Ten years after Dover - an excellent decade for Intelligent Design Creationism?

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?

Wikipedia vs experts and a proposal for "arbitrators"

Wikipedia is a not-for-profit crowdsourced encyclopedia that's open to anybody who wants to contribute. This is both a strength and a weakness but the weaknesses are becoming important in an age of fake news and misinformation. The rules of Wikipedia mean that amateurs can insert any information into science articles as long as it is backed by a reliable source. But "reliable sources" include the popular press and books that may or may not report the scientific consensus accurately. When knowledgeable experts try to correct information, or put it into the proper context, they are often opposed by Wikipedia administrators who have a built-in bias against experts—a bias that's not entirely unjustified but much abused. Consequently, scientists often get frustrated trying to deal with the rules and traditions of Wikipedians because these rules are very different than the standards in the scientific community.

Here's an interesting article by Piotr Konieczny on From Adversaries to Allies? The Uneasy Relationship between Experts and the Wikipedia Community.

The "Mutationism" Myth I. The Monk's Lost Code and the Great Confusion

This is the second in a series of postings by a guest blogger, Arlin Stoltzfus. You can read the first part at: Introduction to "The Curious Disconnect". Arlin is challenging the status quo in modern evolutionary theory. He's not alone in this challenge but it's important to distinguish between kooks who don't know what they're talking about and serious thinkers who have something to say. Arlin is going to explain to you why everything you thought you knew about mutationism is wrong. I'm happy to give him a chance to post on Sandwalk.

This will be on the exam.

---

The Curious Disconnect

The Curious Disconnect is the blog of evolutionary biologist Arlin Stoltzfus, available at www.molevol.org/cdblog. An updated version of the post below will be maintained at www.molevol.org/cdblog/mutationism_myth1 (Arlin Stoltzfus, ©2010)

The "Mutationism" Myth I. The Monk's Lost Code and the Great Confusion

The mutationism myth tells the story of how, just over a century ago, the scientific community responded to the discovery of Mendelian genetics by discarding Darwinism, and how Darwinism subsequently was restored.Our journey to explore The Curious Disconnect-- the gap between how we think about evolution and how we might think if we were freed from historical baggage-- begins with the Mutationism Myth. In this, the first of four parts, we are not going to confront any tough scientific or conceptual issues. Instead, we are just going to review an odd story about our intellectual history.

The Mutationism Story

While "myth" has the connotation of falsehood, the story that a myth tells isn't necessarily a false one. The mutationism myth, at least, is anchored in historical events.¹

The mutationism myth tells the story of how, just over a century ago, the scientific community responded to the discovery of Mendelian genetics by discarding Darwinism, and how Darwinism subsequently was restored. The villains of the story are the influential early geneticists or "Mendelians" who saw genetics as a refutation of Darwinism; the heroes are first, the founders of population genetics, theoreticians who sorted everything out in favor of Darwinism by about 1930, and second, the architects of the Modern Synthesis, activists who popularized and institutionalized what we're calling "Darwinism 2.0".

This story has been re-told in secondary sources for nearly 50 years, though I sense that the frequency is decreasing as this episode passes into ancient history. To find examples, try looking up "mutationism" (sometimes "Mendelism" or even "saltationism") in the index of a book about evolution.

I encourage you to consult whatever sources you have and to share the stories that you find. Note that you won't always be successful. A quick survey of several dozen contemporary books on my shelf reveals that most don't address this episode specifically (a notable absence, in some cases ²); some tell the mutationism myth with varying degrees of panache; and a few provide a historical account rather than a myth. The few historical accounts that I found were in Gould's 2002 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Strickberger's 1990 textbook Evolution, and the Wikipedia entry on "Mutationism".

Sample stories

Lets look at a few examples of the mutationism story. Readers who want to check out a freely available online source from the scholarly literature may refer to Ayala and Fitch, 1997 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9223250?dopt=Citation). One example that really caught my eye is not from scientific literature, but from the 2005 obituary for Ernst Mayr in The Economist:

It was not that biologists had given up on evolution by the 1940s-quite the contrary. But they had got very confused about its mechanism. . . . The geneticists of the early 20th century did not help. They rediscovered the laws of inheritance first developed 40 years earlier by Gregor Mendel, an unsung Moravian monk. They also discovered the idea of genetic mutation. But instead of linking these things to natural selection, they came up with the idea of "saltation"-in other words, sudden mutational shifts from one well-adapted species to another. Nor, the geneticists complained, had there been enough time for natural selection to do its work, given what they had discovered about the rate at which mutations occur, and the fact that most mutations are deleterious. It was all a bit of a mess. . .Mr Mayr's advantage over the laboratory-bound biologists who had hijacked and diluted Darwin's legacy was that, like Darwin, he was a naturalist-and a good one. (anonymous, 2005)

Of course, this is a magazine article, written by anonymous staff writers-- typically one doesn't see such florid language in the scholarly literature. But did the staff writers of the Economist (representing elite opinion) really originate this story, based on their own personal recollections of the 1930's? Of course not. Mayr himself popularized the image of geneticists as laboratory-bound geeks lacking the organic insight of "naturalists". This disdain for the geneticists who "hijacked" Darwin's legacy is readily apparent when evolutionary writers depict geneticists as fools holding "beliefs" that have "obvious inadequacies", unable to understand or "grasp" their own scientific findings:

"It is hard for us to comprehend but, in the early years of this century when the phenomenon of mutation was first named, it was regarded not as a necessary part of Darwinian theory but as an alternative theory of evolution! There was a school of geneticists called the mutationists, which included such famous names as Hugo de Vries and William Bateson among the early rediscoverers of Mendel's principles of heredity, Wilhelm Johannsen the inventor of the word gene, and Thomas Hunt Morgan the father of the chromosome theory of heredity. . . Mendelian genetics was thought of, not as the central plank of Darwinism that it is today, but as antithetical to Darwinism. . . It is extremely hard for the modern mind to respond to this idea with anything but mirth" (Dawkins, 1987, p. 305)

"According to mutationism, random changes in the hereditary material are sufficient for adaptation without much, or any, selection at all. Mutations just somehow happen to be adaptive, the right changes simply manage to occur. The inadequacies of this view are obvious" (Cronin, 1991, p. 47).

"Darwin knew nothing of this [i.e., genetics] but as it turned out, his ignorance was sublimely irrelevant to the problem he was really interested in tackling: evolution. This point was not fully grasped by biologists. Many early geneticists at the dawn of the 20th century, thought their discoveries of the fundamental principles of genetics somehow cast doubt [on], or rendered obsolete, the concept of natural selection. It took several decades of experimentation and theoretical (including mathematical) analysis to show not only that there was no conflict inherent between the emerging results of genetics and the older Darwinian notion of natural selection, but that the two operate in different domains." (Eldredge, 2001, p. 67)

"Mendelian particulate inheritance (today, we call the "particles" genes) was originally identified with De Vries's "mutation theory", according to which new variations or species originated in large jumps, or macromutations, and evolution was exclusively explained by mutation pressure. Darwinian naturalists, believing that Mendelism was synonymous with mutation theory, held on to theories of soft inheritance, while they considered selection a weak force at best. They did not know of the new findings in genetics that would have supported Darwinism. (SegerstrŒle, 2002)

Notice how, in every version of the story above, the position taken by early geneticists just doesn't make sense. This isn't a story of theory versus theory, its a story of confusion ultimately yielding to reason.

If de Vries and the other geneticists are playing the role of the pied piper in this story, the "naturalists" are like the children lured away from their Darwinian home. Ultimately the innocents are returned, and order restored, by (oddly enough) mathematicians:

"Between 1918 and 1932 Fisher, Haldane, and Wright showed that Mendelian genetics is consistent with natural selection. Only then, more than 60 years after the publication of The Origin of Species, was the genetic objection to natural selection finally removed. Modern molecular and developmental genetics have confirmed in exquisite chemical detail the key aspects of genetics necessary for Darwin's ideas to work: that the genetic material is DNA, that DNA has a sequence, . . . mutates . . . contains information . . " (p. 16 of Stearns and Hoekstra, 2005)

Anatomy of a Myth

In a subsequent post, we will look at original sources to see what the "mutationists" actually believed, and why. And eventually we will integrate this into the bigger picture of how evolutionary theory developed. But for now, lets just summarize the pattern that is apparent in the literature.

First, the mutationism story is clearly a story or myth, and not an ordinary scientific truth claim. We can see this because the story-tellers are not using ordinary scientific conventions to convince us that the story is true. If you or I were making an ordinary scientific argument (for instance) for an effect of "translational selection" on codon usage, we would mention a correlation between codon frequencies and the abundance of corresponding tRNAs, citing the classic work of Ikemura (1981), and we might even repeat a figure showing this correlation, to impress this point upon the minds of readers (e.g., just as in Ch. 7 of Freeman & Herron, 1998).

When I see instances of the mutationism story, typically I don't find quotations illustrating what the mutationists believed, nor facts & figures to refute their views, but only vague attributions and generalized claims. Apropos, the following quotation from Ernst Mayr never fails to make me laugh:

The genetic work of the last four decades has refuted mutationism (saltationism) so thoroughly that it is not necessary to repeat once more all the genetic evidence against it. (Mayr, 1960)

And the puissant Dr. Mayr proceeds on, not boring the reader with any tiresome "genetic evidence", nor citing sources that might allow the reader to evaluate the truth of his statement. Its a story, after all.

By contrast, the 3 sources that I mentioned above as providing scientific history, rather than myth, all make reference to specific experimental and theoretical results, and reveal knowledge of specific historically important scientific works. For instance, Strickberger's reference list includes Johannsen, 1903, as well as the 1902 paper by Yule that reconciled Mendelian genetics with quantitative variation (in neo-Darwinian mythology, credit for Yule's work is given to little Ronny Fisher, who was 11 at the time).

Second, every story has a plot or "action", and the main action of the mutationism story is a turn of fate in which power is temporarily in the hands of the wrong people or ideas. In archetypal terms, its a story of usurpation and restoration: the throne is usurped, and the kingdom falls into darkness and confusion until the throne is restored to the king's rightful heirs. The mutationism episode didn't have to be told that way: it might have been presented as a period of reform (in which old ideas were abandoned) or discovery (when new territory was mapped out). Instead, its presented as a mistake, an interlude of confusion, a collective delusion.

Indeed, another way to look at the mythic action is that the Mendelians are wizards or false prophets who place the kingdom under a spell, leading folks astray and causing them to believe things that they just shouldn't have believed.

What delusional spell did the Mendelians cast? In the story by Eldredge, or by Stearns & Hoekstra above, the spell is that Mendelian genetics is inconsistent with "the concept of natural selection" (Eldredge). In the story told by SegerstrŒle, Cronin, Mayr and The Economist, the delusional spell is a bit different: the principle of selection is irrelevant because mutational jumps alone explain evolution.

Third, the key to restoring Darwin's kingdom was to add the missing piece of genetics. Ultimately, after the period of darkness ended, the discovery of genetics "provided the missing link in Darwin's theory" (SegerstrŒle, 2002), or "The missing link in Darwin's argument was provided by Mendelian genetics" (Ayala & Fitch, 1997). Darwinism was restored, not by taking away the power of genetics, but by redirecting it to support Darwinism. Clearly, genetics is the key to ruling the kingdom, like the One Ring that Rules them All in Tolkien's world. The ones who have the ring have the power.

The story is made more fascinating by the fact that the key to power is literally a code of rules developed by a monk that remained lost for nearly half a century. The usurpers who discover The Monk's Code misinterpret it, and use it to overthrow the true king, establishing a reign of error. But when The Founders decipher the true meaning of the Monk's Code, The Architects campaign throughout the kingdom, spreading the news: the Monk's Code proves that Darwin is the true king. Darwin's rule is re-established, all opposition ceases, and the kingdom is unified.

Homework

If you would like to contribute a mutationism story, I would be happy to start a collection if you make it easy for me by providing a complete and well formed text item. Be sure to provide a quoted passage with a source, citing exact page numbers. If we get enough stories, lets try to recruit a sociologist or historian to study this further.

Summary

To summarize, the mutationism story is a myth that is retold in secondary sources. The basic story is simple: the discoverers of genetics misinterpreted their discovery, thinking it incompatible with Darwinism; Darwinism went into disfavor; population geneticists came along and showed that genetics was the missing key to Darwinism; Darwinism was restored and once again reigned supreme.

Next time on the The Curious Disconnect, we'll start pulling on some of the loose threads of this story.

For now, note how the writers quoted above are genuinely baffled by our scientific history. It just doesn't make sense to them. A century ago, most of an entire generation of scientists thought of genetics as a contradiction of Darwinism. This is a historical fact, and presumably it has an explanation that rational folks can understand by examining what scientists of the time wrote. But this historical fact mystifies Dawkins, Eldredge, Cronin, and others.

References

Anonymous. 2005. Ernst Mayr, evolutionary biologist, died on February 3rd, aged 100. The Economist, February.

Ayala, F. J., and W. M. Fitch. 1997. Genetics and the origin of species: an introduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:7691-7697.

Cronin, H. 1991. The Ant and the Peacock. Cambridge University Presss, Cambridge.

Dawkins, R. 1987. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton and Company, New York.

Eldredge, N. 2001. The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism. W H Freeman & Co.

Freeman, S., and J. C. Herron. 1998. Evolutionary Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Ikemura, T. 1981. Correlation between the abundance of Escherichia coli transfer RNAs and the occurrence of the respective codons in its protein genes: a proposal for a synonymous codon choice that is optimal for the E. coli translational system. J Mol Biol 151:389-409.

Mayr, E. 1960. The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties. Pp. 349-380 in S. Tax, and C. Callender, eds. Evolution After Darwin: The University of Chicago Centennial. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

SegerstrŒle, U. 2002. Neo-Darwinism. Pp. 807-810 inM. Pagel, ed. Encyclopedia of Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.

Stearns, S. C., and R. F. Hoekstra. 2005. Evolution: an introduction. Oxford University Press, New York.

Strickberger, M.W. 1990. Evolution (1st edition).

Notes
¹ The defining characteristic of a myth is not that it isn't literally true, but that it isn't told for reason of being literally true, but for reason of being meaningful or poignant: a myth is a story with a cultural value, not necessarily a literal-truth value. The connection between myths and untruths, then, has to do with discoverability: when we find a pattern P = { X people are repeating story Y }, where X is a large number, this pattern by itself does not prove that Y is a myth because X people might have all discovered or verified Y independently; but if Y has diverse elements that are untrue (or unverifiable), then we can conclude that its repetition does not signify independent verification, suggesting that its a myth.



²The Oxford Encyclopedia of Evolution does not have an article on mutationism; the article on Morgan says nothing of his views on evolution; there is no article on Bateson; mutationism is only addressed peripherally in Hull's article on the history of evolutionary theory; it is mainly addressed in SegerstrŒle's article on neo-Darwinism.

---

Evolution News & Views

 
From time to time I mention the Disco site called Evolution News & Views. It has a lofty purpose that's prominently displayed on every posting.

The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Here's a posting from Robert Crowther dated yesterday afternoon.

So, Darwinists are admitting that up until Friday, Jan. 16 2009 @ 4:10PM, evolution was “mostly theory.” Interesting. I am now certain that dogs adapt to their environment, too. Last night my dog kept barking and I shook my finger and spoke very firmly to her and made her sit on her bed. She stopped barking. So, at 7:10 pm I had a perfect example of evolution. Or was it adaptation? Or was it bad parenting? Whatever, we now see that dogs evolve, which previously had been believed to be “mostly theory.” My peers, who were there reviewing the moment, are skeptical because they think my dog is asexual. Regardless, this is all speculation — except for poor Kali. She still lacks an opposable thumb.

We may need a better word than IDiot to describe these people.

Is there an atheist bus campaign in Seattle? I'd like to donate.

---

Molecular evidence supports the evolution of the major animal phyla

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.

Wells Takes a Rain Check on Apology

 
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & ViewsI challenged Jonathan Wells to agree to a simple statement that, I believe, might reflect his true beliefs about evolution [A Challenge to Jonathan Wells].

In one of the biggest surprises of the 21st century (not!) Wells has backed off [What’s in a Word?].

Darn. I guess I’ll have to take a rain check on that apology – because I don’t agree with this – and not just because Maurice et al. (2008) are cited incorrectly. Here’s why.

"Evolution" has many meanings. It can mean simply "change over time." The present is different from the past. The cosmos evolves. Technology evolves. No sane person denies evolution in this sense.

Biological evolution never means just change over time, but that's not the real problem with Wells' post. You're going to have to scoot on over to Evolution News & Views and read the whole thing.

I can't make head nor tail of it. I wonder if Wells actually thinks it makes sense?

John Pieret takes on the task of dissecting the Wells definition of evolution on Thoughts in a Haystack [Falling in the Wells]. He's a braver man that I.

---

Flunk the IDiots

Casey Luskin recently offered advice on the The Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution. [see The Top Three Flaws In Evolutionary Theory ] At the end of that post he referred readers to The College Student's Back-to-School Guide to Intelligent Design. This is a remarkable document. It's designed to teach students how to debate their professors and/or disguise their true beliefs in order to pass a class.

Why do the IDiots need such advice? It's because Intelligent Design Creationism is under attack from dogmatic professors who can't think critically and who don't have open minds. The opening section lists examples, such as ...

A professor of biochemistry and leading biochemistry textbook author at the University of Toronto stated that a major public research university “should never have admitted” students who support ID, and should “just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students.”

How Do Intelligent Design Creationists Define "Creationism"?

David Klinghoffer showed up in the comments on James Shapiro Claims Credit for Predicting That Junk DNA Is Actually Part of a "highly sophisticated information storage organelle" to ask about creationism.

He didn't like the fact that I define "creationism" as belief in a creator and anyone who believes in a creator is a creationist. I identified several flavors of creationism including Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design Creationism, and Theistic Evolution Creationism. This is exactly the same sort of definition used by many people and it's the one described in the Wikipedia article on creationism. (It has even more flavors.)

David Klinghoffer didn't like that so he decided to make an issue of it by posting on Evolution News & Views: What Is a "Creationist"? Let's take a look at what he says in order to learn a little more about the creationist mindset.

Michael Egnor is an expert on cluelessness

The war between science and religion is fought on many fronts. One of the most remarkable campaigns is the attempt by religious zealots to discredit evolution (and science). We see this played out on creationist websites ranging from the most absurd Young Earth Creationist sites to the somewhat more subtle websites of the Intelligent Design Creationists.¹

I can understand why believers want to defend their beliefs—we all do that. The part I don't get is the incredible stupidity of the main defenders of Intelligent Design Creationism and Young Earth Creationism. Not all of them, of course, but enough to make me slap my head.

Let's take Michael Egnor as an example. He is perfectly entitled to defend his Roman Catholic beliefs and to try and poke holes in evolution. But why does he have to use such stupid arguments? Why is such a person promoted on the main Intelligent Design Creationist website, Evolution News & Views (sic). Is he really the best they've got?

Let's look at his latest post: Clueless in Toronto. He begins with ....

ENCODE/Junk DNA Fiasco: The IDiots Don't Like Me

Casey Luskin has devoted an entire post to discussing my views on junk DNA. I'm flattered. Read it at: What an Evolution Advocate's Response to the ENCODE Project Tells Us about the Evolution Debate.

Let's look at how the IDiots are responding to this publicity fiasco. Casey Luskin begins with ...

University of Toronto biochemistry professor Larry Moran is not happy with the results of the ENCODE project, which report evidence of "biochemical functions for 80% of the genome." Other evolution-defenders are trying to dismiss this paper as mere "hype".

Yes that's right -- we're supposed to ignore the intentionally unambiguous abstract of an 18-page Nature paper, the lead out of 30 other simultaneous papers from this project, co-authored by literally hundreds of leading scientists worldwide, because it's "hype." (Read the last two or so pages of the main Nature paper to see the uncommonly long list of international scientists who were involved with this project, and co-authored this paper.) Larry Moran and other vocal Internet evolution-activists are welcome to disagree and protest these conclusions, but it's clear that the consensus of molecular biologists -- people who actually study how the genome works -- now believe that the idea of "junk DNA" is essentially wrong.

Weep for the Poor Persecuted IDiots

 

The Intelligent Design Creationists at Evolution News & Views and Uncommon Descent have been pushing the idea that acceptance of evolution is associated with moral decay and the rise of Adolph Hitler. Recently, an IDiot going by the pseudonym of "kairosfocus" posted a similar attack on his blog: Visually exposing the Anti-Christ spirit of Nazism (and correcting the New Atheist "Hitler was a Christian" smear often used in retort to exposing* the Social Darwinist history of ideas roots of Hitler's thought.

The goal, obviously, is to link the scientific fact of evolution to the evils of social Darwinism and eugenics.

Somebody posted as comment on that blog (or a related blog) saying ...

xxx, the religious wacko who owns and runs this site, blames all the world’s ills, including Hitler and the nazis, on Darwin, atheists, and material evolutionists.

To see the truth about Hitler and the nazis, see these XXXXXXX:

XXXXXX is a LYING, arrogant, bloviating, sanctimonious, ignorant, uneducated, abusive, delusional god zombie.

See this site for a lot more about XXXXX:

The comment has been removed.

Now "kairosfocus" has complained on Uncommon Descent that such "vandalism" is outrageous and misguided [FOR RECORD: What we are dealing with . . . an example of web stalking and vandalism].

Now, this vandalism of a site wholly unrelated to the matters debated at UD (and tied onwards to a hate site that exploits Google’s freedom of comment policies), was evidently in response to my having posted here at UD, matters linked to the well-known history of ideas roots of Hitler’s thought. I therefore suggest that onlookers examine the Weikart lecture and a discussion of a key clip from Mein Kampf that demonstrated the Darwinist-Haeckelian frame of thought, that beyond reasonable doubt strongly shaped Hitler’s thinking, speech and behaviour. (Those needing documentation on Hitler’s actual attitude to and intentions for the Christian Churches, can look at the recently released Nuremberg investigatory documents here. If after seeing these documents and the like, someone still insists on trying to claim Hitler was a Christian etc etc, s/he is delusional and/or willfully deceitful.)

Furthermore, the behavior of this "vandal" is exactly what "kairosfocus" expects.

As they say, a tree is known by its fruits, and draws sustenance from its roots . . .

(In addition, a note on “blaming the world’s ills.” The likes of this hate-driven commenter will not appreciate or accept that a Bible-believing Christian will hold that much of what ails our world traces to our common challenge of being finite, fallible, morally fallen and too often ill-willed. Hence, our common need for recognition of our moral plight, repentance, forgiveness and moral-spiritual transformation through the gospel. Slander-laced strawmen and scapegoats are ever so much more easy to set up and ignite through irresponsible rhetoric that then clouds, polarises and poisons the atmosphere.)

That refusal to be responsible over a moral hazard closely tied to the Darwinist, evolutionary materialist frame of thought, and that refusal to acknowledge well-established historical facts that are inconvenient to the new atheist agenda are tellingly informative.

The pattern of obsessive, self-justifying, nihilistic hate, stalking, slander, Internet vandalism and abuse is even more informative about an unfortunately significant subset of the New Atheist movement and the danger its patent extremism poses. (After this sort of web vandalism, and worse, can any reasonable person doubt why moderation is necessary to maintain a reasonable tone at UD and elsewhere?)

Ironically, the very conscience benumbed self-justifying by smearing scapegoats that this sort of behaviour demonstrates on the small scale, is what — when such attitudes attained state power — led to the utter breakdown of morality on the grand scale that over 100 million ghosts from the past century tell us never to forget.

Can any reasonable person doubt that had a commentator like the above the power to do as he wished and get away with it, he would do me and my family further harm?

It is time for the New Atheist advocates of evolutionary materialism to take a serious look at what they have been enabling by their intemperate writings and attitudes.

Every atheist blogger gets far worse comments from Christians on a regular basis. Most of us get harassing emails every single day and the authors usually identify themselves as devout Christians doing God's work. These same Christians don't hesitate to send threatening messages to our colleagues and family members in an effort to silence us. Some of the Christian kooks are so dangerous that they have been arrested by police and are currently under forcible confinement in a mental health institution.

Don't weep for the IDiots. They need to examine their own beliefs since it's the creationists who are the biggest threat on these blogs. There must be something wrong with Christianity if that's the kind of activity it promotes. It is time for the Christian opponents of science to take a serious look at what they have been enabling by their intemperate writings and attitudes.

---

On Attacking the Integrity of Scientists

We are discussing the evolution/creation controversy in my course. One of the issues that comes up frequently is the role of scientific evidence. The importance of science in the 21st century cannot be exaggerated. Everyone wants science to be on their side because if your views conflict directly with scientific evidence then your case is very weak.

So, how do creationists handle this issue? They usually try to present counter-evidence or they cherry-pick the scientific literature looking for papers that lend support to their cause. But that only takes you so far. Creationists are forced to admit that the vast majority of scientists support evolution and that's a real problem for their flock.

The solution is obvious. If you can't attack the science then attack the scientists. By casting doubt on the motives of scientists you can partially neutralize the impact of science.

Here's an excellent example from today's post on Evolution News & Views (sic) [How to Talk About "Evolution"].

Better to think of opinion as sharply divided. The professors, their students and many university-educated people believe one thing (evolution is a fact) and most everyone else is suspicious. They won't believe in evolution if you tell them what the professors believe -- that life in all its complexity assembled itself as a result of a series of lucky hits; that we live in a world of random changes that sometimes "coincide" with the environment (natural selection); and that's how we got here.

To believe that, we first have to be blinded by antagonism to the normal, automatic recognition of purpose and design in nature. And for most people, this blindness has to be inculcated; by teachers, by the academy, by the culture.

As to the possibility of our reaching the professor group, the trouble with my correspondent's design versus "accidental mutation/natural selection" formula is not that it is too wordy but that the professoriate have learned to accept that accidental mutation and natural selection can explain everything under the sun.

I have often wondered: What would it take for a biology professor to see some living organism, study it and then clap his hand to his forehead and say: "Wow, natural selection couldn't possibly have done THAT!"

Answer: Nothing. They are locked into a materialist worldview, and they think that anything outside it is unscientific. They have already accepted Lewontin's Law about the necessity of a "prior commitment to materialism." They will look at any strange organism you may show them and say: "Well, it exists doesn't it? How else did it get here, if not by gradual stages, bit by bit, starting with molecules in motion, finally building up to what we see in front of us? What other choice is there?"

In such a dogmatic environment dissenters wisely keep their mouths shut and upholders of the orthodoxy firmly close their minds.

Of course they don't like it when we refer to them as IDiots or creationists but they have an answer to that one as well.

Going beyond that, some of our better-known adversaries indulge in name-calling so mechanically that they may well have ceased to understand the issues. It's as though they become unable to think about what they don't want to think about. Those who resort to slogans like "ID creationism" often show no sign of understanding what the claims of ID are, sufficiently even to be able to restate them.

Unfortunatly for the IDiots, I actually understand the issues better than they do! Here's the main tenets of Intelligent Design Creationism.

1. Darwin is evil and gave rise to Hilter. Evolutionists are wedded to atheism and materialism. Most scientists are too stupid to interpret evidence correctly. Evolution cannot account for life as we know it.
2. Life can only be explained by invoking an Intelligent Designer but we're not going to tell you how or when he/she/it did it.
3. The Intelligent Designer is not necessarily a god. We never said that so you can't accuse us of being creationists.
4. The general public is being prevented from learning the truth about creationism anti-evolutionary theory by a vast conspiracy of dogmatic scientists who control higher education (and almost everything else in some secular "foreign" countries like France or Japan).

Do you think I got it right?

---

Two Books on the Cambrian Explosion

I finished reading The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity by Douglas Erwin and James Valentine. It's a wonderful book. It brings you up to date on the fossil record, dating issues, evolutionary developmental biology, climate change, and molecular phylogeny. The book offers a reasonable evolutionary explanation for the apparent rapid diversification of animal groups during the Cambrian (about 530 million years ago).

The important point is covered in a paper by Erwin et al. (2011). It shows that the main animal groups probably split gradually over a period of tens of millions of years before the "explosion" became visible in the fossil record [see The Cambrian Conundrum: Fossils vs Genes]. The authors show that the molecular data indicates an earlier divergence and trace fossils are consistent with that data.

The other book is about to be published. It's called Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design and the author is an expert paleontologist and evolutionary biologist named Stephen Meyer.

It certainly sounds exciting if you read the announcement on Evolution News & Views (sic) [Coming in June, a Game-Changing New Book: Darwin's Doubt, by Stephen Meyer].

We've been keeping something from you, dear readers, but now it can be told. The evolution debate is about to undergo a paradigm shift....

Here is a sweeping account, stunningly illustrated with gorgeous color photos, of the frontiers of the scientific critique of Darwinism and the case for ID. Exacting and thorough, yet remarkably accessible to the thoughtful lay reader, Darwin's Doubt introduces us to the challenges to Darwinism based on the study of combinatorial inflation, protein science, population genetics, developmental biology, epigenetic information, and more.

Meyer explains how post-Darwinian alternatives and adaptions of Darwin's theory -- including self-organizational models, evo-devo, neutral or nonadaptive evolution, natural genetic engineering, and others -- fall short as well. He demonstrates that the weaknesses of orthodox evolutionary theory, when flipped over head-to-foot, are precisely the positive indications that point most persuasively to intelligent design.

Evolutionary biologists studying gene regulatory networks and fossil discontinuity, among other fields, have come tantalizingly close to reaching this conclusion themselves.

The Cambrian event, fundamentally, represents an information explosion, the first but not the last in the history of life. As no book has done before, Darwin's Doubt spells out the implications of this fact. Dr. Meyer stands on the verge of turning the evolution debate in an entirely new direction, compelling critics of the theory of intelligent design, at last, to respond substantively and in detail. The book will be a game-changer, for science and culture alike.

It would not be fair to criticize Meyer's book before we get a chance to read it. It will be fun to see how the science compares with that in the book by Erwin and Valentine. I'm really looking forward to reading about the Intelligent Design Theory that explains all of the scientific data. I'm especially curious about why the designer did the deed 530 million years ago and why everything since then looks so much like evolution. I'm sure that's going to be covered. We can be practically certain that a paradigm-shifting book like this isn't just going to be several hundred pages of evolution bashing.

---

Erwin, D.H., Laflamme, M., Tweedt, S.M., Sperling, E.A., Pisani, D., and Peterson, K.J. (2011) The Cambrian conundrum: early divergence and later ecological success in the early history of animals. Science 334:1091-1097. [PubMed] [doi: 10.1126/science.1206375]

On the Importance of Defining Evolution

Some people think it's important to define your terms before engaging in a debate. I am one of them and the term that most often leads to confusion is "evolution."

Let's look at an example. Ned Bowden is a chemistry professor at the University of Iowa. He published an article in the university magazine: Common ground: A case for ending the animosity between science and religion. Bowden said ...

It’s remarkably consistent how evolution and Genesis look at the process and tell the same stories using different words. Science can never prove or disprove God, but science can provide support for the existence of God and that is what the Big Bang and evolution can give us. There are, of course, holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through, but it is highly possible that evolution was the tool that God used to bring humans into being.

Intelligent design needs to clean up its act if it expects to be taken seriously

Jonathan McLatchie tried to make the case that ID is different from creationism in two recent videos on a Christian apologetics podcast [see Jonathan McLatchie says that intelligent design is a science and Jonathan McLatchie explains the difference between intelligent design and creationism].

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.

Why does Evolution News & Views not allow comments?

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.

David Klinghoffer says: Why No Comments at Evolution News?

Michael Egnor writes: Comments by Darwinists: Another Perspective

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.

---

Who Knew?

 
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & ViewsJonathan Wells has a Ph.D. He can explain why "Darwinism" is false in only two paragraphs [Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False].

Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions;¹ and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

Amazing.

When it comes to evaluating Creationist arguments, we are often faced with a difficult decision. Is the Creationist just ignorant or is he lying? I think it's much easier to answer that question in Wells' case. He has a Ph.D. in biology from a reputable university. It's not possible for him to be that ingnorant about the basic facts of biology.

---

1. It's a lie that non-coding DNA is fully functional and it's a lie that "neo-Darwinism" predicts the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in some species.

The Third Fourth? Way

Back in 1997, James Shapiro wrote an article for the Boston Review entitled "A Third Way." It was a very confusing article. His main point seemed to be that conventional neo-Darwinism wasn't a complete picture of modern evolutionary theory.

That part wasn't news since by 1997 the ideas of Neutral Theory and random genetic drift had been around for thirty years. Apparently, Shapiro was three decades behind in his understanding of evolution.

Shapiro doesn't demonstrate that he understands population genetics and random genetic drift. This just one (of many) criticisms that I mentioned in my review of Shapiro's book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century in NCSE Reports [Evolution: A View from the 21st Century]. Shapiro responded to my review at: Reply to Laurence A Moran’s review of Evolution: A View from the 21st Century] and I discussed his response on my blog [James Shapiro Responds to My Review of His Book].

The "third" way, according to Shapiro's 1997 article, is not classic Darwinism and it's not creationism. Instead, it's a new way of looking at evolution.

What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization? Borrowing concepts from information science, new schools of evolutionists can begin to rephrase virtually intractable global questions in terms amenable to computer modelling and experimentation. We can speculate what some of these more manageable questions might be: How can molecular control circuits be combined to direct the expression of novel traits? Do genomes display characteristic system architectures that allow us to predict phenotypic consequences when we rearrange DNA sequence components? Do signal transduction networks contribute functional information as they regulate the action of natural genetic engineering hardware?

Questions like those above will certainly prove to be naive because we are just on the threshold of a new way of thinking about living organisms and their variations. Nonetheless, these questions serve to illustrate the potential for addressing the deep issues of evolution from a radically different scientific perspective. Novel ways of looking at longstanding problems have historically been the chief motors of scientific progress. However, the potential for new science is hard to find in the Creationist-Darwinist debate. Both sides appear to have a common interest in presenting a static view of the scientific enterprise. This is to be expected from the Creationists, who naturally refuse to recognize science's remarkable record of making more and more seemingly miraculous aspects of our world comprehensible to our understanding and accessible to our technology. But the neo-Darwinian advocates claim to be scientists, and we can legitimately expect of them a more open spirit of inquiry. Instead, they assume a defensive posture of outraged orthodoxy and assert an unassailable claim to truth, which only serves to validate the Creationists' criticism that Darwinism has become more of a faith than a science.

Now Shapiro has joined forces with some other "revolutionaries" and started a new website called "The Third Way." It has grandiose goals ....

The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.

There's only one problem. I'm familiar with Shapiro's ideas and with the ideas of most of the other people listed on the website and I don't think any of them (except Eugene Koonin) have anything significant to say about evolutionary theory. Futhermore, most of them don't seem to understand that there's already been a revolution and population genetics, Neutral Theory, etc. won the day. They seem to have completely missed that revolution.

They are advocating a fourth way that skips right from adaptationism to something else.

They are like a group of would-be revolutionaries marching up Rue de Lyon in Paris only to discover that the Bastille has been replaced by an open square and an opera house.

Note: There aren't many biologists that are interested in this "Third Way" but the creationists are lapping it up [A Group of Darwin-Skeptical Scientists Seeking a "Third Way" in Biology Have Launched a New Website; Welcome to Them!].

---

Do the IDiots Understand Biochemistry and Molecular Biology?

 

We've been discussing whether Intelligent Design Creationists understand enough about biochemistry, molecular biology, and evolution to warrant their criticisms of these fields. The answer is clearly "no" as they demonstrate time and time again.

This time it's an anonymous posting on the premier IDC website, Evolution News & Views [Long Non-coding RNA Punches Another Hole in "Junk Genome" Myth]. The anonymous poster links to a recent paper in Genes & Development that shows a function for a particular long non-coding (lnc) RNA. The paper implies that many of these lncRNAs (up to 400) are expressed in mouse erythroid cells.

Regulatory RNA have been known and studied for at least four decades and various lncRNAs have been characterized over the past twenty years. The IDiot at Evolution News & Views seems to think that this is a new discovery proving that there's no junk in our genome. The facts are quite different.

As I pointed out in my review of The Myth of Junk DNA, the amount of the genome devoted to producing lncRNAs is about 0.1% [Junk & Jonathan: Part 6—Chapter 3]. So, not only have we known about regulatory RNAs for many years, we also know that their genes don't account for very much of the genome, I figure it can't be more than 2% even when you include all of the most optimistic estimates of regulatory RNAs [see What's in Your Genome?].

But the ignorance of the IDiots is much more profound than just being incapable of calculating percentages. The latest posting reveals the depth of their ignorance.

These findings have two important implications. First, non-coding regions of the genome were assumed to be leftover evolutionary relics that no longer play a functional role. The assumption was not due to extensive studies of non-coding regions of the genome, but rather to a commitment to what is known as the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA is transcribed into RNA and RNA is translated into amino acids to make proteins. This was considered the primary purpose of DNA. The non-coding regions were assumed to have no function, and were dismissed as the natural consequence of genetic "junk" accumulating over time. This paper is one among an accumulating corpus of papers discussing new and interesting functions of the non-coding regions of the genome. (See The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells for a history of "junk" DNA and additional references describing the function of so-called "junk" DNA. See here for a discussion on the regulatory role of introns.)

There was never a time in the past fifty years when knowledgeable biochemists and molecular biologists thought that all non-coding DNA was nonfunctional junk. This was never an assumption of the Central Dogma of Molecular Biology which states that "... once (sequential) information has passed into protein it cannot get out again" [Basic Concepts: The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology]. There are many scientists who have misconceptions about the Central Dogma [The Central Dogma Strawman] but the IDiots go one step farther by misunderstanding the misconception!

We've known about functions in non-coding DNA since the early 1960s as anyone who has ever glanced at a textbook would know. It's hard to tell whether the IDiots are just butt-ignorant of basic science or whether they are lying. This is an especially tricky problem when the silly strawman argument is popularized by Jonathan Wells because he's supposed to know the science [Junk & Jonathan: Part 1—Getting the History Correct] [Junk & Jonathan: Part 2— What Did Biologists Really Say About Junk DNA?].

We know that most of our genome is junk because we know a great deal about genomes, genes, biochemistry, molecular biology, and evolution. We know which parts are likely to be functional and which parts are likely to be broken genes and other kinds of junk. We know this because we understand the subject, not because we are covering up our ignorance.

The IDiots are ignorant of the science and they assume that everyone else is as well. That's a very bad assumption.

---

Did Kitzmiller v. Dover kill Intelligent Design Creationism?

The 10th anniversary of Judge Jone's decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover is coming up on Dec. 20, 2015. See the post at Panda's Thumb: Kitzmas is Coming!.

ID proponents are also marking the event in various ways. If you are interested in the discussion, you should read the posts on Evolution News & Views covering the Ten Myths about Dover. The first one (#10) is Ten Myths About Dover: #10, "The Intelligent Design Movement Died After the Dover Decision".

Of course the ID movement didn't die after Kitzmiller v. Dover. From the outside (i.e. not in the USA) it seems to be as strong as ever. State legislatures all over America are still trying to suppress the teaching of evolution and promote creationist perspectives. The movement has captured the attention of many (most?) prominent politicians and much of the American public still believes that scientists are wrong about evolution.