Peter Lawrence on What's Wrong with Science

 
Peter Lawrence is a Professor at the University of Cambridge in Cambridge, UK. He has worked on various aspects of fruit fly development for almost 40 years. Readers may know him as one of the authors of Wolpert's Principles of Development or as the author of The Making of a Fly.

Peter is a very smart guy. He thinks a lot about the "big picture" and not just the minutiae of day-to-day work in a competitive environment. That's why his article in this month's issue of Current Biology is worth reading. Lawrence writes about what's wrong with modern science [The Mismeasure of Science].

For most scientists, there won't be any revelations in the article but it's put together well and covers all the bases. The main point is that today's scientists have to worry far too much about "productivity" in order to get funded. The system is geared towards artificial measurements of research success that may, or may not, reward creativity and innovation.

Modern science, particularly biomedicine, is being damaged by attempts to measure the quantity and quality of research. Scientists are ranked according to these measures, a ranking that impacts on funding of grants, competition for posts and promotion. The measures seemed, at first rather harmless, but, like cuckoos in a nest, they have grown into monsters that threaten science itself. Already, they have produced an “audit society” [2] in which scientists aim, and indeed are forced, to put meeting the measures above trying to understand nature and disease.

The journals are evaluated according to impact factors, and scientists and departments assessed according to the impact factors of the journals they publish in. Consequently, over the last twenty years a scientist's primary aim has been downgraded from doing science to producing papers and contriving to get them into the “best” journals they can [3]. Now there is a new trend: the idea is to rank scientists by the numbers of citations their papers receive. Consequently, I predict that citation-fishing and citation-bartering will become major pursuits.

You need to read the full article to get all the details.

So, what can we do about it? It's an old complaint, one that's been openly discussed even since I first met Peter Lawrence back in the mid-1970's. If a bunch of (relatively) smart scientists can't figure out how to fix the problem then maybe it's unfixable.

Here's where I think Lawrence drops the ball. He proposes the same tired old "remedies" that we've never adopted in the past in spite of the fact that we all pay lip service to their benefits. He wants us all to pay attention to "quality" and "originality" over quantity. He wants us to be more careful about putting authors names on a paper. He wants a code of ethics for scientists. He wants to reform the peer review process in the leading journals. None of this is going to happen as long as money is tight and the granting agencies have to come up with defensible policies for turning down 75% of grant applications.

The short term solution is to put more money into the grant system and to stop hiring more scientists. The long term solution is to look for better ways of funding. I like the idea of giving large block grants to departments and letting the researchers divide it up as they see fit. This would have worked well in any department I've been in but I hear horror stories about other departments.

---

[Photo Credit: The photograph of Peter Lawrence is from his website at the University of Cambridge (Peter A. Lawrence]

Lawrence, P.A. (2007) The mismeasurement of science. Current Biology 17:R583-R585.

Half-Truths in Sicko?

 
Jim Giles reviewed Michael Moore's Sicko in the July 14th issue of New Scientist [Review: Sicko, directed by Michael Moore]. Like many reviews, this one conceded that Moore has a point about the shape of health care in the USA but was reluctant to admit that other countries are doing better. One paragraph mentioned "half-truths."

For the most part, Moore makes his case by absenting himself from the screen and allowing those who have been let down by the system to do the talking. Then he travels to the UK and France and finds that what conservatives in the US damn as "socialised medicine" actually works well. He does the same in Cuba, ferrying ill Americans to the island where they receive excellent healthcare at almost no cost. The result is a moving, funny and shocking film. It is a powerful call for change, despite its half-truths.

In last week's issue of New Scientist, a letter writer challenged Giles to produce his "half-truths," pointing out that the Sicko website documents every claim in the movie.

Here's how Jim Giles responded ...

The most obvious half-truths were the slanted depictions of the healthcare systems in the UK, France, and Cuba. The British NHS can be great, but waiting lists are often long and access to certain drugs can depend on where a patient lives. France's system is indeed highly rated, but Moore did not mention the very high taxes there. Cuba's public health is far above what would be expected for a country with limited resources and suffering the consequences of the US trade embargo, but it also restricts access to certain drugs and technologies.

Some of these sound very much like half-truths to me. Yes, waiting lists for non-lifethreatening procedures are often longer in countries with socialized medicine. That is, they are longer than the wait for similar procedures in a fully private system where people can afford to pay for it. On the other hand, the waiting time in the UK is a lot shorter than it is for Americans who can't afford decent health insurance, isn't it?

Access to certain drugs is restricted in all socialized medicine systems. For example, the system won't pay for drugs that don't work and haven't been approved. This is bad news for quacks who generally do much better under a private system. Socialized medicine often won't pay for expensive drugs if a cheaper alternative is available. Is this what Giles meant?

It's true that taxes are higher in countries that provide universal access to medical treatments. This isn't a half-truth in Sicko. As I recall, it's one of the main points. The US system is more expensive in spite of the fact that it's run by the private sector.

Gene Genie #13

 




Gene Genie #13 has been posted on The Genetic Geneologist [Gene Genie #13: Into the Future].

The Hominid Bush

 
Brian Switek of Laelaps has posted a wonderful essay on Homo sapiens: The Evolution of What We Think About Who We Are. Read it.

In a just world, the IDiots like Jonathan Wells would read what Brian, and others, have to say and stop spreading lies about what scientists think.

[Photo Credit: The photograph of Hamlet is from The Young Shakespeare Workshop]

Jim Watson on the Discovery of the Double Helix

 
THEME

---

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
This is a nice addition to my earlier postings on the story of DNA [The Story of DNA (Part 1)][The Story of DNA (Part 2)]. This story (below) is straight from the horse's mouth.



[Hat Tip:Shalini].

University of Toronto Professor in Space

 
That's astronaut Dave Williams on the right. He's a University of Toronto adjunct professor of surgery. According the the University of Toronto press release,Williams was a Professor here in emergency medicine until he was selected for the astronaut training program in 1992 [U of T professor to walk in space].

Chautauqua Institution

 
Today we're off to the Chautauqua Institution for an entire week of learning and fun. I'm really looking forward to hearing Judy Collins on Tuesday.

This week's program is Music: Heart, Soul and Dollar. Last year it was Global Climate Change with Al Gore.

Next year we'll be attending the week on Darwin and Linnaeus: Their Impact on Our View of the Natural World. In 2009 it's a full week on Darwin again as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of something important. I'm hoping to offer courses on evolution next year and in 2009 so book now. :-)

Chautauqua is one of my favorite places in the USA. If you've never been there, you are missing some of the best that America has to offer. See the Wikipedia entry [Chautauqua Institution] for a brief description.

This is a great opportunity to mingle with people of various faiths and to attend discussions and debates about the intersection between faith and society. But it's not all about religion—there's a significant percentage of the guests who are non-religious and we don't have to hide it.

Misanthropic Principle

 
In the June 30th issue of New Scientist Paul Davies discussed the anthropic principle [The flexi-laws of physics]. He says,

If the universe came with any old rag-bag of laws, life would almost certainly be ruled out. Indeed, changing the existing laws by even a scintilla could have lethal consequences. For example, if protons were 0.1 per cent heavier than neutrons, rather than the other way about, all the protons coughed out of the big bang would soon have decayed into neutrons. Without protons and their crucial electric charge, atoms could not exist and chemistry would be impossible.

Physicists and cosmologists know many such examples of uncanny bio-friendly "coincidences" and fortuitous fine-tuned properties in the laws of physics. Like Baby Bear's porridge in the story of Goldilocks, our universe seems "just right" for life. It looks, to use astronomer Fred Hoyle's dramatic description, as if "a super-intellect has been monkeying with physics". So what is going on?

As far as we know, life exists on one small planet orbiting an insignificant star in an unremarkable galaxy off in one small corner of the known universe. This reminds me of a famous Mark Twain quotation [Mark Twain and the Eiffel Tower].

I really like the letter from Nathaniel Hellerstein that appeared in the July 21st issue of New Scientist.

If Paul Davies says that the universe is bio-friendly, then I say he hasn't taken a good look at it (30 June, p 30). The universe is bio-tolerant, maybe, or better yet bio-indifferent. Looking at the night sky, I do not see a cosmos optimised for producing life. It appears to be optimised for producing vacuum.

Even if the universe somehow "needs" life, it evidently doesn't need very much of it. Perhaps, from the cosmic point of view, life is a necessary evil, to be tolerated and limited.

I call this the misanthropic principle - it certainly fits the facts better than the anthropic principle does.

Cody on the Sandwalk

 


Here's a picture of Cody from 90% True on the Sandwalk.

Ethidium Bromide Is a Dangerous Chemical

 
Friday's Urban Legend: PROBABLY FALSE

Monday's Molecule #35 from last month was ethidium. The salt, ethidium bromide, is used as a dye to stain DNA [Ethidium Bromide Binds to DNA].

Most of us have heard that ethidium is a potent mutagen so you need to be very careful when using it in the lab. Wear gloves at all times and dispose of any excess ethidium solutions in the proper containers.

According to Rosie Redfield, a microbiologist at the University of British Columbia (Canada), this may have been an overreaction to the presumed dangers of ethidium bromide [Heresy about Ethidium Bromide].

THEME

---

Deoxyrobonucleic Acid (DNA)Apparently ethidium is regularly used as a drug to treat African Sleeping Sickness and it shows no significant ill effects when used at doses that are 1000 times what we use in a typical laboratory.

Creationist Delusions about Transitional Fossils and Information

 
As expected, the IDiots are gloating over the widespread media misrepresentation of human evolution based on a recent Nature paper [The Ileret Skulls: My Two Cents] [Man Bites Dog].

Over on Uncommon Descent, one of our favorite IDiots has jumped on the bandwagon [Paleoanthropologists bungle again…]. The sycophants that are allowed to post comments on that blog have raised the old issue about the presumed lack of transitional fossils. As usual, they demonstrate their lack of understanding of evolution although, in this case, they have lots of company in the media and even among some scientists.

One person has posted this video of Richard Dawkins being interviewed by Creationists. The sycophants are delighted because it supposedly shows Dawkins being stumped by the demand that he give an example of the increase in genetic information in the genome. They ignore the second part of the video where he explains why we don't see the kinds of transitional fossils that the Creationists demand.



Look at the first part of the video. This is a very famous incident and Dawkins has written about it several times, most notably in a lengthy article on Australian Skeptics [The Information Challenge]. The article also appears in A Devil's Chaplain. Here's how Dawkins describes the incident.

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera. However, I eventually withdrew my peremptory termination of the interview as a whole. This was solely because they pleaded with me that they had come all the way from Australia specifically in order to interview me. Even if this was a considerable exaggeration, it seemed, on reflection, ungenerous to tear up the legal release form and throw them out. I therefore relented.

My generosity was rewarded in a fashion that anyone familiar with fundamentalist tactics might have predicted. When I eventually saw the film a year later, I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content. In fairness, this may not have been quite as intentionally deceitful as it sounds. You have to understand that these people really believe that their question cannot be answered! Pathetic as it sounds, their entire journey from Australia seems to have been a quest to film an evolutionist failing to answer it.

With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite. First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine), I shall try to redress the matter now in constructive fashion by answering the original question, the "Information Challenge", at adequate length - the sort of length you can achieve in a proper article.

Now that I've provided the link, I'm certain all the IDiots over on Uncommon Descent will read the Dawkins article and learn how new information gets into the genome. That should be the end of this little episode, right?

Dawkins on the Sandwalk

 
Somebody else has walked the walk [90% True]. They took a picture of Dawkins' book but if they have pictures of themselves on the Sandwalk I'd be happy to post them.

T. Ryan Gregory on the Sandwalk

John Wilkins on the Sandwalk

Walk the Sandwalk

[Hat Tip: PZ Myers]

Oklahoma Specialty License Plates

 
You can buy a whole bunch of different specialty license plates in Oklahoma like the one below [Oklahoma Specialty License Plates]. I looked through the list but I didn't find any that said "I Support Abortion" or "Atheist" or "Socialized Medicine" or "Cut and Run" or "Gay Marriage" or "Screw Oklahoma." I wonder why?


[Hat Tip: John Lynch]

Creationism Continuum

In an earlier posting [What Is Creationism?] I took issue with Denyse O'Leary and fellow blogger Mike Dunford who agree that Intelligent Design isn't creationism. My position is that there are various definitions of creationism and I prefer the definition that includes all believers in a Creator God.

The posting prompted considerable discussion about the meaning of the word "creationism." There are many commentators who insist that Creationism means only one thing—a belief in Special Creation as described in the Bible. Jonathan Badger of T. TAXUS (photo on left) expressed his disapproval of my definition by writing,

I am not "choosing" a definition of creationism, Larry -- you are. Or perhaps it would be truer to say that you are trying to *invent* a new definition. Please show a dictionary definition of "creationism" that doesn't mention the bible if you disagree with me. Both Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists believe that the events of Genesis literally happened -- the only difference between the two is the Old Earth types think their god defines "days" differently than people do, and so 7 "days" could be millions of human years.

I understand what you are trying to do -- most sane people (even mainstream theists) agree that creationists are nut cases, and so redefining "creationist" to mean "theist" is a cute rhetorical trick, much like how some right-wingers want to redefine "socialist" to mean anyone who wants a government providing social services. But such word games are pretty childish on any side.

This deserves a more extensive response than my comments on the earlier thread. There are several different points that I'd like to address so here goes.

Another Definition of Creationism

Jonathan accuse me of "inventing" a new definition of creationism—one that's not found in standard dictionaries. He quoted several dictionary sources that were similar to the one in the American Heritage Dictionary,

Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
                        ...American Heritage Dictionary

Nobody denies that this is one of the definitions in common usage. That's not the point. The point is rather that it's not the only definition and if you choose this one, as Denyse O'Leary and the some of the IDiots do, then you are obligated to make that clear. Jonathan disagrees because he claims that this is the only legitimate definition. He is wrong.

When I open a page of Darwin I immediately sense that I have been ushered into the presence of a great mind. ... When I read Phillip Johnson, I feel that I have been ushered into the presence of a lawyer.

Richard Dawkins (1996)Phillip Johnson is one of the founders of Intelligent Design Creationism. His position has been very clear from the beginning and it's a legitimate philosophical stance in spite of Dawkin's dislike of lawyers.

Johnson maintains that creationists are anyone who believes in a Creator and he rejects the narrow definition of Duane Gish and the Young Earth Creationists.

I am not interested in any claims that are based on a literal reading of the Bible, nor do I understand the concept of creation as narrowly as Duane Gish does. If an omnipotent Creator exists He might have created things instantaneously in a single week or through gradual evolution over billions of years. He might have employed means wholly inaccessible to science, or mechanisms that are at least in part understandable through scientific investigation.

The essential point of creation has nothing to do with the timing or the mechanism the Creator chose to employ, but with the element of design or purpose. In the broadest sense, a "creationist" is simply a person who believes that the world (and especially mankind) was designed and exists for a purpose. With the issue defined that way, the question becomes: Is mainstream science opposed to the possibility that the natural world was designed by a Creator for a purpose? Is so, on what basis?
                        Phillip Johnson (1993)

Johnson is attempting to draw a line between religion and science and between creationism and naturalism, where naturalism is defined as the belief that supernatural beings play no role in creating or maintaining the universe. In addition, Johnson maintains that evolution, properly understood, is entirely naturalistic and therefore inconsistent with a Creator. Thus, according to Johnson there is a shape line between creationism and evolutionism. If you believe in a Creator, as all Christians do, then you cannot believe in evolution.

Ironically, Johnson's position is similar to that of many atheists a fact that has been gleefully pointed out by Theistic Evolutionists who want to distance themselves from both the philosophical naturalist position and the Young Earth Creationist position. In an earlier essay, I've tried to explain why this "middle ground" is an illusion ["Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground"].

The broad definition of creationism is shared by many religious scholars who are unhappy with the narrow definition that's confined to a literal belief in the Bible. The position of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, is strongly in favor of a creationist viewpoint [Creation]. This is a view that's shared by many religious scientists as well. For example, Howard J. Van Till, a Professor of Physics and Astronomy (and an evolutionist) writes,

All Christians are authentic "creationists" in the full theological sense of that term. We are all committed to the biblically-informed and historic Christian doctrine of creation that affirms that everything that is not God is part of a creation that has being only because God has given it being and continues to sustain it. As a creation, the universe is neither a divine being nor a self-existent entity that has its being independent of divine creative action. This theological core of the doctrine of creation sets Judeo-Christian theism in bold distinction from both pantheism (all is God) and naturalism (all is nature).
                        Howard J. Van Till (1998)

Now, as it turns out, most of these theologians and scientists are perfectly aware of conflicting definitions of "creationism," which is why they take pains to define their terms. They don't want to cede to the religious right a perfectly good word that describes their belief in a Creator God. That's why Theodosius Dobzhansky says the following in his famous article Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution (1973).

I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.

In some cases, the stigma of Young Earth Creationism is too much to bear and scientists go out of their way to avoid the creationist label. This is explained by Francis Collins in his book The Language of God.

Few religious of scientific views can be neatly summed up in a single word. The application of misleading labels for particular perspectives has regularly muddied the debate between science and faith throughout the modern era. Nowhere is this more true than in the case of the "creationist" label, which has featured so prominently in the science-and-faith debates over the past century. Taken at face value, the term "creationist" would seem to imply the general perspective of one who argues for the existence of a God who was directly involved in the creation of the universe, In that broad sense. many deists and nearly all theists, including me, would need to count themselves as creationists.

Over the past century, however, the term "Creationist" has been hijacked (and capitalized) to apply to a very specific subset of such believers, specifically those who insist on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to describe the creation of the universe and the formation of life on earth.
                        Francis Collins (2006)

I still maintain that there are at least two definitions of creationism. The narrow definition, often referred to as Creationism with a capital "C" or Special Creationism, is widely accepted in American society. A recent survey reveals that 53% of Americans had heard of the term and, of those, 59% believed the narrow definition [Evolution and Creationism in Public Education].

The second definition is the broad definition that is frequently used in serious discussions about science and religion. I did not make it up. Whenever one attempts to comment on creationism it is incumbent upon the user to disclose the definition being used. In my case, I try to distinguish between the various forms of creationism by referring to Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, etc. in order to avoid confusion.

Denyse O'Leary and some of her friends (but not Phillip Johnson) say there's a difference between Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design Creationism. I see the distinction, but I don't think it's as clear cut as she imagines.

One reason that it is appropriate for a Professor of Law to comment upon the philosophy of biology is that so many of the philosophers and biologists want to be litigators.
Phillip Johnson (1996)Finally, it's worth noting that the definition of "creationism" is tied up with legal issues in the United states of America. In Edward v. Aguillard (1987) the plaintiffs were successful in overturning Lousiana's "Creationism Act" on the grounds that it promoted religion. In this case, the judge declared that, "The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind."

In Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. Judge Jones listened to evidence presented by the plaintiffs that Intelligent Design was just another name for creationism. Since the teaching of creationism had already been declared religious, and illegal, it was important to define creationism in such as way as to include Intelligent Design.

The plaintiffs were successful. In his final ruling, Judge Jones said, "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism." The legal definitions of creationism are interesting but they seem to have had little effect on the general public, many of whom continue to believe that the only legitimate definition of creationism is the one requiring a belief in the Biblical Genesis story.

Are Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists the only Kind of Creationists?

That's what some people are saying. In his criticism of me Jonathan Badger strongly implies that the only legitimate creationists are the Young Earth Creationists (YEC's) and the Old Earth Creationists (OEC's) who still follow the sequence of events in Genesis. He would agree with Denyse O'Leary that Intelligent Design proponents (IDiots) are not creationists because they don't necessarily adopt a belief in the truth of Genesis.

Many would disagree and that's why you often hear people refer to Intelligent Design as Intelligent Design Creationism. There seems to be little doubt that the intelligent design movement grew out of the (capital C) Creationist movement in the 1980's. This has been well-documented by Barbara Forrest (left), most prominently at the Dover trial in 2005 and in a lengthy article in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics (Forrest, 2001). In that article she examines the strategy of the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC) and concludes that it is stealth creationism in spite of what its proponents might claim. The goal of Intelligent Design Creationists is make creationism more acceptable by introducing it on university campuses. This is part of the wedge strategy.

The accomplishment of these goals is especially important to the CRSC's strategy to advance theri brand of creationism; indeed, it is critical because they are the only creationists who stand a chance of pulling it off. The old-style creationism represented by Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and others is unlikely to be tolerated on mainstream campuses, even religious ones like Baylor. The CRSC creationists have taken the time and trouble to acquire legitimate degrees, providing them a degree of cover both while they are students and after they join the university faculties.

Whether you agree with the very broad definition of creationism or not, you are being incredibly naive if you think that Intelligent Design isn't creationism. There's more to creationism than just YEC's and OEC's.

Robert T. Pennock, a philosopher at Michigan State University and a leading opponent of Intelligent Design Creationism testified at the Dover trial that intelligent design was just warmed-over creationism—using a broad definition of creationism that equates it to religion. For Pennock, one of the defining tenets of creationism is the rejection of evolution, or at least some forms of evolution. He also tends to agree with Johnson that any belief in a Creator is a form of creationism. (He does not agree that evolution is incompatible with creationism.)

No attempt to discuss creationism would be complete without looking at the work done by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Eugenie Scott, the Executive Director of NCSE, has published several articles on the subject and has recently put out a book called Evolution vs. Creationism. Let's look at the Creation/Evolution Continuum published by NCSE and see how it conforms to various definitions of creationism.

Before starting, let me say that the distinction between "creationism" on the one hand and "evolution" on the other seems strained to me. It has led to much confusion—I have contributed to some of it. It would be far better to make the extremes "creationism" and "naturalism" since what we are usually looking at it is a continuum representing the strength of belief in God.

Nevertheless, you can see from the diagram that Eugenie Scott and NCSE recognize many different degrees of creationism ranging from the most extreme examples, such as Young Earth Creationism, down to far less extreme examples such as Evolutionary Creationism. She does not recognize Theistic Evolutionism as a version of creationsm: instead, she refers to it as "the theological view in which God creates through the laws of nature" (Scott, 2004). To me this is a quibble. I include Theistic Evolution as a form of creationism in the same sense as Theistic Evolutionists Francis Collins and Theodosius Dobzhansky (see above).

Intelligent Design Creationism covers a range of views as indicated on the graph.

The dotted line represents the split between literal belief in the Bible and a more liberal interpretation of scripture. This is the dividing line between (captial C) Creationsm or Special Creationism and other forms of creationism. To many people it is the difference between "creationism" (top) and something that is not creationism (bottom). (What is that something below the line? It appears to represent belief in a Creator God and a partial rejection of the full implications of evolution while studiously avoiding the creationist label. Are they Creator Godists?) I find it hard to justify that particular definition of creationism but as long as its proponents make their preference known it shouldn't be a problem. Naturally, the rest of us don't have to agree.

Is the Broad Definition of Creationist Just a Cute Rhetorical Trick?

I'm accused of using the broad definition as a "rhetorical trick" to tarnish the theists who reject a literal belief in the Bible. This reminds me of a similar accusation from Bill Dembski as reported by Robert Pennock (2000).

Dembski chides me for never using the term "intelligent design" without conjoining it to "creationism." He implies (though never explicitly asserts) that he and others in the movement are not creationists and that it is incorrect to discuss them in such terms, suggesting that doing so is merely a rhetorical ploy to "rally the troops."

Pennock goes on to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that Dembski is a creationist by the broad definition.

I don't resort to the cheap trick of using the word "creationist" as a pejorative label. I use "IDiots" for that purpose. Whenever I refer to creationists I qualify it with other descriptors such as Young Earth Creationism or Intelligent design Creationism. If I'm trying to make an important point about religion and science then I try and make it clear that I'm using a broad definition of creationism.

Jonathan Badger is not religious. His attack on my use of the word "creationst" falls into the category of accommodationist. (formerly appeaser). He thinks it's insulting to theists to be called creationists. My position is that Theistic Evolutionists are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by distancing themselves from the fringe creationists while allying themselves with the atheist evolutionists. When I say that theists are creationists I mean that in the same sense as many other theists such as Dobzhansky and Van Till (and the Pope). I do it in order to emphasize the fact that they do believe in a Creator God even though they accept most of the scientific evidence for evolution and common descent. It's not a rhetorical trick. I'm being as open and obvious as I know how.

Over on the comments thread of my earlier posting, there are even more interesting statements. Let me close by addressing one more. This one is from Pete Dunkleberg.

Using words like "definition" for one's preference is a bit political. So you want to put down theists by calling them creationists. But those are different words for good reason.

The main characteristic of creationists is that they claim scientific arguments against geology and or biology. Sometimes this has been called (by creationists) scientific creationism, abbreviated SciCre (not by creationists). Lately the term ID has been used for SciCre.

I hope I've demonstrated to your satisfaction that there is a legitimate second definition of "creationism" that's used by people who call themselves creationists. I didn't make it up and it's not political.

I do not put down theists by calling them Young Earth Creationists—the only kind of creationists you seem to recognize. If I'm putting down theists I do it very openly by criticizing their belief in a Creator God in spite of the fact that they accept most of science. I fail to see why Ken Miller would be upset if I "accused" him of believing in a Creator God. He doesn't disguise this fact in his book (Miller, 1999).

As a scientist, I know very well that the earth is billions of years old and that the appearance of living organisms was not sudden, but gradual. As a Christian, I believe that Genesis is a true account of the way in which God's relationship with the world was formed. And as a human being, I find value in both descriptions. In order to reveal Himself to a desert tribe six thousand years ago, a Creator could hardly have lectured them about DNA and RNA, about gene duplication and allopatric speciation, He spoke to them in the direct and lyrical language of Genesis.

Wouldn't it be fun if God came back to visit us in 2007 and gave us a lecture about gene duplication and allopatric speciation? I'd pay to hear that although I'd probably wonder if he(?) wasn't just pulling our legs in the same way he did with the desert tribe 3000 years ago. Was Genesis the ultimate example of framing?

---

[Photo/Image credits: The photograph of Jonathan Badger is taken from the ASM video made when he was here in Toronto for the American Society of Microbiology meeting in May 2007 (see Bloggers in Toronto and Bacteria, Bloggers, and Toronto). Jonathan is in a phone booth on Baldwin St. where we had dinner. The photograph of Barbar Forrest is taken from her website [Dr. Barbara Forrest]. The Creation/Evolution Continuum is from The Creation/Evolution Continuum by Eugenie C. Scott]

Collins, F. (2006) The Language of God. Free Press, New York (USA).

Dawkins, R. (1996) Reply to Phillip Johnson. Biology & Philosophy 11:539-540. reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Robert T. Pennock ed. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (USA) (2001).

Johnson, Phillip (1993) Darwin on Trial Regnery Gateway, Washington DC (USA).

Johnson, P. (1996) Response to Pennock. Biology & Philosophy 11:561-563. reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Robert T. Pennock ed. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (USA) (2001).

Scott, E. (2004) Evolution vs. Creationism. University of California Press, Berkeley CA (USA).

Van Till, H. J. (1998) The Creation: Intelligently Designed or Optimally Equipped? Theology Today 55:344-364. reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics Robert T. Pennock ed. MIT Press, Cambridge MA (USA) (2001).

Is Barack Obama Dangerously Naive?

 
Today's National Post had a comment about Barak Obama [Presidential hopeful Obama ‘promotes’ PM to president].

U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, already under fire from fellow Democratic candidates for his supposed inexperience and unguarded comments on American foreign policy issues, is raising eyebrows again after vowing to telephone the "president of Canada" if elected to the White House to begin renegotiating terms of the NAFTA trade deal.

The titular miscue came Tuesday night during a discussion of trade and labour issues at a Democratic debate in the Illinois senator's home base of Chicago.

"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now," Mr. Obama said. "And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."

Most of the fuss is about the fact that Obama doesn't know we have a parliamentary system of government with a Queen, but no President. That's pretty bad for a Senator from a northern state but it's not the only thing that troubles me.

We don't need a lecture from the US President on the proper way to treat workers. If there are any "labor issues" that separate Canada and the USA then it's the way the American Congress kowtows to special interest groups, like farm workers and workers in the softwood lumber industry, in violation of NAFTA. A really sore spot for Canada is the way American ignores the parts of the treaty that it doesn't like whenever it feels like it.

There are many Canadians—I'm not one—who would gladly terminate the treaty if the American government wanted to re-open it. It would mean that Canada would be free to sell its gas and oil to other countries at the full market price. Under "free trade" we are obligated to supply a certain set amount of oil and gas to America every year [Article 605].

Here's a list of current disputes (2006-2007, see below) under NAFTA [Canadian NAFTA Secretariat]. They all involve countervailing duties or import restrictions imposed by the US Congress on Canadian goods in spite of "free trade." In most cases, the Canadian goods can be sold cheaper in the USA than similar goods produced in America by American workers. As far as I know there are no disputes involving Canadian restrictions on American goods. Also, I believe that the USA has lost every single case that has come before the dispute resolution panel.

I wonder if Barak Obama knows this?

• Magnesium from Canada (Five-Year Reviews of the Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Duty Orders)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Dumping - 2002)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Countervailing Duty - 2002)
• Durum Wheat and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada (Countervailing Duty)
• Pure and Alloy Magnesium from Canada (Countervailing Duty)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of Certain Company-Specific Reviews - 2005)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Determination under Section 129(a)(4) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act - 2005)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (antidumping duty determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act - 2005)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review - 2006)
• Softwood Lumber from Canada (Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review - 2006)
• Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Canada (Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review)