intelligent Design Creationism to embrace science? Has America moved closer to the time when real science can be taught in the schools without interference from religion? Have politicians stopped trying to water down evolution in the public schools because of Judge Jones' decision in Kitzmiller v Dover? Have politicians stopped opposing evolution and has the public stopped voting for those who do?
