…and this is a 
No more coffee for Mr Witt
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 30, 2006 3:04 PM, by PZ Myers
Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute has lost it. The string of defeats for the cause of Intelligent Design creationism has had its toll, first Dover and now the Ohio ID lesson plan, and the poor man is clearly suffering from the strain, as you can tell from his latest hysterical screed.
First we get evolution compared to Castro's newspapers, with no criticism allowed; then the defense for including ID in Ohio is that there is a 3:1 margin of popular support. Two fallacies in one paragraph! Sorry, Jonathan, hyperbolic comparisons to communism and an appeal to popular opinion on matters of fact do not a defense of ID make.
Then he gets confused.
In Dover, they insisted that physical evidence presented against their theory wasn't an argument for intelligent design. Darwinist Kenneth Miller made this argument on the stand and the judge concurred. But in Ohio they wanted to scare people into thinking that simply teaching students the scientific evidence for and against Darwinism was somehow legally dangerous. Since it isn't, the Darwinists had to get creative, had to change their story. So now they asserted that simply exposing students to the evidence against Darwinism constitutes the teaching of intelligent design. Thus, their Ohio position flatly contradicts their Dover position.
There's a serious problem in the logic of his argument, in that a key piece is missing. He keeps talking about the evidence against evolution presented by his side; where is it? If we were trying to silence the expression of some significant piece of evidence against the scientific position, Witt would have a point. Of course, he doesn't have any such thing. There are missing pieces of the story, there are real controversies within biology, but nope…there ain't nothing out there that is against the principles of common descent, natural selection, etc., all those incredibly useful pieces of the biologist's toolkit.
What we are shutting down is a phony PR campaign to prop up a bogus hypothesis.
So far, this was just the usual indignant claptrap we get from the DI…but then Witt runs of the rails and starts inventing absurd scenarios.
Why stop at expunging from Ohio's biology curricula any mention of the weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory? No, it's time for them to go after all of those mainstream biologists and their impermissible facts that have infiltrated the peer reviewed literature.
It's the mainstream biologists who are complaining about the DI's mangling of the facts and who are publishing critical evaluations of ideas, and ummm…this is evidence that mainstream biologists are suppressing the facts, and next they're going to go gunning after themselves? This makes no sense.
Take one particularly frustrating example. Evolutionists routinely appeal to a peppered moth experiment as evidence for Darwinian evolution. But then further investigations by mainstream scientists revealed that, in all likelihood, the experimental results were propped up by fudged photographs.
No, the experimental results are sound. That an investigator would take a photo of what an animal and its environment looks like is nothing new; a photo of a moth on a tree trunk is not the evidence that was analyzed in the peppered moth work. This is a perfect example, though, of how creationists distort and misrepresent research to generate a false impression, and is exactly why they are unreliable sources of information for our schoolkids.
And here's another typical misrepresentation:
Of course, that's just the beginning. Darwinists routinely use examples of microevolution (change within species) as supposed knockdown evidence for macroevolution (the evolution of fundamentally new body plans). But the peer-reviewed literature is filled with mainstream scientists who question whether evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to provide strong support for macroevolution.
Yes, scientists argue about these things; I'm one who thinks macroevolution represents a different class of phenomena from microevolution. That does not mean I'm in the ID camp (hah!). We also don't argue that because Mendel, therefore Evo-Devo—macroevolution is a fact that has to be explained, not an inference derived from theoretical considerations of population genetics.
It gets weirder. Because we think the unqualified lawyers, philosophers, bibliolaters, and kooks of the Discovery Institute deserve no place in the curriculum, we must also be planning to snuff out other unconventional thinkers.
Those articles will need to be gotten rid of, too. For that matter, something will have to be done about all of those evolutionists with the cheek to point out such things. No problem there. According to the Darwinists' Ohio logic, scientists who merely point out weaknesses in Darwinism (Stephen Jay Gould, Franklin Harold, Stuart Kauffman, etc., etc.), are arguing for intelligent design, are card-carrying design theorists. That means they're fair game: break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles.
I know of the work of Gould, Harold, and Kauffman, and you are no Gould, Harold, or Kauffman, Mr Witt. They are competent scholars who have done good work within the framework of science—they are not quacks operating out of think-tanks trying to foist ridiculous ideas on the public by way of PR campaigns, enforcement by law, or demagoguery. They did not and do not have the goal of legitimating supernatural excuses in science.
Now Witt is just making up crap about people, but then he crosses the line and lies about something much more precious than mere personalities in science: he makes ridiculous claims about the data. Now this is heresy.
After that the real work begins. I'm talking about all those uncooperative fossils, the great quarries in Canada and China that show how most of the major groups of animals appeared in a geologically brief period of time during the Cambrian explosion, contradicting Darwin's gradually branching tree of life. Those fossils can't just be left sitting around. They too will have to be gotten rid of.
Jonathan Witt is nuts. Read the science journals, read the textbooks, read great volumes like Valentine's On the Origin of Phyla(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)—he doesn't know what he's talking about. Biologists embrace the Cambrian. There is a wealth of wonderful information there, extensively discussed and written about, and we simply love this stuff.
Get rid of the Cambrian fossils? That statement alone is enough to qualify the man as certifiable.
Comments
PZ:
Does this mean that you advocate teaching what you deem as legitimate controversies (such as the efficacy of RM/NS)?
Posted by: Qualiatative | March 30, 2006 3:29 PM
Witt is a lying scumbag. Were he to stop lying now, he'd be forced to enter some sort of rehab to account for his unrelenting baloney spewage over the past five years.
In other news related to people who enjoy spending US taxpayer money on pure unadulterated bullshit:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/03/30/prayer.study.ap/index.html
NEW YORK (AP) -- In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
Researchers emphasized their work does not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
They also said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them.
....
Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center, who did not take part in the study, said the results did not surprise him.
"There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said.
Science, he said, "is not designed to study the supernatural."
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 3:34 PM
I'm getting confused about this whole micro/macro thing. I have some training in evolutionary biology, and when I think back on all the discussions I had with other biologists, I don't recall anyone ever using macroevolution to mean the evolution of macro features like major appendage changes or new body plans. If I'm recalling correctly, macroevolution always meant evolutionary phenomena that we observable on higher levels than the good old individual, like sister clades in which one was very specious and one wasn't, or cases in which particular members of clades evolved similar features seemingly independently (iterative evolution).
I find the ID micro/macro distinction to be pretty close to nonsensical (the old believing in inches but not in miles line).
Posted by: Comstockian | March 30, 2006 3:35 PM
legitimate controversies (such as the efficacy of RM/NS)?
Wow, an inarticulate retard tried to "trap" PZ Myers.
How unusual.
Yawn.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 3:38 PM
PZ, yet another excellent review of the crap-osophy that is Intelligent Design.
Posted by: Christian | March 30, 2006 3:39 PM
Now Witt is just making up crap about people, but then he crosses the line and lies about something much more precious than mere personalities in science: he makes ridiculous claims about the data. Now this is heresy.
Heresy? Not for conservatives (needle exchange, global warming....)
Posted by: Mike the Mad Biologist | March 30, 2006 3:41 PM
"Self-righteousness is a loud din raised to drown the voice of guilt within us." --Eric Hoffer, The True Believer
Here's a gentle answer, since I'm getting a rep as a "radical" atheist: No one knows better than me how painful and terrifying it is to let go of religious beliefs. I look forward to the day when Witt and his colleagues (particularly Dembski, who made a personal statement of such startling self-loathing, linked to on my site, that it frightened me, but it sure explains a lot of his antics), can let go of their unnecessary burden of fear--for that it what it is. That is all that this is about. When I watched Dawkins interview in "Root?" the psychiatrist who counsels former fanatics, and she choked up because even she still has those fears, I was on the verge of tears myself. And to think that I came into this discussion because I initially thought that there could actually be something to I.D., since it had been so cleverly packaged as purely secular--and it's a hollow farce. Look at what it does to people.
Posted by: Kristine | March 30, 2006 3:43 PM
The hateful professor strikes again. I sort of think maybe someone strangled Myers' puppy in front of him when he was a kid, and that's why he acts out the way he does.
God bless the minds of the poor kids he teaches.
I wonder if we could make a board game where we go thru this site full of hateful diatribes and see how many names are called, how many attacks are made, etc. I don't think we could make a board game board that big tho. Anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with the all-knowing wise one PZ is a moron, as he makes clear nearly daily.
Oh well, par for the course from the guy who thinks if he says "ID creationism" enough times it becomes true. Yes, yes...PZ will say he defines "creationism" as any idea that posits God as creator, which means he's attacking the great majority of the world's population who believe God exists and that he was, indeed, the cerator (he IS an atheist, so no doubt he IS arguing this point, tho he will surely deny it) and propping up atheism with his ideas, which would be a violation of the so-called separation clause.
I should note he puts out the old canard that ID posits supernatural design when he knows quite well that it doesn't. Funny- he tells a blatant lie in a sentence where he attacks Witt as a "quack"...then he goes on to call Witt "nuts" and "certifiable."
I will remind everyone that Myers is paid tax dollars from the good people of MN to daily act like a child on this website. He's you standard Marxist-loving far left atheist professor sitting in his ivory tower on the taxpayers dime- as he proves with the quote at the top of this page:
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."
[Karl Marx]
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman | March 30, 2006 3:44 PM
I like how Witt keeps referring to "mainstream" scientists. How about some names? And cites? And how about the opinions of those "mainstream" scientists when it comes to the contributions of Jonathan Witt's "institute" to the science of evolutionary biology?
Witt = propagandist slimelord.
I would love to see Preacher Witt or his special li'l altar boy Casey Luskin come here to defend Witt's garbage.
But the Discovery Institute's script doesn't allow such behavior. Pity.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 3:44 PM
Again, the Cambrian "explosion". I wish these retards could grasp the fact that many of the major families appeared in the Ediacaran, long before the Cambrian "explosion", spreading out the evolutionary tree.
Posted by: Miguelito | March 30, 2006 3:52 PM
Joshua Taz Bozeman lied:
From the decision of the Kitzmiller v. Dover case:
Posted by: wamba | March 30, 2006 3:53 PM
God bless the minds of the poor kids he teaches.
Josh, see my post above. That sort of thing isn't effective (except perhaps to make you feel better about yourself). Sorry to break the bad news, bro'.
He's you standard Marxist-loving far left atheist professor sitting in his ivory tower on the taxpayers dime
Is a Marxist-loving far left atheist professor still considered to be "standard" when he gets a hard-on for dead squid washed up on a beach somewhere?
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 3:53 PM
Joshua, if ID does not posit supernatural design, then what does it posit? lgm? who designed them?
Posted by: Francis | March 30, 2006 3:54 PM
Perhaps no more religion for Mr. Witt either.
Posted by: Gorbe | March 30, 2006 3:55 PM
So, why do so many IDers I meet keep complaining about science leaving out "supernatural" explainations?
Of course, the real objection to ID is that it's one big argument from ignorance and lack of imagination.
What ivory tower? You do realize that science is open for everyone, which is why he often posts on the science behind different evolutionary things.
Oh, and could you please cut down on the genetic fallacies and well-poisonings?
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 30, 2006 3:59 PM
Funny, Mr. Bozoman - the "Random Quote" I just got says that "Faith is the antithesis of proof." - [NY State Supreme Court Justice Edward J. Greenfield, 1995]. I guess your comment was in illustration of that, although in your case, one might wish to add "Ignorant narrow-minded nonsensical vitriol, ungrammatical and poorly spelled" to the "Unreasoned belief in imaginary beings" portion of that aphorism.
Posted by: Fred Levitan | March 30, 2006 4:00 PM
How does one do a controlled study on the efficacy of prayer? What about people around the world - outside of the control of the study - who make general prayers for "healing the sick" or who pray to different god(s)?
A better controlled study would be if it focused on the efficacy of a person believing they were being prayed for (or not). Does the act of believing in prayer make a difference? I would not be surprised if it does. But, that would not be the efficacy of prayer. It would be the placebo effect.
Posted by: Gorbe | March 30, 2006 4:00 PM
Any chance of elaboration? I'm clueless enough about evolutionary biology to not understand in what way macroevolution can be considered to be anything other than microevolution viewed at a different scale.
Posted by: Corkscrew | March 30, 2006 4:03 PM
Help, Help! I'm being repressed!
-Witt
Posted by: Cheeto | March 30, 2006 4:04 PM
Of course, the other great hypocracy lurking in Witt's screed is his apparent assumption of the accuracy of the fossil record, at least in terms of the dating of the fossils.
How odd that Witt, for all his whining and railing against alleged distortions of the scientific record, does not pause for a moment to address the young-earth creationists out there -- a fairly large and easy target. By doing so regularly and clearly, Witt would at least show that his alleged goals are plain.
Instead he chooses to smear the group with the best evidence for its preferred explanation: the virtual universe of honest biologists.
Odd.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 4:05 PM
Great white- rule for future comments...you look silly when you call me a liar when I did no such thing. You quoted the OPPOSITION'S definition THEY claimed of ID. That's nonsense...you take the definition of the ID proponents themselves. Dembski never says that the design must be supernatural, nor does Behe. Nor do any of the others I know of.
Dembski's definition of ID is- "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence"
Where in that sentence do you see the word "supernatural"??
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman | March 30, 2006 4:06 PM
Gorbe
Does the act of believing in prayer make a difference? I would not be surprised if it does.
Read the link. People who knew they were being prayed for suffered more complications than those who didn't know, for reasons that are not clear.
My explanation: God has turned off his prayer answering machine until Jonathan Witt and Casey Luskin admit they are charlatan pieces of shit.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 4:08 PM
Perhaps you should quote Mr. Witt's definition.
But it's largely irrelevant, anyway. The supernatural's mostly an enthymeme claim, rather than an overt one. It's still an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination.
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 30, 2006 4:09 PM
Great white- rule for future comments...you look silly when you call me a liar when I did no such thing.
Hilarious. You're addressing the wrong commenter, tardboy.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 4:10 PM
That's okay Wonder- you proved the fact that you're a child with your comment of "tardboy," You'll fit in well with the rest of hate here.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman | March 30, 2006 4:12 PM
Dembski: "Intelligent design...readily embraces the sacramental nature of physical reality. Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 30, 2006 4:12 PM
That's okay Wonder- you proved the fact that you're
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz .....
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 4:13 PM
I'd like to challange people like Witt and Joshua here to produce solid evidence that ID does not contain a single hint of supernatural design. I wonder why is it that a vast majority of scientists reject ID as a legitimate scientific theory while it is kept on being peddled by religious fundamentalists and people with ZIPPO background in evolutionary biology.
Posted by: Sunny | March 30, 2006 4:15 PM
PZ, now you're (I suspect purposefully) confusing the definition of the scientific endeavor with the worldview implications of the theory (just as NDE theory has worldview implications.)
Using your logic we can define NDE as a theory that posits no God exists and that blind brute natural forces formed everything and things that appear designed are illusions of design.
I'd hope better from a college professor.
Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman | March 30, 2006 4:15 PM
I smell straw.
I suppose if you define "supernatural" to mean untestable entities, the designer would qualify. It's hard to know what doggerel like "supernatural" means from minute to minute.
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 30, 2006 4:20 PM
Mr. Bozeman - What intelligence are you assuming? Because you are making assumptions, and you KNOW what that means.
Posted by: Pseudo-Buddhaodiscordo-pasafarian | March 30, 2006 4:20 PM
I'll take them, send them to ScienceBlogs, C/O afarensis...
Posted by: afarensis | March 30, 2006 4:22 PM
Joshua Taj Bozeman lied:
From my post of March 30, 2006 03:53 PM, which you seem to have conveniently ignored; an excerpt from the Kitzmiller v. Dover decision:
Do you think Jesus is proud of you for lying on his behalf?
Posted by: wamba | March 30, 2006 4:36 PM
I wonder if we could make a board game where we go thru this site full of hateful diatribes and see how many names are called, how many attacks are made, etc.
I for one think your idea of making a board game out of DI's site is terrific.
Posted by: QrazyQat | March 30, 2006 4:37 PM
Marx said a lot of things. Probably a lot I would disagree with. But I'm pretty sure he was right when he said that.
Of course the fact that Karl Marx said it is irrelevant. It's just an argumentum ad Hitlerum, slightly changed. If you think that quoting him must say something about PZ, I'm sure Joseph McCarthy would love you.
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 30, 2006 4:37 PM
Comstockian writes:
I find the ID micro/macro distinction to be pretty close to nonsensical (the old believing in inches but not in miles line).
I have no idea what the IDers say about it, but years ago when these people called themselves "creationists", I got into an argument with a creationist about this very issue. His claim, as well as I can remember, is this: He posited the existence of a classification that he called "kinds". A "kind" included many different species (I'm not sure if he claimed that it corresponded precisely to a genus or anything else in the Linnaen classification system). Mutation and natural selection can cause drift within a kind, but never causes one kind to evolve into another kind. So for instance, perhaps donkeys could, given the right mutations and selective pressure, evolve into horses, but never into cats.
I'm assuming that this is the distinction the IDers are making. By "microevolution", they means species change within a "kind", and by "macroevolution", they means species change that crosses the "kind" boundaries.
What this basically amounts to is to admit that species evolve, but to deny that cats and donkeys have a common ancestor. The claim that we never witness "macroevolution" in this sense is a pretty safe bet, because it would take tens of thousands of generations to observe.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | March 30, 2006 4:37 PM
Mr. Joshua Taj Bozeman,
Dr. Myers is paid to be a professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. The duties of a professor typically involve research, teaching classes in their field of expertise, and providing guidance to students in their academic pursuits. However, like most human beings professors can and do participate in activities outside those that they are expressly paid to do. This can be known as hobbies, leisure time activities, or outside interests. But the long and short of it is that although Dr. Myers is paid to be a professor this blog is a personal blog and is not affiliated with the University of Minnesota, Morris. Although his reputation almost certainly influenced the decision to include him at scienceblogs.com it is no more linked to the previously mentioned university than your blog is to your local grocery store.
Now moving on to "Intelligent Design" it is indeed creationism. The most basic premise of intelligent design is that evolution was guided by a designer and that natural selection is pure bunk. The developers of the untested hypothesis of "Intelligent Design" coyly *wink* *wink* say that the designer is unidentified. Although the loudest proponents of ID quietly say they believe the unknown designer is actually the Christian God named Jehovah. Now to be fair, it is possible that the unnamed designer is actually some sort of nearly immortal Time Lord by the name of Dr. Who and not Jehovah. There is equal evidence to support both as the unnamed designer. We would be doing an immeasurable disserve to education to teach either of these wild hypotheses as fact. But we would see a brisk increase in the number of men and women ducking into police boxes together to experience the complex interactions of biology and religion together. So ID does have that going for it.
But let's step back a bit. ID posits that all evolution of every species is guided by some unnamed designer. Including the first reactions of organic molecules to form RNA which then led to more complex molecules, virii, and eventually single celled organisms. The vast majority of people would heartily agree that these single celled organisms are alive. So while ID does offer a more complex view of creationism than:
Pile of Dust => *POOF IN A CLOUD OF SMOKE* => Every living creature
It is still the same premise. Some powerful entitiy (possibly a deity or Time Lord with a British accent) took the raw materials and used them to craft living creatures. There are subtle differences such as the time involved, one less mythological garden located in the fertile crescent, and acknowledgement of the existance of anything > 10,000 years old but it's the same old creationism. Just in a bright and shiney new package.
ID is not equal the theory of evolution. It has no evidence to support it beyond good ol' gut instinct. Which does not rise to the level of nearly two centuries of peer reviewed research.
Posted by: commisarjs | March 30, 2006 4:38 PM
Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Posted by: wamba | March 30, 2006 4:40 PM
I note that in my comment re the Templeton Foundation I referred to "US taxpayer money." That was a mistake. I assume that the money came from private donations to the Templeton Foundation and not from government grant.
Of course, I could be wrong about that (I recall that some other studies of this sort have been funded by the NIH and/or other government orgs).
In any event, I retract and apologize.
(See how easy that is, Joshua?)
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 4:41 PM
"Blah blah blah hate blah blah ivory tower blah blah Marx blah no actual criticism of the ideas in the post blah blah blah."
Thanks for stopping by.
Posted by: Rey | March 30, 2006 4:48 PM
I've never posted here because I usually don't like posting in comments/forums, but I love how a high school graduate with no college education in biology (Joshua Taj Bozeman) tries to attack something he doesn't understand in the least and proclaims the complete and utter garbage that ID is as "science". I'm a botany major so therefore I am qualified to perform heart surgery with a fork because I think the old method is flawed and my beliefs tell me that this new way is much better. Teach the controversy in med school!
Posted by: idisalie | March 30, 2006 4:53 PM
Dembski never says that the design must be supernatural, nor does Behe.
So if Dembski were to write a book called, say, would that qualify as endorsing a supernatural designer?
Posted by: Sean Foley | March 30, 2006 4:54 PM
Evolutionists to IDers
I refuse to have a battle of data with someone who is unarmed.
Nuff said.
Posted by: Loris | March 30, 2006 4:55 PM
Damn it. The book is called Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology. And I can't type.
Posted by: Sean Foley | March 30, 2006 4:56 PM
Mr. Bozeman, you are a liar because you lie. Do you even READ what's being put out by ID supporters?
Hm. Sounds like ID supporters are talking about the supernatural to me...
Posted by: roger tang | March 30, 2006 4:57 PM
Or would this be better
I refuse to have a battle of scientific theories with someone who is unarmed.
Posted by: Loris | March 30, 2006 4:58 PM
I dislike Marxism and ID.
I'm sure that someone, somewhere, has steam coming out of their ears while they try to imagine how that could be.
Posted by: darukaru | March 30, 2006 4:58 PM
Kristine:
Can you provide the link? I've often supposed Dembski must be terribly conflicted since he knows enough mathematics to see that he cannot possibly prove what he's trying to prove.
Posted by: PaulC | March 30, 2006 5:01 PM
"Those fossils can't just be left sitting around. They too will have to be gotten rid of..." I wrote a poem [uh oh!] last night that mentioned the sinking of Alfred Wallace's ship and of his fossils, specimens, and crewmen getting laid down in one stratum, and then I had this nightmarish vision of all the museums stuffed with fossils collapsing from the cataclysm of a comet hitting earth, and future paleontologists having to sort everything out, all of these fossils from different eras lying in one 22nd century museum stratum...
So just give it enough time, Witt, the cosmos can do almost anything!
Posted by: Kristine | March 30, 2006 5:06 PM
roger tang,
All that proves is what the court reporter wrote down as Professor Minnich's testimony. It's obvious to me that Mr. Bozeman simply entertained the possibility that the court reporter could have ignored Professor Minnich's actual testimony and fabricated an entirely different one. I believe Mr. Bozeman's interpretation of the facts is just as valid as any other, even the one that's supported by the actual facts. After all, where you there at the court proceedings? If you weren't there, then how can you know what was really said?
Posted by: Cody | March 30, 2006 5:07 PM
On the micro/macro distinction: take the classic Peppered Moth example. Both light and dark PMs were recorded before the Industrial Revolution, both continued to exist throughout the period, and both still exist now. There was a change in the proportions of the population, but no new type of moth appeared. You can sanely believe in the effect of natural selection to make changes within a pre-existing range of variation without believing that it's possible to extrapolate to speciation.
It's not an argument I find convincing, but I don't think it's inherently outrageous in itself.
Posted by: Harry | March 30, 2006 5:10 PM
Here it is, PaulC.
http://www.facultylinc.com/personal/facoffice.nsf/Storys+By+Staff+ID/wdembski?OpenDocument
"Deep down I was angry with whatever God there might be. God was perfect, and I was imperfect..." blah, blah, yakity-yak. Now he's mad at whatever God there can't be. Guy thinks he messed up because he blew his freshman college year (big deal!) He's got nothing on what I pulled in college. If there is a God I hope that He's out having FUN, somewhere. Yeah, I suppose I could believe in a God who skips class.
Posted by: Kristine | March 30, 2006 5:12 PM
Oh. Dembski's story sounds like a pretty run of the mill born again epiphany. I'm certainly familar with the theological notion that Jesus become fully human to experience the human condition. (Though I'm not sure why an omniscient God wouldn't know all about it already.) I don't begrudge him any of that if it gives him solace; I do wonder if it does. It doesn't excuse him from using mathematics to mislead people.
The part about eastern religious piques my curiosity. I wonder what exactly he was doing.
Posted by: PaulC | March 30, 2006 5:23 PM
So, what I'd really like to know is where the intelligent designer came from. Was it intelligently designed by another intelligent designer? Did it evolve? Did it create itself in a burst of paradoxical mindfuckery? Inquiring minds want to know!
Posted by: Anne Nonymous | March 30, 2006 5:24 PM
Harry, while natural selection did modify the number of white and dark moth in the population, do you posit that there always has been dark and white moths -- for as long there has been peppered moths ?
The same argument has been used on antibiotics-resistant bacteria: that bacteria having an innate resistance to yet-to-be discovered antibiotics are already present in nature, and when the new antibiotic will be used, those bacteria will survive and become prevalent.
There is abundant research to demonstrate that these traits started as mutations, and, furthermore, in the case of antibiotics, were not pre-existent, but _evolved_ and _adapted_ in response to an environmental change (antibiotics).
I leave to the learned biologists here to point you to the relevant research.
Posted by: _Arthur | March 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Of course he skipped class! How else do you explain (insert typical design flaw we all like to bring up)?
Posted by: BronzeDog | March 30, 2006 5:25 PM
Hey! Josh is back! Everyone's favorite 20-something rightwing fundie who lives with his parents.
The hateful professor strikes again. I sort of think maybe someone strangled Myers' puppy in front of him when he was a kid, and that's why he acts out the way he does.
Now our Josh is a Freudian psychoanalyst. Glad to hear you're learning a trade at last.
God bless the minds of the poor kids he teaches.
Not everyone fears learning the way you do.
I wonder if we could make a board game where we go thru this site full of hateful diatribes and see how many names are called, how many attacks are made, etc. I don't think we could make a board game board that big tho. Anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with the all-knowing wise one PZ is a moron, as he makes clear nearly daily.
Josh, last I checked you called anyone you disagreed with 'crazy', so why should we pay attention to what you think of others' rhetorical styles?
Oh well, par for the course from the guy who thinks if he says "ID creationism" enough times it becomes true.
And a judge believed it too, Josh. And biologists believe it, too, Josh. (You know, people with, like TRAINING in this subject?) And the main textbook for ID was created by doing a global search and replace of the word 'creation' with 'design'.
Saying the two are totally different things doesn't become true by repeating it enough times.
Yes, yes...PZ will say he defines "creationism" as any idea that posits God as creator, which means he's attacking the great majority of the world's population
Good old Josh. Defines reality by appeals to opinion polls. Funny that he has to include Hindus and Moslems to get this particular 'result', since I can just guess what he thinks of people of those two religions.
who believe God exists and that he was, indeed, the cerator (he IS an atheist,
Thanks Josh. We didn't know. That's a felony, isn't it? Shall we burn him?
so no doubt he IS arguing this point, tho he will surely deny it) and propping up atheism with his ideas, which would be a violation of the so-called separation clause.
Dare I ask how you have any idea what PZ teaches in his classes? Or is this just your innuendo?
I should note he puts out the old canard that ID posits supernatural design when he knows quite well that it doesn't.
Right -- it could be space aliens, right Josh? Wink, wink.
Funny- he tells a blatant lie in a sentence where he attacks Witt as a "quack"...then he goes on to call Witt "nuts" and "certifiable."
Called any of your opponents 'crazy' lately, Josh?
I will remind everyone that Myers is paid tax dollars from the good people of MN to daily act like a child on this website.
Really? I thought his job was a college biology professor, Josh!
He's you standard Marxist-loving far left atheist professor
Oh no, he's now a COMMIE as well! Quite a rhetorical arsenal you have there.
Do you have a list of 205 such commies and athiests, Josh?
Let me guess. You've never met many professors, but you've heard they're all commie liberals, right?
sitting in his ivory tower on the taxpayers dime-
That's the second time you've mentioned taxpayers, Josh. Work on your shtick a little more. It's getting repetitive.
Also, if it's horrible to be a 'commie atheist' working for the govt., perhaps you can give us a list of permissible political affiliations and religions, so we can start firing everyone who fails to make the cut?
I'd hope better from a college professor.
And do you, actually HAVE any direct experience with college professors? Sure sounds like you don't.
Posted by: george cauldron | March 30, 2006 5:36 PM
Harry
There was a change in the proportions of the population, but no new type of moth appeared.
That's not an argument. That's just a data point.
There is this other data point where we observe that giant lizard like things used to live on earth and don't now. At the same time, things that do live on earth that are similar to the giant lizard things aren't found where we'd expect them to be found.
And then there's the moth DNA and protein sequences which are related in strikingly non-random ways to ant sequences, bacterial sequences, and human sequences.
It's not "outrageous" not to "get it." But it is outrageous for someone to not "get it" but pretend that they do and pretend that the vast majority of the world's scientists are deluded idiots.
Posted by: Great White Wonder | March 30, 2006 5:37 PM
_Arthur,
As I said, the creationist idea of "kinds" (I assume Intelligent Design people are all creationists, as well) is that mutation and natural selection takes place within a "kind", but never results in evolution from one kind to another. So evolution of moth coloration or evolution of drug resistance in bacteria doesn't contradict their claim that evolution never crosses "kind" boundaries.
I'm not sure what would conclusively disprove their claim: presumably if you actually had the entire history of the evolution of, say, cats and donkeys, and could show that they had a common ancestor, and that every step of the evolution from this ancestor to the modern forms was the result of random mutation together with natural selection. As long as there are any gaps in the fossil record, the creationists will say that the gaps justify their claims.
Posted by: Daryl McCullough | March 30, 2006 5:38 PM
Basically every ID proponent has admitted, at one time or another, the Intelligent Designer must've been jesus. If Bozeman wants to insist Dembski and Behe and Johnson are wrong about ID, there's no use arguing.
Posted by: steve s | March 30, 2006 5:40 PM
Dembski's definition of ID is- "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence"
Where in that sentence do you see the word "supernatural"??
Josh, I hope you're just being disingenuous here, and you're not really that dumb.
Posted by: george cauldron | March 30, 2006 5:48 PM
I'm not positing anything. I'm just saying that it's logically coherent to accept that the Peppered Moth experiment reveals natural selection in action without believing in evolution.
I just think that sometimes these arguments need to be made slightly carefully; natural selection and evolution are separate things. Evidence for natural selection is not in itself evidence for evolution; nor is evidence for evolution in itself evidence for natural selection. Sometimes people talk about them as though they were interchangable. If I were a creationist (and no, I'm not) that might annoy me.
Posted by: Harry | March 30, 2006 5:53 PM
The "taxpayers pay your salary" argument always kills me. In this case:
I pay federal taxes.
Federal taxes are used to pay part of PZ Meyers' salary.
Therefore, PZ Meyers is forbidden from obtaining research results that displease me. Further, he is forbidden from teaching or saying things that displease me.
Posted by: Mike Z | March 30, 2006 6:02 PM
Here's some scripture for you, since you seem to need it:
Exodus 20:16
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. -wamba
You're forgetting one of the scriptural passages most blatantly and consistently ignored by the religious right (second only to Matthew 7:1-5 in terms of being disregarded):
Matthew 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
There's a bumper sticker that says "Christians aren't Perfect, just Forgiven." Here's one for you, Joshua: "Self-righteousness isn't Convincing, just Pathetic."
Now then, on to specific points of your argument (hey, someone explain how to do the block quote thing?):
The hateful professor strikes again. I sort of think maybe someone strangled Myers' puppy in front of him when he was a kid, and that's why he acts out the way he does.
I suspect that his vehemence has more to do with the ID movement's attempts to metaphorically rape, torture, and mutilate biology and then keep it locked in the basement to "use" whenever they feel like it. This, however, has no bearing on the factual truth of his arguments, and is an infantile and cowardly ad hominem attack. If you can't debate what a person's actually saying without resorting to off-topic speculation, you aren't worth our time.
And by your logic, I suppose your entire family must have been burned at the stake while you were forced to watch, and that's why you act the way you do? Give me a break.
God bless the minds of the poor kids he teaches.
He's a college professor last I checked. I don't tend to think of 18-20something year olds as "kids." Granted, many I've met (possibly including yourself, the uncertainty being whether you belong in the classification of "18-20something year olds") seem to have about the level of knowledge and critical thinking ability one expects from, say, a third grader, but that's beside the point (and also inexcusable).
I wonder if we could make a board game where we go thru this site full of hateful diatribes and see how many names are called, how many attacks are made, etc. I don't think we could make a board game board that big tho. Anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with the all-knowing wise one PZ is a moron, as he makes clear nearly daily.
Good idea. Let's start with the hateful diatribe you're trying to pass off as a legitimate criticism of his position. *eyeroll*
Oh well, par for the course from the guy who thinks if he says "ID creationism" enough times it becomes true. Yes, yes...PZ will say he defines "creationism" as any idea that posits God as creator, which means he's attacking the great majority of the world's population who believe God exists and that he was, indeed, the cerator (he IS an atheist, so no doubt he IS arguing this point, tho he will surely deny it) and propping up atheism with his ideas, which would be a violation of the so-called separation clause.
"Creationism" is a term used specifically to refer to the idea that Life, the Universe, and Everything were created by divine fiat. The majority of the world's population do not believe in Creationism in this sense; they instead hold that life came into existence according to the laws of nature which their god of choice ultimately designed and controls. The fact that PZ is an atheist does not enable one to infer anything about his goals, and your statement to the contrary is as wrong, and for most of the same reasons, as the statement that "Person X is white, therefore he must be a racist," or "Person Y is a lesbian, therefore she must want to exterminate men except for a small population kept in cages as a supply for artificial insemination." It's an unfounded and insulting stereotype, nothing more. Finally, this is a private blog, and his statements are presented as his private thoughts; neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (I assume this is what you meant; there is no "separation clause"; the phrase "separation of church and state" was derived from the correspondance of President Thomas Jefferson) places any limits on the peaceable expression of one's private opinion of religion or indeed anything else. Your claim to the contrary reflects either an inexcusable ignorance of the meaning and scope of the foundations of U.S. law or inexcusable dishonesty regarding the same.
I should note he puts out the old canard that ID posits supernatural design when he knows quite well that it doesn't. Funny- he tells a blatant lie in a sentence where he attacks Witt as a "quack"...then he goes on to call Witt "nuts" and "certifiable."
Granted, the concept of intelligent design does not necessarily require a supernatural designer. However, if the version of ID promoted by people like Witt doesn't posit supernatural creation, no one seems to have mentioned it to them; see the quotes in the posts above.
I will remind everyone that Myers is paid tax dollars from the good people of MN to daily act like a child on this website. He's you standard Marxist-loving far left atheist professor sitting in his ivory tower on the taxpayers dime- as he proves with the quote at the top of this page:
So far as I can tell, PZ is a liberal, which in America today means he supports the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and personal freedom to the extent that one does not interfere with the rights of others. This is in stark contrast to Communism, one of the core premises of which is the necessity/desirability of an authoritarian government. The fact that PZ thinks Karl Marx made a few valid points does not imply that he supports the entirety of Marx's philosophy, any more than the observation that Hitler was kind to his dog implies that one supports National Socialism.
As for the quote at the top of the page proving to the contrary, you say that as though you believe this to be the site's motto or some such. What part of "Random Quote" was unclear?
"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion."
[Karl Marx]
Given the enormous contributions religion has made to the cause of human misery, this statement is almost correct. Technically, the first requisite for the happiness of the people would be more a matter of food/water/shelter/medical care, but abolition of religion and especially of "divine right" philosophies of government and of priveleged priesthoods would go a long way towards an equitable distribution of the above.
Great white- rule for future comments...you look silly when you call me a liar when I did no such thing. You quoted the OPPOSITION'S definition THEY claimed of ID. That's nonsense...you take the definition of the ID proponents themselves. Dembski never says that the design must be supernatural, nor does Behe. Nor do any of the others I know of.
Behe explicitly said that he believes the designer to be "God" in a fashion which makes it clear that he is referring to the Christian god, not to a deist's "clockmaker." I wish I had that quote at hand; surely someone will kindly provide a reference? Dembski I'm less familiar with, but he "agrees that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (Trial Tr. vol. 5, Pennock Test., 32-34, Sept. 28, 2005)" as quoted. Wamba, to whom you ought to have addressed this response, is quoting the court note-taker person's summary of the proponents' definitions and explanations of ID. I wish to politely suggest that you read people's arguments before responding to them.
Dembski's definition of ID is- "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence"
Where in that sentence do you see the word "supernatural"??
The word supernatural does not appear in that sentence. Since this is the only definition or explanation of ID that has ever been offered by Dembski, and no other proponent has ever offered one, you are indeed quite correct and we are making the "supernatural" part up out of whole cloth. *eyeroll*
That's okay Wonder- you proved the fact that you're a child with your comment of "tardboy," You'll fit in well with the rest of hate here.
Given the mud-slinging, well-poisoning, and hateful personal attacks you call an argument against PZ...
Black Hole in the depths of a coal mine in intergalactic space to kettle: "You are black."
PZ, now you're (I suspect purposefully) confusing the definition of the scientific endeavor with the worldview implications of the theory (just as NDE theory has worldview implications.)
He's describing the methodology and premises of ID theory. The worldview Dembski is referring to is a cause of the current form taken by ID, not an effect, and I suspect you're purposefully confusing the two.
Incidentally, what scientific endeavor? The ID movement's focus is on PR and lobbying, and their entire set of suppor