Intelligent Design Creationism is struggling to maintain scientific credibility. The movement claims to be scientific, not religious, and it's strongest defense is that it offers credible scientific explanations of biological phenomena.
Most of us don't see it that way. All we see is a bunch of people who attack science in general and evolution in particular. They publish lots and lots of stuff that raises questions about standard scientific explanations—some of the criticisms are valid but most are nothing more than wishful thinking. What we never, ever, see is a true explanation of how intelligent design creationism actually works.
This video was published on the Evolution News & Views (sic) blog [Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design: What is the origin of the digital information found in DNA?]. Watch it to see if Meyer1 explains the origin of information according to the Intelligent Design Creationism Model. Wait right 'till the end to make sure you don't miss the explanation of how an intelligent creator put information into DNA. Learn who the creators(s) is/are and why they did it. Find out when she did it. Wait to see how this accounts for life as we know it today.
Folks, this is the best they have to offer. It's why we call them IDiots. There's nothing there but obtuse rhetoric about the origin of life and information. They have nothing to offer but criticism of evolution.
1. Stephen Meyer is one of the founders of the Discovery Institute in Seattle. He has a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University (UK).
"Five years from now on the web for free you’ll be able to find the best lectures in the world," Gates said at the Techonomy conference in Lake Tahoe, CA today. "It will be better than any single university," he continued.
This is nonsense on many levels. First, who's going to determine whether any given lecture is the "best lecture in the world?" Second, why will it be online? (Most professors don't want to put their lectures online.) Third, who says that listening to a lecture is the only thing that a university has to offer?
One particular problem with the education system according to Gates is text books. Even in grade schools, they can be 300 pages for a book about math. "They’re giant, intimidating books," he said. "I look at them and think: what on Earth is in there?"
According to Gates, our text books are three times longer than the equivalents in Asia. And yet they’re beating us in many ways with education. The problem is that these things are built by committee, and more things are simply added on top of what’s already in there.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am a textbook author. That means I have more of a stake in this debate than Bill Gates. (Of course, it also means that as a textbook author and a university professor, I'm probably more of an expert than the former chairman of a software company.(1))
When they are well done, a textbook is like the best lecture you could ever get. If you want to learn about evolution, for example, then you could hardly do better than reading EVOLUTION by Douglas Futuyma. I can't imagine any series of online lectures that could compete with a such a good textbook.
Textbooks are collaborative affairs that undergo considerable review by experts before publication. Most online lectures are the work of a single individual and they have not been reviewed for accuracy.
The most important goal of a university education is to teach student how to think and a major component of that process is critical thinking. Unfortunately, sitting in front of your monitor reading a lecture is not the best way to learn how to think and it doesn't give you any practice in critical thinking. There's a reason why students need to interact with other students and scholars in a university setting and it's very sad that people like Bill Gates don't get it.
On the other hand, if Gates is correct then it might be a really good thing for universities. The standing joke among professors is that universities would be wonderful places if only we could get rid of the students!
1. How did we ever get ourselves into the situation where executives from for-profit companies are thought to be experts on education? They are not. They are just about the last people on Earth I would ask for advice on university education.
Last night we watched the first two episodes of The Pillars of the Earth. They were fantastic. The story takes place in England during the time after the death of Henry I (1068-1135) and the civil war between Stephen and the Empress Matilda (Maud).1 This is near the end of my favorite period of history—the so-called dark ages.
Judging by the first two episodes, the show does a pretty good job of capturing the flavor of the era except that everyone looks far too healthy and beautiful. They all have good teeth.
Here's a brief history.
Henry I (1068-1135) is the King of England [Henry Beauclerc] who dies at the beginning of the series. He was the youngest son of William the Conqueror and took the throne of England (and the Duchy of Normandy) from his older brothers after much fighting.
Henry had two surviving legitimate children: Matilda (1102-1167) and his heir William Adelin (1103-1120). William died when he was only 17 years old when The White Ship sank on Nov. 25, 1120 during a voyage from France back to England. The sinking of the White Ship is the opening scene of the movie. (The ship set sail at night and smashed into a rock. Most of the crew and passengers were drunk. Everyone died of exposure.)
Matilda married Henry V, Holy Roman Emperor, when she was 13 years old and she became known as Empress Matilda at that point. She returned to England when her husband, Henry V, died in 1125. In the movie she is depicted as a young girl who is present when the King learns of his son's death on the White Ship. In fact, she was already 18 years old and married to the Holy Roman Emperor when the ship went down.
Empress Matilda, known as Maud in the movie, married Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou in 1128. They had a son who eventually becomes Henry II of England and founds the Plantagenet dynasty. (Oops, I just gave away the ending! )
Henry I tried to ensure that his daughter Empress Matilda (Maud) would become Queen of England on his death but that didn't work out. The Norman aristocracy were not prepared to accept a woman as ruler and they helped install Stephen of Blois (1096-1154) as King of England in 1135. Stephen was the son of Adela of Normandy, daughter of William the Conqueror.
Henry I had about two dozen illegitimate children by many different women. Several of them drowned when the White Ship went down. His oldest "bastard" son was Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester (1090-1147). Robert is depicted in the movie as a strong supporter of Maud right from the beginning but the real history is much more complicated. He initially supported Stephen but later on he was the most important leader of the civil war that became known as The Anarchy.
Elizabeth, Princess of England is another of Henry's illegitimate children. She married Fergus, Lord of Galloway, ancestors of the Stewarts of Scotland.2.
1. I love it when they make movies of my relatives! I am a descendant of Andrew Ward (1597-1659) of Fairfield Connecticut who traces his ancestry back to William de Longespee (1152-1206) the illegitimate son of Henry II of England (1133-1189). [My Family and Other Emperors]. Henry II is Maud's baby in the opening episodes of the movie. UPDATE: Turns out I am NOT related to Andrew Ward after all! But I do count Geoffrey Plantagenet and Matilda as ancestors through Henry II to my Scottish Stewart ancestors.
2. I am also a descendant, via the Stewarts of Perthshire, from Elizabeth.
On the drive back from Reims to Brussels we stopped for dinner in Bouillon. We had a wonderful meal in a restaurant on the bank of the river. Here's me and my three "girls."
Zoë and her grandmother (Mamère) went off in search of the prince. The "prince" is Godfrey of Bouillon (~1060-1100) one of the leaders of the First Crusade. He was the first ruler of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (1099). Bouillon was an important place in the Middle Ages. The ruins of the castle attest to its glory days.
Eustace I and Matilda are Zoë's direct ancestors via their other son Lambert II, Count of Lens (1025-1054). We descend from his daughter Judith of Lens whose mother (wife of Lambert II) was Adelaide of Normandy, sister of William the Conqueror.
The majority of people reading this blog are also descendants of these people. You just don't know it.
When we were in Europe, we took a trip to Reims in Northeastern France. It's a 2.5 hour drive from Brussels where we were visiting my granddaughter Zoë (and her parents).
Reims is in the heart of champagne country and the main purpose of our visit was to see the winery of Veuve Clicquot, our favorite champagne. The cellars are a maze of limestone quarries under the city. After the tour there was free champagne! Zoë loved the champagne.
The other, less important, site in Reims is the cathedral where dozens of French kings were crowned. One of them was Charles VII, crowned on July 17, 1429 after the city had surrendered to Jeanne d'Arc and her army the day before. The cathedral is beautiful but I was struck by the statue of Joan in front of the cathedral. Zoë liked her too.
Someday I'd like to visit Rouen where Joan of Arc was burned as a heretic by her English captors.
The National Research Council of the National Academies (USA) has published a draft proposal of Core Ideas in science [Standards Framework Preliminary Draft]. These are supposed to serve as guidelines for educating students about science. One of the Core Ideas in Life Sciences is evolution. Here's the complete description.
Biological evolution explains both the unity and diversity of species. Biological evolution results from the interactions of (1) the potential for a species to increase its members, (2) the genetic variation of individuals within a species due to mutations and recombinations of genes, (3) a finite supply of the resources required for individuals to survive and reproduce, and (4) the ensuing selection by the environment of those organisms better able to survive and reproduce. Organic evolution, and the net result of speciation minus extinction, has led to the planet’s biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Sustaining biodiversity is essential for the maintenance and enhancement of the human population’s quality of life.
The fossil record provides evidence of different life forms at different periods of geological history. This evidence supports the idea that newer life forms descended from older life forms, a phenomenon that Darwin aptly called “descent with modification”. DNA provides further evidence for lines of descent from ancestral species to later-appearing species.
Genetic variation of individuals within a species gives some individuals an advantage to survive and reproduce in the conditions of their environment. This leads to the predominance of certain inherited traits within a varied population. When an environment changes, there is a subsequent change in the supply of resources or in the challenges imposed by abiotic and biotic factors of the environment. This results in selective pressures that influence the survival and reproduction of organisms and which lead to adaptations, that is to changes in the traits of survivors within populations, and to extinction of species unable to adapt to such changes. Mutations most often produce non-viable individuals, but, infrequently, can introduce new traits within a population that offer survival advantages. Many such changes, along with reproductive isolation and the selective pressures from the environment can lead to the development of adaptations and, eventually, to distinct new species.
Biodiversity – the diversity of genes, species, and ecosystems – provide humans with renewable resources such as food, fuels, fertile soils, clean water and air, medicines, as well as surroundings (from species to landscapes) of inspirational value. The resources of biological communities can be used within sustainable limits, but in many cases the human impact is exceeding sustainable limits.
Contrast this adaptationist and environmentalist view with the description of evolution in Futuyma (2009)—one of the leading textbooks of evolution.
1. Evoluion it the leading principle of the biological sciences. Evolutionary biology aims to discover the history of life and the causes of the diversity and characteristics of organisms.
2. Darwin's evolutionary theory, published in The Origin of Species in 1859, consisted of two major hypotheses: first, that all organisms have descended, with modification, from common ancestral forms of life, and second, that a chief agent of modification is natural selection.
3. Darwin's hypothesis that all species have descended with modification from common ancestors is supported by so much evidence that it has become as well established a fact as any in biology. His theory of natural selection as the chief cause of evolution was not broadly supported until the "evolutionary synthesis" that occurred in the 1930 and 1940s.
4. The evolutionary theory developed during and since the evolutionary synthesis consists of a body of principles that explain evolutionary change. Among these principles are (a) that genetic variation in phenotypic characters arises by random mutation and recombination; (b) that changes in the proportions of alleles and genotypes within a population may result in replacement of genotypes over generations; (c) that such changes in the proportions of genotypes may occur either by random fluctuations (genetic drift) or by nonrandom, consistent differences among phenotypes in survival or reproductive rates (natural selection); and (d) that as a result of different histories of genetic drift and natural selection, populations of a species may diverge and become reproductively isolated species.
These are very different descriptions of one of the core ideas in the life sciences and they don't agree. Which one do you think is better—the one written by a committee 23 people for the National Academies or the one written by Douglas Futuyma? Which one supports good science education and critical thinking?
Last month, John Wilkins was at a conference on Religion and Tolerance and links to the complete video of the conference are posted on his blog [Religion and Tolerance]. Fascinating stuff.
Here's Richard Dawkins explaining the possible Darwinian survival value of religion in a way that makes a lot of sense although I don't think he pays enough attention to explaining how genes cause behavior. He also touches on the question of whether religious belief can lead to doing evil things and chastises believers for bringing up Hitler and Stalin. It's not true, he says, that having a mustache makes you evil.
If you look quickly in the first few minutes you can see a famous Australian philosopher in the audience. He seems to be agreeing with Dawkins.
Today's taxon of the week at Catalogue of Organisms is Astigmata [Life in the Fast Lane]. If you think you're not familiar with astigmata then get on over to Christopher Taylor's blog and correct that false assumption.
Nicholas Wade is often considered to be one of the best science journalists. He writes for The New York Times. His latest article is: Adventures in Very Recent Evolution. Here's one paragraph.
Many have assumed that humans ceased to evolve in the distant past, perhaps when people first learned to protect themselves against cold, famine and other harsh agents of natural selection. But in the last few years, biologists peering into the human genome sequences now available from around the world have found increasing evidence of natural selection at work in the last few thousand years, leading many to assume that human evolution is still in progress.
Anyone who assumed that "humans ceased to evolve in the distant past" simply doesn't understand evolution. You can't stop evolution.
The main thrust of the article is whether natural selection is having a significant impact on our genetic makeup. There are many biologists who support the idea that more than 10% of our genes (alleles) are under selection and most of these biologists think that evolution by natural selection may even have sped up in the past 10,000 years.
John Hawks is a proponent of recent rapid human evolution by natural selection1 and, as expected, he has a post discussing The New York Times article [Recent selection, the new paradigm ]. I'm still pretty skeptical of those studies that claim to detect selection by analyzing genomes. I find the lack of agreement between different studies much more troubling than John does.
Recent talks and posters at the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution meeting (SMBE 2010) highlighted some of the problems. Some emphasized the large number of false positives2 in published studies and questioned the accuracy of the algorithms. Others pointed out that biased gene conversion at recombination hotspots may be much more frequent that we assumed and this gives the appearance of selective sweeps when, in fact, the alleles being enriched may be neutral or even detrimental.
Since john hawks weblog doesn't have a comments section I thought you readers might like to discuss it here.
Photo Credit: The Future of Human Evolution [Aaron Avivi].
I'm in Lyon for the evolution meeting and this was our day to see the city. We haven't been here for over 30 years.
I love European cities. They are simultaneously more modern and more ancient than cities in Canada and the USA. I love the cafes and bistros and I love the old buildings and the history.
Lyon was an ancient hill top Celtic fort when it was captured by the Romans in 43 BC. Under the Romans it grew rapidly on the hill overlooking the Rhône and Saône rivers. Lugdunum, the Roman city, was the capital of Gaul and its most important city.
And here's a photo taken today by Ms. Sandwalk. This is the Roman amphitheater built in about 15AD under the reign of Augustus. Today it's known as Théâtres Romains de Fourvièreand it's still in use as an outdoor theater, although part of it is in ruins and the capacity is much less than it was 1800 years ago after it was expanded.
I just bought Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology by Robert C. Richardson ($13 CDN). I couldn't resist after reading the blurb.
Human beings, like other organisms, are the products of evolution. Like other organisms, we exhibit traits that are the product of natural selection. Our psychological capacities are evolved traits as much as are our gait and posture. This much few would dispute. Evolutionary psychology goes further than this, claiming that our psychological traits—including a wide variety of traits, from mate preference and jealousy to language and reason—can be understood as specific adaptations to ancestral Pleistocene conditions. In Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, Robert Richardson takes a critical look at evolutionary psychology by subjecting its ambitious and controversial claims to the same sorts of methodological and evidential constraints that are broadly accepted within evolutionary biology.
The claims of evolutionary psychology may pass muster as psychology; but what are their evolutionary credentials? Richardson considers three ways adaptive hypotheses can be evaluated, using examples from the biological literature to illustrate what sorts of evidence and methodology would be necessary to establish specific evolutionary and adaptive explanations of human psychological traits. He shows that existing explanations within evolutionary psychology fall woefully short of accepted biological standards. The theories offered by evolutionary psychologists may identify traits that are, or were, beneficial to humans. But gauged by biological standards, there is inadequate evidence: evolutionary psychologists are largely silent on the evolutionary evidence relevant to assessing their claims, including such matters as variation in ancestral populations, heritability, and the advantage offered to our ancestors. As evolutionary claims they are unsubstantiated. Evolutionary psychology, Richardson concludes, may offer a program of research, but it lacks the kind of evidence that is generally expected within evolutionary biology. It is speculation rather than sound science—and we should treat its claims with skepticism.
Bora alerted me to something called the Dunning_Kruger Effect. Here's the Wikipedia definition and description [Dunning–Kruger effect].
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the perverse situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding.
...
The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, then both of Cornell University.[1][4] However, the phenomenon had been assumed by many philosophers for nearly a century prior to Kruger and Dunning's study (see Russell quote above).
Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" (as Charles Darwin put it).[5] They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree:
Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.
That last point is interesting. Perhaps we should focus our attention on teaching Intelligent Design Creationists about evolution? It's worth a try.
Intelligent Design Creationism is struggling to maintain scientific credibility. The movement claims to be scientific, not religious, and it's strongest defense is that it offers credible scientific explanations of biological phenomena.
