Does Blogging Hurt Your Chances of Getting Tenure?

 
Here are two examples of academics who blog and who didn't get tenure [Too Much Information?]. Neither of them are certain that their blogs had any effect on the tenure committee but who knows for sure?

There are many blogging Assistant Professors who got tenure so it can't be all that bad. My own feeling is that blogging takes up a lot of time and those who are up for tenure might be able to make better use of that time.

---

[Hat Tip: Joshua Rosenau at Thoughts from Kansas (Science educator "Expelled!," Disco Inst remains silent)]

Sherri Shepard Is Doing It Again

 
Remember Sherri Shepherd of The View? She's the one who never thought about whether the Earth was flat [Sherri Shepherd of The View Doesn't Believe in Evolution].

Well, she's at it again. This time she claims that Christians pre-date the Romans and the Greeks. (You better watch this while you can because it will surely be removed as soon as ABC finds out about it.)

---

[Hat Tip: Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant]

A Simplistic Explanation of Evo-Devo

 
This is a one minute explanation of evo-devo by Chris Mims, Editor of Scientific American. According to Mims, evo-devo is the idea that there are regulatory genes making proteins that control the expression of other genes. Many species have homologous regulatory proteins.

Whaaaaa? If that's all there is to evo-devo then what the hell is all the fuss about?

PZ Myers seems to think it's pretty cool [Evo-devo in 60 seconds]. Apparently PZ even helped with the script [What Is Evo-Devo?]. Maybe PZ can explain why evo-devo is so important if this is all there is.

Click To Play

Maybe you can't read it in 60 seconds but I think the description of evolutionary-developmental biology on the Wikipedia site is far better than this video.

Of course no definition will excuse some of the nonsense that's being spouted in the name of evo-devo [Evo-Devo: Innovation and Robustness in Evolution].

---

The Lehigh University Disclaimer

 
Someone drew my attention to the note posted on the website of the Dept. of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University [Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design']. This is the department where Michael Behe is a tenured Profesor. Here's the complete statement.

Department Position on Evolution and "Intelligent Design"

The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.

The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.

This is an excellent summary of the proper way to treat Intelligent Design Creationism. There's no doubt the statement was carefully crafted and it shows. Intelligent Design Creationism isn't science. That's why it won't be taught in university except as an example of pseudoscience. We need to get the word out about this. Some people (e.g., Denyse O'Leary, Bill Dembski) still haven't got the message. We don't reject Intelligent Design Creationism because it's religious, we reject it because it ain't science.

The statement is highly relevant to the discussions we're been having about Intelligent Design Creationists. Imagine that you were trying to get a Ph.D. in this department while advocating that your thesis work refuted evolution and supported intelligent design. Since intelligent design isn't science your chances of graduating aren't great.

Imagine that you were up for tenure in this department while maintaining that intelligent design was a viable scientific option. Good luck.

On the other hand, if you already have tenure then you have jumped these hurdles and your right to say silly things is protected by academic freedom. That right must be upheld at all costs.

---

Pat Condell Takes on the Atheist Accommodationists

 
Here's some of what Pat Condell says at 4:20 into the video ...

Maybe you think the way to deal with this is to engage it in polite debate, to make all your little points and counter-points and show us all what a clever dick you are. And that'll be great fun for you.

And the good news is you don't even have to worry about someone like me damaging your cause because you haven't got a a cause. What you've got is a hobby.

If God exists, and I had any reason to ask him for anything, I think I'd probably ask him to save me from the curse of polite and deferential atheists.

And that's not even the best quotation. You should hear what comes after that!

---

[Hat Tip: Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge]

Should an Intelligent Design Creationist Be Denied Tenure?

 
The quick answer is, yes.

Guillermo Gonzalez was recently denied tenure in Iowa State's Dept. of Astronomy. It seems clear that part of the decision was based on Gonzalez's promotion of demonstably bad science; namely, Intelligent Design Creationism.

Mike Dunford spells it out on The Questionable Authority [The Discovery Institute and the Gonzalez Tenure Issue: Why Should Intelligent Design be Privileged?].

It is clear from the fragments of email that the Discovery Institute released that Gonzalez's colleagues believed - correctly - that Intelligent Design is not science, and that if Gonzalez believes otherwise it casts doubts on his understanding of science. They were not arguing that his belief in ID should be used against him just because he believes In ID. They were arguing that Gonzalez's belief in Intelligent Design is evidence that he has an incorrect understanding of science.

If a tenure candidate at an astronomy department were to argue that the moon is made of green cheese, it would not be unreasonable for the tenure committee to question the candidate's scientific credentials - and that candidate would be making a scientific argument that could be examined experimentally. Gonzalez doesn't even have that much going for him.

This is an important point. As Mike points out, the Discovery Institute is fond of promoting its work as "science" and it's proud to claim Guillermo Gonzalez as a bona fide scientist.

The Discovery Institute can't have it both ways. If it's science, then Gonzalez should be judged on the quality of his science, in which case he will be found wanting and denied tenure. If it's religion, then Gonzalez should not be making claims that his work is scientific and he should not put his creationist work on his CV.

In an effort to win an appeal, Gonzalez and his backers obtained email messages fro Professors in the Astronomy Department via the freedom of information act. Here's one email comment by Eli Rosenberg, the Chair of the Astronomy Department [see More on Gonzalez tenure denial].

... on numerous occasions, Dr. Gonzalez has stated that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and someday would be taught in science classrooms. This is confirmed by his numerous postings on the Discovery Institute Web site. The problem here is that Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory. Its premise is beyond the realm of science. … But it is incumbent on a science educator to clearly understand and be able to articulate what science is and what it is not. The fact that Dr. Gonzalez does not understand what constitutes both science and a scientific theory disqualifies him from serving as a scienceeducator.

I see nothing wrong here. I looks to me like this is grounds for tenure denial.

---

Gene Genie #21

 

The 21st edition of Gene Genie has just been published on Bayblab [Welcome to Gene Genie].

The next edition (#22) will appear here on Sandwalk on December 16th. Submit your entries at Blog Carnival by clicking on the link to Submit an Article. All you have to do is fill out a short form with the URL to your posting.

---

TR Gregory on Junk DNA

 
Ryan Gregory has posted another interesting discussion about junk DNA [Genome size, code bloat, and proof-by-analogy.]. You should read the entire article but I want to comment briefly on two important points.

Computer simulations rarely tell us anything about real biology in spite of the fact that computer scientists think otherwise. The main problems with most simulations is that they assume a pre-defined goal and they usually don't model random genetic drift and other non-adaptation events.

The second point is ...

Finally, it is essential to note that "non-coding elements make future evolution possible" explanations, though invoked by an alarming number of genome biologists, contradict basic evolutionary principles.

---

Is Crustacea a Class or a Phylum (or something else)?

 
I was reading about Copepods on Christopher Taylor's blog Catalogue of Organisms [Taxon of the Week: Some Copepods for your Reading Pleasure].

It got me thinking about whether Crustaceans should be elevated to phylum status as proposed by Lynn Margulis and Karlene Schwartz in Five Kingdoms 3rd ed.. A quick search of the web revealed that scientists seem to be split on the issue. Several competing classifications are listed on Answers.com. The NCBI site lists Crustacea as a subclass of Phylum Arthrododa but the taxonomy on that site is notorious for being very conservative.

Are there any taxonomists out there? Is there a consensus?

---

[Photo Credit: South Australian Research and Development Institute (Sardi)]

Software Developer Discusses Junk DNA

 
Randy Stimpson is a software developer who believes in Intelligent Design Creationism. He sometimes post comments on Sandwalk and Doppelganger read some of those comments. He (Doppelganger) decided to visit Randy's blog Intelligent Designer to see whether the postings on the blog were any better than the ones in the Comments section on Sandwalk.

Guess what? They aren't.

Randy Stimpson makes some incredibly stupid remarks about junk DNA and Doppelganger is more than happy to point out the many errors [Another creationist computer software-type pontificates on things he has no business pontificating on...].

Another data point for the Salem Conjecture.

---

Dr. Roy Thinks about Ethical Stem Cells

 
Dr. Roy Eappen is a conservative, Christian, endocrinologist living in Montreal (Quebec, Canada). He writes a blog called Dr. Roy's Thoughts. The blog is richly decorated with all of the stereotypical symbols of the Blogging Tory that Canadian Cynic is so fond of (see example on left).

One of the thoughts Dr. Roy had recently concerns "Ethical" stem cells. This is a reference to recent work developing stem cell lines from somatic cells [see OK. Everyone take a deep breath ....].

Here's what Dr. Roy says,

This is an interesting article about Dr James A. Thomson. I have spoken to scientists on these matters before and all of them have been uneasy about using embryos for stem cells. They have said that they wanted to help the sick. While healing the sick is an admirable goal, one has to think of the moral cost as well.

Dr. Roy must hang out with a different class of scientists than the ones I see. Most of the scientists I know have few qualms about creating human stem cell lines from discarded human embryos.

This doesn't mean that there are no scientists in Canada who don't share Dr. Roy's opinions about abortion. It just means that Dr. Roy is very likely not telling the truth when he says that "all of them" are uneasy. Why is it that truthiness and Christianity don't often go together?

---

[Hat Tip: Canadian Cynic ( Stem cells and reality. Because we're NOT morons.)]

Seymour Benzer (1921 - 2007)

Seymour Benzer died last Friday. In the 1950's and 1960's Benzer was a prominent member of the 'phage group founded by Max Delbrück and Salvador Luria [The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1969.].

Benzer was best known for his detailed mapping of the rII locus in bacteriophage. Benzer was able to resolve mutants that were likely to be only a single nucleotide apart. His work on mapping deletions led directly to the conclusion that the genetic codon should consist of three nucleotides. In honor of Seymour Benzer, John Dennehy has selected his 1955 paper as this week's citation classic [Benzer, S. (1955)].

You can read about Benzer's famous experiments in the article he wrote for Phage and the Origins of Molecular Biology: Adventures in the rII region.

Later on in his career, Benzer worked with Drosophila melanogaster studying behavioral mutations, including some that affect the circadian rhythm. Since this is Coturnix's field, he has posted his own tribute to Benzer [In Memoriam: Seymour Benzer].

Other notable tributes:

Carl Zimmer [Farewell, Seymour Benzer].

PZ Myers [We've lost a great one: Seymour Benzer].

It's sad to note that most younger scientists, and almost all undergraduates, have never heard of Seymour Benzer. Mostly this is sad because it makes me realize how old I am!

---

[Photo Credit: The photo shows Francis Crick (left) speaking to Seymour Benzer in 1964 (The Francis Crick Papers)]

Monday's Molecule #54

 
Name this molecule. Make sure you get the correct scientific name and the correct form of the molecule.

There's an indirect connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). Your task is to figure out the significance of today's molecule and identify the Nobel Laureate(s) who worked out the function of the molecule.

The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are two ineligible candidates for this week's reward. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: No winner this week. Several people got the correct molecule—it's the semiquinone form of flavin mononucleotide (FMN). One person guessed the Nobel Laureate but did not get the molecule correct.

---

How Does an Intelligent Design Creationist Write a Ph.D. Thesis?

 
Some of you will remember Marcus Ross. He is a Young Earth Creationist who obtained a Ph.D. in paleontology from the University of Rhode Island [Lying for Jesus]. Ross now has a faculty position at Liberty University where he teaches courses in religion and science. PZ Myers has posted an update on his career [So what's Marcus Ross up to nowadays?].

How could Ross write an acceptable Ph.D. thesis if he believes that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old? We know the answer to this question. Ross did not discuss his true beliefs in his thesis or during his Ph.D. oral exam. Instead, he wrote a thesis on the fossil record as though he accepted the scientific age of the Earth. In other words, Ross said one thing in public lectures and another in the exam room.

I was reminded of this episode while listening to Kirk Durston last week in Denyse O'Leary's course. Kirk is a Ph.D. candidate in biophysics at the University of Guelph [Kirk Durston's Proof of God]. At some point he will write scientific papers and a thesis and he will be examined on his understanding of science. I wonder what he will do?

In his talk, Kirk tried very hard to give the impression that his scientific findings point to the existence of an intelligent designer. There was a brief mention of the distinction between science and philosophy but it wasn't at all clear whether he was stepping over the line or not. He concludes that God the intelligent designer exists.

One thing was clear, however. Kirk claimed that his work demonstrated the impossibility of evolving protein folds. He presented some calculations showing the total number of mutations that could have occurred since life began (10⁴¹, if I remember correctly). Then he showed that it would take far more than 10⁴¹ mutations to evolve the known protein folds.

In his lecture he clearly states that the results refute "Darwinism." He repeated over and over again that his thesis work was scientific evidence against evolution and in favor of intelligent design creationism.

It seems to me that Kirk Durston has only two choices at this point. Either he's sincere about his "scientific" claims, in which case they go into his thesis, or, alternatively, he's willing to disguise his true "scientific" conclusion by writing a thesis that's more likely to be accepted by the scientists on his committee.

To my way of thinking, scientific integrity should not be compromised in order to get a degree by trickery. But this presents a serious problem for Intelligent Design Creationists. In their public lectures, and in articles for the popular press, they make a big deal about the "scientific" nature of their findings. If that's what they truly believe then they should have no qualms about defending it in a scientific context. In other words, it goes in the thesis and let the chips fall where they may.

But here's the rub. Intelligent Design Creationists know full well that their version of science will not pass scrutiny by other scientists. Kirk Durston will not get his Ph.D. if he's being honest about his belief in his findings. It is simply not true that protein folding is scientific proof of intelligent design and a refutation of evolution.

So, Kirk like other creationists before him, will write the thesis that his committee will pass and not the one that he would be writing if he were honest.

The next hurdle will be the Ph.D. oral exam. Members of his committee know that he has been making very vocal claims about the significance of his Ph.D. research. They know that he has been making claims that the work refutes evolution even if that's not what's in the thesis. Should they question him about the difference between what he says in the thesis and what he says on the lecture circuit? Do they have a right to fail him if they think that what's in his thesis does not reflect his true opinion about the science—and that his true opinion is scientifically invalid?

I think the committee has this right and I think that a Ph.D. candidate should be prepared to defend any "scientific" claims they make outside of the lab.

There will be a few other problems with Kirk's thesis but they are easily fixed. For example, he claimed that ancient bacteria were complex and subsequent evolution has just been degradation of the genome. In the lecture he showed us several references. We now know that he is misinterpreting these scientific papers.

I assume this will go in the thesis because Kirk seemed to be really sincere when he talked about this as scientific fact. Member of his committee will read the thesis, correct his misconceptions, and point him to other scientific papers that reveal the true nature of bacterial evolution. This will give him an opportunity to learn about good science. At the end of the process Kirk will not be making scientifically inaccurate statements in public because he will know better.

There are quite a few examples of these factual errors but I assume they will all be fixed before the oral exam.

The bottom line is can Kirk Durston get a Ph.D.? If so, how should he do it? What do you think?

---

[Photo Credit: Theses from Jackson State University]

What Is Evolution?

 
Greg Laden has just posted this video on his blog [Evolution ... Its for real]. I assume Greg endorses the definition of evolution in the opening minutes.

On Tuesday and Wednesday evenings I gave lectures on Evolution Is a Theory and a Fact. The first part of the lecture was devoted to explaining What Is Evolution. Here's the minimal scientific definition of evolution.

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

I explained to the audience that the definition of evolution has to be neutral with respect to mechanism. Evolution could occur by Lamarckian or Darwinian mechanisms, or something else entirely different.

The purpose of a definition is to define what we mean by the word. If we were to define evolution as that form of change caused by meiotic drive then change by natural selection wouldn't be evolution. How silly is that?

It's just as wrong to define evolution in terms of natural selection. That means random genetic drift is not evolution, by definition. Is that right?

The opening screen of the video states "The world is full of misinformation." The second screen says, "Many of those who claim evolution is wrong have no understanding what evolution really is."

This is exactly how I begin my talk. However, from that point on my lecture diverges considerably from the video that cdk007 created. Do you agree with the definition in the video? (Natural selection + time = EVOLUTION)

---

Take a Short Quiz on Cheating - Do You Agree with the First Year Engineering Students?

 
What freshman engineering students think about cheating.

---

More Misconceptions About Junk DNA

 
iayork of Mystery Rays from Outer Space is upset about an article on retroviruses that appeared in The New Yorker [ “Darwin’s Surprise” in the New Yorker]. Here's what iayork says,

The whole “junk DNA” has been thrashed out a dozen times (see Genomicron for a good start). The bottom line? If you search Pubmed for the phrase “junk DNA” you will find a total of 80 articles (compare to, say, 985 articles for “endogenous retrovirus”); and a large fraction of those 80 articles only use the phrase to explain what a poor term it is. Scientists don’t use the term “junk DNA’. Lazy journalists use it so they can sneer at scientists (who don’t use it) for using it.

Wrong! Lots of scientists use the term "junk DNA." Properly, understood, it's a very useful term and has been for several decades [Noncoding DNA and Junk DNA].

Yes, it's true that journalists often don't understand junk DNA and they are easily tricked into thinking that junk DNA is a discredited concept. The journalists are wrong, not the scientists who use the term.

It's also true that there are many scientists who feel uneasy about junk DNA because it doesn't fit with their adaptationist leanings. Just because there's controversy doesn't mean that the term isn't still used by it's proponents (I am one).

I'm sorry, iayork, but statements like that don't help in educating people about science. Junk DNA is that fraction of a genome that has no known function and based on everything we know about biology is unlikely to have some unknown function. Junk DNA happens to represent more than 90% of our genome and that's significant by my standards.

---

Agassiz in the Concrete and Persecution of Religious Scientists

John Pieret has a posting on possible examples of persecution of religious scientists in the nineteenth century [On the Ways of Change].

John quotes from a book by Neal C. Gillespie on Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Gillespie is discussing the conflict between religion and science among academics in the mid-1800's. According to John, Gillespie says,

Antagonism against biblicism had reached such a point by the late 1850s that Agassiz suggested that fear of the wrath of the positivists was actually leading some naturalists with strong theological convictions to conform to the new science against their true judgment.

The quote refers to Louis Agassiz, a biology Professor at Harvard^1. and one of the last holdouts against evolution. John links to the upcoming Expelled movie and asks whether Agassiz is referring to persecution of religious scientists.

John posted a photograph of the statue of Louis Agassiz embedded upside down in the courtyard in front of the zoology building at Stanford University. The statue tumbled from its place above the entrance during the San Francisco earthquake of 1906.

According to legend, a passing scientist remarked that,

Louis Agassiz was better in the abstract than in the concrete.^2.

This is a clear reference to the fact that Agassiz's reputation had been severely damaged by his religious convictions and his rejection of biological evolution.

Is it true that atheist scientists discriminate against religious scientists? John has been concerned about this issue for a number of years. He thinks that atheist scientists fail to distinguish between real science and metaphysics. He thinks that much of our criticism of religious scientists is not because we're scientists but because we're atheists.

I'm posting a specific case for consideration in another message so it was quite appropriate, and fortuitous, that John Pieret brought it up today on Thoughts in a Haystack.

---

1. Stephen Jay Gould held the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology Chair at Harvard from 1982 until his death in 2002. Alexander Agassiz was Louis Agassiz's son. Alexander served as President of the National Academy of Sciences.

2. The story is apocryphal (a polite word for "false"). The quotation has been attributed to several men, including the President of Stanford, but all have denied it. Nevertheless, it's too good a story to abandon just because it happens to be untrue!

[Photo Credit: Wikipedia]

Evolution and Purpose

 
The first issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach is available online [Contents]. You can read all 21 articles.

Many of them are very interesting but I'm particulary struck by one with the title The Question of Purpose by David Zeigler. The question of purpose in evolution is very contentious. If we stick to science, it's clear that there is no purpose to evolution. What this means is that science is at odds with every religious belief that requires purpose (e.g., God made us).

Many believers resist this interpretation of science by declaring that conclusions about the absence of purpose cross over into the realm of metaphysics. Therefore, science does not rule out a purposeful universe.

David Zeigler is having none of that kind of excuse ...

My “purpose” (we can create our own temporally and spatially limited purposes) in writing this piece is to point out one of the most important and real issues in the teaching of Darwinian evolution that so often goes unaddressed, or more amazingly—unrecognized, and this issue is really fairly obvious. Darwinian evolution by natural selection results in adaptations which increase the ability of the individuals to survive and reproduce successfully in their respective environments, or as biologists would say—adaptations increase the fitness of individuals. This is the only evolutionary goal or purpose for which science has found objective evidence.

In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence—as Gould has argued so eloquently. Most of the other known mechanisms of evolutionary change such as genetic drift, neutral mutation, gene duplications, transposons, horizontal gene transfer by plasmids, and others have no direction or goal at all and are in fact random (which natural selection is not) and therefore could not possibly give a particular direction to evolution. Numerous science writers have made the obvious point that had that asteroid not struck some 65,000,000 years ago and pushed the dinosaurs to extinction, we humans would undoubtedly not be here, for the evolution of mammals would have been constrained and altered drastically from what has come to pass (i.e., we humans were not destined to evolve).

If we teach evolution honestly, we cannot really avoid this point, although many succeed in doing so. Additionally, if we give any credence to some hybrid form of teleological evolution by which humans or any of the so-called “higher” forms were destined to appear, we have gutted Darwinian evolution of its scientific core and replaced it with an unfounded belief—one that too many of our students (and most intelligent design proponents) already hold. I believe it is in part because we tiptoe around the honest interpretation of Darwinism that the USA lags far behind the other developed countries of the world in accepting the modern scientific view of evolution and in taking a realistic view of our precarious place (and responsibilities) on this fragile planet.

I don't like his use of "Darwinism" as an incorrect substitute for "biological evolution" but it's otherwise a fine piece. If this is an indication of the quality of article that will appear in the new journal then I'll be looking forward to each issue.

---

Evolution as Fact, Theory, etc.

 
Ryan Gregory has just published an essay in Evolution: Education and Outreach on Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path [see Genomicron].

Ryan has made of list of similar essays on the web. I reproduce that list here except I'm linking to the latest version of my essay (2007) rather than the 1993 version that's on the TalkOrigins.org website.

• Evolution as fact, theory, and path (T. Ryan Gregory)


• Evolution: fact and theory (Richard E. Lenski)


• The fact of evolution: implications for science education (James R. Hofman and Bruce H. Weber)
  


• Evolution is a fact and a theory (Larry Moran)
  


• Evolution as fact and theory (Stephen Jay Gould)
  

---

Why We Call them IDiots

 

---

[Hat Tip: Monado at Science Notes ( Why do people laugh at Creationists? 4)]

Nobel Laureates: Edmond Fischer and Edwin Krebs

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1992.

"for their discoveries concerning reversible protein phosphorylation as a biological regulatory mechanism"

Edmond H. Fischer (1920 - ) and Edwin G. Krebs (1918 - ) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for working out the pathway for regulation of glycogen metabolism. The main feature of this regulation is the phosphorylation and dephosphorylation of enzymes to control their activity [Regulating Enzyme Activity by Covalent Modification].

The Nobel Lectures by Ed Krebs [Protein Phosphorylation and Cellular Regulation I] and Ed Fischer [Protein Phosphorylation and Cellular Regulation II] should be required reading for all biochemistry students. Not only do they show how a fruitful collaboration works, they provide an excellent introduction to fundamental aspects of metabolism and regulation. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the material in these lectures appeared on introductory biochemistry exams.

For this Nobel Prize there's a slide presentation on the Nobel Prize website illustrating the work done by Ed Fischer and Ed Krebs [Illustrated Presentation]. Fischer and Krebs are Professors Emeritii at the University of Washington (USA). They have been friends and collaborators for many years. The first illustration (below) is from the slide presentation.

The Nobel Prize website also has video links to interviews with Edmond Fischer and the transcript of an interview with Edmond Krebs. Here's an excerpt from the interview with Krebs ...

Edwin G. Krebs is a soft-spoken, understated Midwesterner, but there's one thing that gets his goat. Since he turned his attention from medicine to biochemistry, people have been asking him about "his" cycle. They confuse him with Sir H.A. Krebs, the British scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 1953 for elucidating the metabolic Krebs (or tricarboxylic acid) cycle.

One person who made this mistake was the chairman of a clinical department at the UW School of Medicine in 1948, when Krebs started as an assistant professor of biochemistry.

"I must confess that I didn't correct his wrong impression," says Krebs. "I was so uneasy about my status then that I enjoyed being treated with such deference, even for the wrong reason."

The Nobel Prize presentation speech was delivered by Professor Hans Jörnvall of the Nobel Assembly of the Karolinska Institute.

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Ladies and Gentlemen,

This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded for discoveries concerning reversible protein phosphorylation. What does that mean and how does phosphorylation work?

Let us start with proteins. They can be compared with workers in our tissues. We are composed of cells, each cell constituting a small community. Constant activity is a characteristic feature both of cells and ordinary communities. There are systems for transportation, energy generation, production, and waste handling. In society all this is handled by humans, in a cell proteins take our place. How do they accomplish their functions? Well, exactly like human workers, they operate by way of interaction with other components. Much in the same manner as a driver or pilot recognizes the controls, proteins recognize "their" partners, binding them to influence the reaction paths.

And now phosphorylation: one or several small phosphate groups are coupled to a protein, changing its properties. If the parallel with our human workers is pursued further, one could perhaps compare phosphorylation with ballet shoes. Despite their small size they have dramatic effects on their wearer! The shape of the foot is altered and after that, work is like a dance. Edmond Fischer and Edwin Krebs, this year's Laureates, described this principle in the ftfties. They showed how muscles liberate an energy-rich form of sugar from its storage form by phosphorylation of a protein. After that, science gradually gained insight into the fact that this constitutes a general principle manifested in all cellular activities. Today, a considerable part of world bioscience involves protein phosphorylation.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
Why this regulation via coupling of small groups? One advantage is that the process is reversible, i.e. the shoes can be taken off and put on, a process which can be repeated again and again. Thus, proteins can be regulated in both directions. Another is that the reactions can be carried out in successive steps, creating a cascade that amplifies the end effect. Much like the hydraulic amplification in a brake: a gentle touch of the pedal can stop even a heavy car. In the world of proteins, Krebs and his collaborators paved the way for this knowledge by studying also the preceding protein in the chain of phosphorylations, while Fischer concentrated his efforts along other lines and, as recently as some years ago, reported the purification of a special type of phosphate-removing protein.

Yet another advantage is that the regulation can be affected by different signals. The system that Fischer and Krebs first studied can be activated either by means of a stress hormone released when we become frightened and our muscles prepare us for escape, or by an act of will when we wish to run for other reasons. Phosphate groups are in these two cases attached in response to separate signals, much as they are in all other cellular response systems. What relevance does this have to medicine? The easiest answer is that we all know of the consequences in society from imbalances in economic chain reactions! We are now in a position to start perceiving how illnesses, including common diseases like hypertension and tumors, are accompanied by imbalances in phosphorylations. Relationships initially recognized in connection with glycogen storage in muscles and liver, have thus been proven to pertain to cellular regulatory processes in general. An excellent demonstration of the power of basic research and of the versatility of simple models. The protein system in glycogen storage has given rise, over the years, to several Nobel Prizes, in 1947 to Gerty and Carl Cori for the course of the catalytic conversion of glycogen, in 1971 to Earl Sutherland for mechanisms of action of hormones, and now to Fischer and Krebs for discoveries concerning reversible protein phosphorylation as a biological regulatory mechanism.

Edmond Fischer and Edwin Krebs,

I have tried to describe your field of research and elegant discoveries in your studies of reversible protein phosphorylation, going back to the initial detection of the activation mechanism of phosphorylase, and continuing with protein phosphatases. Over the years, your early observations on a particular system have contributed to the opening up of novel insight into basic protein regulations at all levels and in all cells. On behalf of the Nobel Assembly of the Karolinska Institute, I convey to you our warmest congratulations, and ask you now to step forward to receive your Nobel Prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.

---

[Photo Credit: Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Washington]

Regulating Enzyme Activity by Covalent Modification

 
Monday's Molecule #53 was phosphothreonine, one of several amino acid residues that can be phosphorylated.

UPDATE= The other major ones are serine and tyrosine but histidine, lysine, cysteine, aspartate and glutamate can also be phospohylated in some proteins as well as some modified amino acids like hydroxy-proline (Reinders, and Sickmann 2005).


Enzyme activity can be modified by covalent attachment of a phosphoryl group to an amino acid residue. In some cases the phosphorylated enzyme will be active while in other cases the phosphorylated enzyme will be inactive.

The classic examples of regulation by covalent modification are in the pathways for synthesis and degradation of glycogen [Regulating Glycogen Metabolism]. For example, the enzyme glycogen phosphorylase is responsible for breaking down glycogen and liberating glucose. Glycogen phosphorylase is active when phosphorylated and inactive when the phosphoryl group is removed. The phosphorylation is carried out by phosphorylase kinase and this enzyme is, itself, regulated by covalent modification. These enzymes are part of a larger signal transduction pathway involving several different phosphorylated enzymes.

---

Reinders, J. and Sickmann, A. (2005) State-of-the-art in phosphoproteomics. Proteomics 5:4052-4061.

Evolution Is a Theory and a Fact

 
Don't forget about my talk tonight at McMaster University in Hamilton (Ontario, Canada). It's sponsored by the McMaster Association of Secular Humanists (MASH) (Hamilton) [Evolution is a Theory and a Fact, with Prof Laurence Moran]

The subject is Evolution Is a Theory and a Fact. Come to room HSC/1A1 at 7pm. (HSC is the (Health Sciences Building, or the Hospital, map here.)

Cost: $2 (free for members of the MASH)

Tomorrow night I'm at the Centre for Inquiry, 216 Beverley Street in Toronto. (Beverly St. is the southward extension of St. George St. The Centre is on the west side of the street about one block south of College.)

The talk begins at 7pm.
Cost: $4 (*special announcement: students Free*) FREE for Friends of the Centre

The public event at CFI will also serve as the official launch of Cafe Inquiry, a project of the University of Toronto Secular Alliance, sponsored by CFI Ontario. Similar to Cafe Scientifique hosted by the Ontario Science Centre, we will serve food and beverages and encourage discussion with the audience. Bring your questions and comments on this controversial issue!

---

I'm Looking Through You

 
John Wilkins of Evolving Thoughts has posted a goodbye tribute to John Howard [Beatles' ode to John Howard]. Like all bloggers over 40—or maybe 50—whenever you read the lyrics to "I'm Looking Through You" you can't help but sing along, can you?

For all you youngsters out there, here's how to sing the song ....

---

Bloggers Over 40

 
According to rezom.com there are some good blogs written by men and women over 40 years old [40 Bloggers Over 40].

The portrait of a blogger is a young man, or woman. And often, that portrait is wrong. Despite the fact that the Internet was created by baby boomers, it's too often viewed as a teenager's playground. Every junior high kid has a blog now ... but are they any good? Only if you sit next to the author in homeroom. Many of the best blogs, the ones with the smartest observations, clearest writing, most dazzling photos and most compelling stories are maintained by people in their 40s, 60s ... even 80s. It's time to put to rest that myth about grandpa and his computer phobia. The grandpas we found online know how to use technology to say their piece. And bloggers in their 40s and 50s are documenting the workplace, the news of the day, and their interests in fascinating detail. So we're spotlighting great reads and thought-provoking posts from people who have been around long enough to have something to say. We hope you enjoy them.

There are some interesting sites listed. Phil Plait of The Bad Astronomer is there in the "Science and Environment" category. Richard Dawkins, John Wilkins, PZ Myers and a host of others are not. I'm not listed either but that's probably because I look much younger that I really am.

Many of my students are surprised that I know how to use a computer. I tell them that I've been working with computers for 39 years so it shouldn't come as a big surprise that I can post articles on the internet. They don't believe me. From their perspective computers are only used by young people.

---

IDiots Don't Bash Evolutionary Biologists

 
How many times have you heard that line? The IDiots are fond of saying that they have positive evidence for Intelligent Design Creationism. According to them, it's not about bashing "Darwinists."^*

So how do you explain the Darwin Daze Sock-Hop on the Expelled site? [The Playground for Expelled] This is nothing less than a blatant attempt to mock the leading figures in evolutonary biology and atheism.

It makes me feel good about calling them IDiots.

---

^* It will be interesting to see if any Intelligent Design Creationists object in public to that video. Several of them are on record as saying that they don't bash "Darwinists" (e.g., Kirk Durston, "I never bash Darwinists.")

IDiot Logic

 
Bill Dembski gives us some insight into the "logic" of Intelligent Design Creationism [E. O. Wilson on ID].

ID does not argue from “Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure” to “Gee, therefore God must have done it.” This is a strawman. Here is the argument ID proponents actually make:

Premise 1: Certain biological systems have some diagnostic feature, be it IC (irreducible complexity) or SC (specified complexity) or OC (organized complexity) etc.

Premise 2: Materialistic explanations have been spectacularly unsuccessful in explaining such systems — we have no positive evidence for thinking that material mechanisms can generate them.

Premise 3: Intelligent agency is known to have the causal power to produce systems that display IC/SC/OC.

Conclusion: Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC/SC/OC are likely to be designed.

The are plenty of complex systems that have perfectly reasonable evolutionary explanations. There are even irreducibly complex systems that can easily be explained by evolution. Bill might think about coming to my lecture on Wednesday where I will explain how the irreducibly complex citric acid cycle evolved.

Thus premise #2 is false. Dembski has been told this on numerous occasions so I have to conclude that he is lying. Premise #2 is logically equivalent to "Shucks, I can’t imagine how material mechanisms could have brought about a biological structure."

Premise #3 is not science. You can't just throw up your hands and say God did it because you lack the intelligence to come up with a naturalistic explanation. Premise #3 is indistinguishable from "Gee, therefore God must have done it."

The conclusion is invalid.

This really isn't much of a challenge. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. I guess that's why we call them IDiots.

---

Monday's Molecule #53

 
This is a simple one. All you have to do is give the correct name of the residue in the middle of the picture.

There's a direct connection between this molecule and Wednesday's Nobel Laureate(s). Your task is to figure out the significance of today's molecule and identify the Nobel Laureate(s) who are responsible for that significance. (Hint: There's also a connection to last week's lecture in biochemisty.)

The reward goes to the person who correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward. The prize is a free lunch at the Faculty Club.

Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk(at)bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and the Nobel Laureate(s). Correct responses will be posted tomorrow along with the time that the message was received on my server. I may select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: There is no winner this week. Nobody got the residue and nobody guessed the name of the Nobel Laureate(s).

---

Creationists as Victims

 
There's a new movie coming out in January. It's called Expelled and the star, Ben Stein^*, is going to reveal the secret evilutionist conspiracy. Apparently, the evilutionists have been persecuting creationists but not because they're idiots. No, apparently it's only because they dare to question the authority of Darwinism.

I'm sure you can't wait to see the movie. Here's a lengthy preview [expelledthemovie.com].

---

^*I'm not sure why Ben Stein is an authority on this subject. Perhaps it's because he was a speech writer for Richard Nixon?

By Jove, I Think She's Got it!!!

 
Denyse O'Leary muses about the lecture I attended last Tuesday where Kirk Durston presented the case for Intelligent Design Creationism [Kirk Durston's Proof of God].

Here's what she says on her blog Uncommon Descent [We have the hat, but where’s that rabbit? High levels of information in “simple” life forms]. I'll go through it slowly but the bottom line is that Denyse O'Leary is finally beginning to understand mechanistic naturalism and what science is all about. It's only taken her, what ... ten years? Sheesh.

In Tuesday night, a guest speaker spoke to my adult night school class in why there is an intelligent design controversy. He talked about the central problem of evolution: The fact that high levels of information are present in life forms that are supposed to be early and simple.

We've discussed this on other posting. Kirk Durston did, indeed, say that ancient bacteria were complex and modern ones have become more simple. But his most important point was that the existence of protein folds cannot be explained by evolution, therefore they must have been intelligently designed (i.e., God did it).

Some guests attended the talk, and one of them announced that if intelligent design is correct, scientists would not see the need to do any research because Goddunit. Or something like that.

Actually, it wasn't one of the "guests"—it was one of the regular students. It happened to be the one who invited me as a "guest."

The question referred to the fact that "God did it" is a science-stopper. As soon as Kirk Durston concludes that protein folds are designed by God, that's the end of doing science. What else can be done? Does he plan to design experiments to prove that God did it? Does he plan to investigate how God might have done it, or when? Of course not. It's a science-stopper.

The more I thought about what he was saying, the more it puzzled me. Finally, I realized:

For the materialist, the PURPOSE of science is to show that high levels of information can be created without intelligence.

Therefore, in looking for causes of events, the materialist accepts ONLY a solution that shows that high levels of information can come from random assembly (= without intelligence).

I'm delighted to hear that Denyse O'Leary is capable of serious thought. (Who knew?) She's pretty much got it right.

In science you cannot invoke the supernatural. You are committed to finding naturalistic explanations of the natural world. The procedure is called methodological naturalism or methodological materialism [see Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground].

The debate over the conflict between science and religion has been going on for hundreds of years. In the past 50 years the debate has focused on the methodology of science and how it must exclude the supernatural if it's supposed to work properly. I'm shocked (not really) that Denyse has never heard of this before. It's one of the main themes in the writings of Phillip Johnson [see Are You as Smart as a Second Year University Student? Q1 and comments].

He has not shown that high levels of information can be created without intelligence. He assumes that his assertion is true and looks for evidence to support it.

Discoveries that disconfirm his initial belief are not treated as evidence.

Keep looking, he says, keep looking … that magic information mill has GOT to be somewhere!

"Disoveries" that claim to disconfirm the assumption of naturalism are tested against reality. If a hypothesis appears to conflict with a naturalistic explanation then it's back to the drawing board. Scientists will re-examine their assumptions to see where they went wrong. They will devise new approaches and do experiments to collect more data. In other words, the apparent conflict stimulates research, it does not shut it down.

Keep looking, keep looking. This is an approach that has been enormously successful in science over the past several thousand years. Without that attitude we would still believe that all of humanity was wiped out in a flood and that the sun went around the Earth.

Contrast this scientific approach with the typical Young Earth Creationist approach to learning. How many of them are looking for evidence of how God made the Universe 6000 years ago? Where did he get all the atoms, for example? Did he make any mistakes? Belief in the Bible is a science-stopper.

Here's another example. Kirk Durston stops doing science once he's decided that God made proteins. There's nothing else he can do. On the other hand, scientists look at his data and try to explain where he went wrong and why there could be naturalistic explanations. In this case, it's not too hard to discover where Kirk made most of his errors. This is what science is all about and this is why Intelligent Design Creationism isn't science. It's a science-stopper.

Look at bacterial flagella. Michael Behe pronounced that flagella were created by God when he published Darwin's Black Box in 1996. How much research into the origin of flagella did this stimulate among Intelligent Design Creationists? None at all. What's the point?

Scientists did not accept the conclusion that God did it. They continued to work on the problem and now we have a pretty good explanation for the origin of bacterial flagella. Pretty soon the creationists will have to abandon this example but it sure won't be because of any scientific work they did. No scientific advances come for assuming that God did it.

What if random assembly is not in fact the answer? Then either

1. No solution is found (because there never was any solution in the direction in which he is looking)

or

2. An inadequate solution is patched together and defended as the best available solution - usually that means that claims for the solution are overstated wildly to the public.

But it is the materialist scientist’s duty to keep looking for the magic mill even if the fact that random assembly did not occur is overwhelmingly obvious.

Actually the two scientific possibilities are:

1. We found a naturalistic explanation for the claims of religion. Historically, this is what happens most of the time and it's why the claims of religion have repeatedly been shown to be false.


2. We don't know the answer but we'll keep working on the problem. This is what's happening with the most recent claims of the creationists. It takes a few years to demonstrate their nonsense and during that time the correct scientific position is that the questions hasn't been decided. (Sometimes we can say we have a tentative solutions that needs refinement.)

So far, in several thousand years of testing creationist claims there isn't a single one that hasn't fallen to the onslaught of rationalism.

And he displays his virtue to his peers by never questioning the system and by showing hostility and contempt for anyone who does question it.

Given his initial convictions, the materialist cannot believe that a non-materialist is actually doing science. He cannot envision any approach to the fact base that does not have as its base an effort to show that the information was created randomly.

There are many religious scientists who do a pretty good job of being scientific most of the time. They know that methodolgical naturalism is a powerful assumption with a proven track record and that resort to the supernatural has never led to further understanding. As I said above, I'm shocked that Denyse is only now coming to the realization that her understanding of science was seriously flawed. Apparently, in spite of the fact that she has written two books, she never understood the scientific method.

As for "hostilty," yes, it's true. Some of us get very frustrated with so-called scientists who don't understand the fundamental concepts of the scientific methd and what it means to be a scientist.

As a matter of fact, the fact base could easily be approached otherwise, and often more fruitfully, too. If we assume that an object in nature is designed, we do not waste time trying to imagine how it could have come about randomly. We study its characteristics and make predictions about its behaviour, function, and so forth.

That's just a bunch of bull manure. Part of the statement is true—creationists stop trying to find an evolutionary explanation as soon as they conclude that God did it. But the second part is completely false. Creationists stop all investigations once they've concluded that supernatural beings are involved. They don't try to figure out how God's mind worked.

I hope Denyse does some reading in order to catch up. She should look at Philip Johnson's proposal for a God-based (non-materialistic) science. It ain't gonna happen. Why in the world would scientists shop using a method that has bee so successful?

The idea that invoking the supernatural could be a more "fruitful" approach to science, as Denyse says above, is outlandish to the point of idiocy. There are no scientific advances that have come from assuming God did it. That's always a science-stopper.

---

Taking Science on Faith

 
Paul Davies is a Professor of Physics at Arizona State University. In 1995 he received the Templeton Prize, which is awarded "for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities." As you might have guessed, this prize goes to people who make up stories about the compatibility of science and religion.

Davies has written a number of books about science and religion, including Cosmic Jackpot.

His latest foray into the world of Christian apologetics is an op-ed piece in yesterday's New York Times [Taking Science on Faith]. Quite a few bloggers have pointed out the major (and I do mean major) logical flaws in this piece. Here's PZ Myers' take on it [Faith is not a prerequisite for science]. PZ has links to the other sites.

Paul Davies is a scientist. I don't understand where he gets such stupid ideas about science. Maybe it's in church.

---

Another Proof of God

 

You should probably watch this video to get some idea about how the creationist mind works.

---

[Hat Tip: Effect Measure]

Bacterial Genomes and Evolution

 
I recently became aware of the fact that Intelligent Design creationists are promoting a strange idea. They bacteria were very complex when life first formed and their genomes have been degrading over time. Kirk Durston, a graduate student at the university of Guelph, pushed this idea in a course on intelligent design. Durston used a number of scientific references to prove his point. The main one was a paper by Miraa et al (200) from Nancy Moran's lab [Bacteria Genomes Are Degrading].

Ryan Gregory is one of the world's leading experts on genomes and their evolution. He's also a Professor at the University of Guelph. Ryan has published an excellent description of what the Mira et al. (2000) paper shows and what it does not show. You should all read it [Bacterial genomes and evolution].

For Kirk Durston's sake, I hope Ryan Gregory isn't on his Ph.D. oral committee.

---

148 Years Ago Today

 
John Wilkins tells us what happened 148 years ago today. Unfortunately, he doesn't tell us what happened today in Australia.

Check out The Corpus Callosum to see how much the historical event cost back then [Happy Birthday].

---

Frightened YEC's

 
Shaliniat at Scientia Natura: Evolution and Rationality found this cartoon [It must be hard living in fear of science]. It's cute so I'm stealing it from her. It's originally from cectic.

---

Excellence at the

 
Monado at Science Notes points us to a Visual Library set up by Access Excellence at the National Health Museum [Graphics Library resources online]. Here's a description of Access Excellence.

Access Excellence, launched in 1993, is a national educational program that provides health, biology and life science teachers access to their colleagues, scientists, and critical sources of new scientific information via the World Wide Web. The program was originally developed and launched by Genentech Inc., and in 1999 joined the National Health Museum, a non-profit organization founded by former U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop as a national center for health education. Access Excellence will form the core of the educational component of the National Health Museum Website that is currently under development.

This is an admirable goal. The web is full of garbage and it would be nice to collect all the good stuff in one site so that teachers and students could use it. I thought I'd check it out to see how "excellent" it is.

Of course they get The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology wrong but I can't really blame them for that since lots of scientists get it wrong as well [see Basic Concepts: The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology].

One of the next images I checked was the one shown below. It's labeled RNA Ribonucleic Acid - A More Detailed Description. Now, it seems to me that one of the major distinguishing features of RNA is missing. Can you tell what it is?


The graphic shown below is called Nucleotide - A More Detailed Description. It claims to show the structure of a nucleotide in more detail. The boxed region of the DNA molecule does depict a nucleotide but the structures on the right (i.e., more detail) do not. Instead, these are the bases that make up a nucleotide. It may seem nitpicky but why can't they get it right?


Here's a suggestion to the people who run the Access Excellence website: why not ask a few biochemists to check out the science before you post information on the site? Would that be asking too much?

---

Harper Blocks Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets

 
Prime Minister Harper is attending the Commonwealth Summit in Kampala, Uganda. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Commonwealth of Nations, it represents 53 nations that were formerly part of the British Empire [Commonwealth of Nations].

These nations have just voted to suspend Pakistan from the Commonwealth until it holds free elections [Pakistan suspended from Commonwealth]. Stephen Harper lead the way here by calling for Pakistan's suspension.

The current debate is over establishing binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions as part of a strategy to reduce global warming. Canada and Australia are the only nations who oppose this resolution. Ironically, with the change in government in Australia today, it's likely that Canada is now the only nation to oppose binding targets.

---

[Hat Tip: Brian Larnder at Primordial Blog (Stephen Harper Embarrasses Canada Again)]

[Photo Credit: cbcnews]

Goodbye John Howard

 
The latest results from today's election in Australia point to a defeat for the current Prime Minister, John Howard [Labor sweeps to victory in Australia election]. Not only will the Liberal-National Party coalition lose the election but it looks like Howard will lose his own seat in Parliament.

I don't know enough about Australian politics to know what this means. Howard is a staunch ally of the United States and he sent Australian troops to Iraq. I believe that Australia is one of the few industrialized countries, other than the USA, to refuse to sign the Kyoto agreements.

Does this mean that Australia will withdraw its remaining troops from Iraq and sign on to Kyoto now that Kevin Rudd and the Australian Labor party are in power?

---

[Photo Credit: Australian flag - Job Search: John Howard - Wikipedia]

Kirk Durston Interview

 
Here's an online interview with Kirk Durston on canadianchristianity.com for those who want to know more about his views on Intelligent Design Creationism [Evolution under fire? -- Part 1]. By all accounts Kirk seems to be a Young Earth Creationist in the sense that he prefers the literal interpretation of the Bible until it has been proven wrong.

Here's a part of the interview that seems unblievable.

I have been doing a great deal of work in ID over the past few years -- and have given presentations of my work in universities, both in Canada and the USA, that are well attended by both students and faculty. I have been very surprised by the fact that no significant objections to the evidence I present are being raised in these venues. I never bash Darwinism, I simply show them the positive evidence for ID -- and it goes over very well indeed.

I am currently working on a paper dealing with functional information, under the guidance of a professor in bioinformatics who wants to see my work published. It will be very low-key, mentioning nothing about ID, yet laying the groundwork for some major advances in this field -- if it is, by some miracle, accepted for publication.

I'm surprised that he has never heard any significant objections to the evidence he presents in his talk. I didn't have any trouble recognizing several lies and distortions and I wasn't the only one on Tuesday night.

Maybe he gives a different talk in other venues? In any case, we'll see whether the experts on protein folding hear at the University of Toronto will be as gullible when they hear the "positive evidence for ID" next Spring [A Scientific Test for the Intelligent Designer].

Oh, I almost forgot, in his Tuesday evening presentation he did bash "Darwinism." I guess that's one more difference between what I heard and his normal talks to students and faculty. Either that or .....

---