…and this is a 
Have a querulous Paul Nelson Day!
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 7, 2008 9:02 AM, by PZ Myers
The new generation of creationists has been doing something rather remarkable. Flaming anti-scientific religious nutcases like Wells and Dembski have been diligently going to real universities, not the usual hokey bible colleges, and working hard to get legitimate degrees in actual fields of science and math to get themselves a superficial veneer of credibility. It's basically nothing but collecting paper credentials, though, since they don't actually learn anything and never do anything with the knowledge they should have acquired, other than use it to razzle-dazzle the rubes.
One other example is Paul Nelson, and today is the anniversary of an infamous interaction. You see, Nelson likes to flaunt the pretense of being knowledgeable about developmental biology. Several years ago, he invented this mysterious metric called "ontogenetic depth" that he claimed to be measuring, and which he claimed to have used as evidence that the Cambrian fauna did not evolve. He even dragged this nonsense to professional meetings where he was ignored, except by vicious anti-creationists. I harshly criticized the entire vacuous notion. (I also expressed sympathy for the poor graduate student Nelson had lured into this waste of effort…it was Marcus Ross, remember him?)
He said he'd write up a technical summary that would explain exactly what ontogenetic depth was and how it was measured. He gave us a whole series of dates by which he'd have this wonderful summary. Every one of those dates sailed by without a word. And ever since we have commemorated Paul Nelson Day on 7 April, one of the dates in 2004 that he promised us an explanation. Here's my anniversary timeline from last year.
I was just reminded that last year at this time I announced an anniversary. In March of 2004, I critiqued this mysterious abstraction called "ontogenetic depth" that Paul Nelson, the ID creationist, proposed as a measure of developmental and evolutionary complexity, and that he was using as a pseudoscientific rationale against evolution. Unfortunately, he never explained how "ontogenetic depth" was calculated or how it was measured (perhaps he was inspired by Dembski's "specified complexity", another magic number that can be farted out by creationists but cannot be calculated). Nelson responded to my criticisms with a promise.
On 29 March 2004, he promised to post an explanation "tomorrow".
On 7 April 2004, he told us "tomorrow".
On 26 April 2004, he told us he was too busy.
On 13 January 2005, he told us to read a paper by R Azevedo instead. I rather doubt that Ricardo supports Intelligent Design creationism, or thinks his work contributes to it.
Ever since, silence.
This year he is apparently off in Brazil, proselytizing his lies and fake science to the people there, so I'm assuming he won't get around to explaining his magic metric tomorrow, either. Isn't it amazing how creationists can make stuff up and get a career speaking at exotic places all around the world?
Oh, and get a day named after them! In his honor, we should all make it a point to ask people "How do you know that?" today, and the ones who actually can explain themselves competently will be complimented by being told that they're no Paul Nelson.
We'll celebrate it again next year, I'm sure.
Comments
It's so handy for folks like Nelson that there's always a tomorrow.
Posted by: freelunch | April 7, 2008 9:13 AM
How do you know that?
Posted by: NoAstronomer | April 7, 2008 9:24 AM
He's doing a good job of demonstrating calendrical depth.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 7, 2008 9:26 AM
Kseniya said:
Whilst simultaneously exploring intellectual shallows hitherto unknown to anyone outside the DI.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | April 7, 2008 9:35 AM
This seems as good a time as any to point you towards an enjoyably righteous rant from Charlie Brooker in today's Guardian on the pseudo-neuroscience peddled in British schools known as Brain Gym:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/07/education
You may recognise an equally ranty short essay in the comments with a vaguely familiar name on it, too...
Anyway, Charlie Brooker is certainly no Paul Nelson!
Posted by: Despard | April 7, 2008 9:41 AM
Hey, Nelson gets to go to Brazil as part of the DI dog and pony show! He must be good.
I can't even read the language, and I can tell it's playing up his degrees and his 'expertise' in desenvolvimentos (development), when he clearly has nothin'.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 7, 2008 9:42 AM
The new generation of creationists has been doing something rather remarkable.
I don't know that it's that new. Morris and Gish -- who pretty much created modern SciCre back in the 60's -- had legitimate Ph.D's. Ditto Austin, Snelling, Wise, to give just the first three names that popped into my head.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 7, 2008 9:47 AM
Slightly Off-topic:
I sometimes wonder whether Marcus Ross isn't somebody who can be persuaded to see sense. His admission in a NY Times report that he sometimes has doubts about his views is a hopeful sign. The guy wasn't duped into pursuing Paul Nelson's non-measurement presumably. Maybe some invitations to real conferences can bring him on board with the good guys.
Science is inherently far more stimulating than nonsense. I'm always amazed at just how much more exciting an episode of "The Ascent of Man" is than anything that the DI or AiG has ever produced.
Posted by: Carl | April 7, 2008 9:58 AM
Wow, the Firefox add-on, Hyperwords, just translated that quote from Portuguese to English, right there in PZ's post. In other words, I am now reading it in English.
Sorry to sound quite so amazed (but I am)!
Anyway, here it is:
"Paul Nelson is a philosopher of the Biology, specialized in biology of the development. Has a PhD in Philosophy by the University of Chicago. His theory, published under the form of book by the University of Chicago, offers a criticism to aspects of the theory of the macroevolução to the light of the most recent developments in the embryology and of the biology of the development. Nelson is member of the International Society will go Complexity, Information and Design [International Society for the Complexity, Information and Design] and of the Center of Sciences and Culture of the Discovery Institute. Author of several scientific articles in magazines specialized."
Not quite perfect, but not bad. And, yes, it is all about just how 'brilliant' Paul Nelson is.
On another note, you must know what Ricardo Azevedo thinks, PZ. Three of his last four posts are praising you and your blog.
Posted by: Damian | April 7, 2008 10:01 AM
That's a great story, PZ. And we should push for a national holiday in his honor. Maybe we can bump out Presidents' Day.
Posted by: David Lee | April 7, 2008 10:10 AM
A translation:
And it's a lecture on a Presbyterian University, so no surprises there I think.
Posted by: Brian | April 7, 2008 10:15 AM
A loose translation of his "credentials" posted by PZ:
"Paul Nelson is a biology philosopher, specialized in develpment biology. He has a PhD in philosophy from University of Chicago. His thesis, published as a book by University of Chicago, criticizes aspects of macroevolution theory in light of the most recent developments in embryology and development biology. Nelson is a member of International Society for Complexity, Information and Design and the center of sciences and culture fo the Discovery Institute. He is an author of several scientific articles published in specialized journals."
To this, I would like to add that his presentation will be held at a traditional presbiterian college, and will not be open to the general public (must register and pay, R100 for professors and R80 for students). One other bit of disturbing info: This event is promoted as a discussion about Darwinism (It's called "International symposium of Darwinism today") but Paul Nelson is slated to talk for 5 and a half hrs in the first day (including opening and closing lectures) , 3hrs on the 2nd day (round table discussion) and 2 more hrs in the final day, while the professor that is supposed to defend Darwinism will only have 1 hr to talk on the 2nd day. Also, there will be another brazilian character defending young-earth creationism (he's a mechanical engineer...) .
Here is the schedule: http://www4.mackenzie.com.br/10394.html
If you feel like flooding the symposium's official email box with indignation, here it is: simposio.darwinismo@mackenzie.com.br
This thing starts tomorrow and registration is closed. So far, and fortunately, not much press on this event.
Posted by: Andre | April 7, 2008 10:26 AM
It's also important to state that the event is a debate on the issues of "Darwinism", Intelligent Design, and Creationism.
One of the speakers is a professor Biosciences in the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, and has a doctorate in Genetics and Molecular Biology. And I assume he's there to "defend" science.
The other is the president of the Brazilian Creationist Society - I didn't know we had one, argh.
Posted by: Brian | April 7, 2008 10:27 AM
As for myself, I haven't done a damned thing I've promised to do for nearly a week now. That should, at the very least, get something named after me. Perhaps the Upright Alice Fire Hydrant of Lies and Disappointment. I can only aspire to having an entire day named in my honor, but that would entail being famous (and dead) or a complete blithering idiot. I'm just glad I am neither.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 7, 2008 10:30 AM
Oh dear. Try and steer them away from information theory, I'd suppose you could probably divine a metric out of Shannons law or something.
Actually.
Do steer them there.
I've long maintained that ultimately its not the Empirical evidence (as overwhelming as it is) thats the coffin nail for creationist jibberish, but the mathematics of evolution. One would hope one or two of them might do a bit of reading and hit that magical "uh oh." moment when they realise that perhaps they might of stuffed up.
..
Ok just saw this: http://www.iscid.org/
Who the hell taught these people all these WORDS. Creationists can be infuriating sometimes :(
Posted by: duckmonster | April 7, 2008 10:30 AM
Okay, I just installed Hyperwords. It is... rather good so far.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 7, 2008 10:35 AM
Well, maybe if you were more godly, Nelson would enlighten you.
I can't think of any other reason he never answers our questions, unless, you know, he were actually lying about having the answers. And that is simply beyond my imagination.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 7, 2008 10:41 AM
And there I was hoping that "desenvolvimento" meant "disemvowellment".
Posted by: Moggie | April 7, 2008 10:43 AM
Yeah! Wells and Dembski aren't true Scotsmen... er... I mean scientists.
Posted by: dsmvwld | April 7, 2008 10:50 AM
Welcome back, disemvoweled!
Posted by: ennui | April 7, 2008 11:11 AM
I'm still not sure why you want us to have a querulous day, just because Paul's a jerk, though.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 7, 2008 11:40 AM
Buckets of dumb.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 7, 2008 11:46 AM
Ah. DSM-V World is back with another insight-free post.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 7, 2008 11:47 AM
PZ, are you saying you can get a graduate science degree from a "real university" and "not actually learn anything"? If so, that's bad news for real universities!
Posted by: "Q" the Enchanter | April 7, 2008 11:51 AM
Oh, great. Mackenzie.
For those unfamiliar with it, it's a far-right cesspool.
Posted by: Greco | April 7, 2008 11:58 AM
It's perfectly simple. Humans are 22 ontofathoms deep, and you can easily measure this by placing an embryo in the chamber of an ontobathymeter and pulling on the yellow string. As reference points, strawberry jelly is only 1.2 ontofathoms deep but a paperback copy of "House at Pooh Corner" just over 5.
If you divide the depth by the complexity, meausured in Dembski units, you get the irreducibility im millibehe.
Posted by: MissPrism | April 7, 2008 12:25 PM
Good ole Nelson, who has said that he is a Christian first and a scientist second and admitted that no amount of evidence can falsify any of his Christian beliefs--even the ones about science, like the age of the earth.
If you have already permanently made up your mind about what the answers are you cannot in any meaningful sense call yourself a scientist.
Posted by: Scote | April 7, 2008 1:19 PM
"This year he is apparently off in Brazil, proselytizing his lies and fake science to the people there..."
Using the Catholic strategy, I see.
People rejecting your idiot dogma up north? Go south, old man!
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 7, 2008 1:20 PM
Instead of slandering the man, why don't you debate him.
Posted by: debate | April 7, 2008 2:28 PM
#29: Debates assume that both parties are arguing in good faith. Without intellectual honesty, debate is impossible. But then, you already know that, don't you?
Posted by: HP | April 7, 2008 2:51 PM
You can't slander creos like Nelson. The English language, or for that matter any language, lack the right kind of adjectives to describe how low they can sink.
As Einstein said once, "only two things are infinite, human stupidity and the universe, and he wasn't sure about the universe."
Posted by: raven | April 7, 2008 3:06 PM
I nominate this as an official Pastafarian holiday.
Posted by: Mark | April 7, 2008 3:16 PM
It ain't slander when it's the truth.
Posted by: Rey Fox | April 7, 2008 3:23 PM
All 3 translations posted above contain the lie:
So about that
bookmonograph, I don't think anything has changed since John Lynch re-posted this.Posted by: Sven DIMilo | April 7, 2008 3:41 PM
Debate is lacking a little the the reading comprehension part of the test...
PZ did engage Nelson in a debate... Nelson said "I'll get back to you."
Posted by: Steve_C | April 7, 2008 3:48 PM
This is your Sylvia Browne.
Why don't you do what James did, and announce some sort of prize to the first one who can prove tripe like this? Heck, I'm looking for a good investment. If, after a year, no one claims the prize, you can give a scholarship to a deserving UMM science (I don't care what field) student?
Heck, I'd kick in.
Sow's ear into a silk purse.
Posted by: MikeM | April 7, 2008 5:03 PM
What a hoot! PZ Myers calling someone a "nutcase" is like a toad calling someone ugly.
Posted by: Susan | April 7, 2008 5:09 PM
Toads are hot.
you are not.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 7, 2008 5:33 PM
You see, "scientist" has a definition. It means "someone who does science", which in turn means "someone who uses the scientific method". Wells & Dembski make untestable and thus unscientific claims; they make testable ones, too, but those have been tested and disproven, yet they ignore this and just repeat them. And for Nelson, see comment 27: starting with your conclusions is not scientific either.
You should learn more about toad diversity, young padawan.
(Also, did you know that poison-dart frogs and true toads are very close relatives?)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | April 7, 2008 5:36 PM
Toads provide useful ecosystem services. They eat bugs. They are also fascinating survivors in their own right from the mesozoic era.
Paul Nelson is just occupying a carcass until it dies without producing anything useful, notable, or important. Someone who has devoted his life to propagating lies and making up some new ones.
Posted by: raven | April 7, 2008 5:50 PM
From Andre's translation:
And that, no doubt, is the famous Monograph On Common Descent, not in fact published but that's going to be published real soon now (for the last 10 years). Nelson has a real problem actually producing what he promises.Posted by: RBH | April 7, 2008 5:54 PM
From some of the links, that is also my understanding. This is the scientific equivalent of vaporware, never to exist.
One link indicated that his Ph.D. is actually in philosophy not science. If so, that would explain a lot.
Ontogenic depth is just bafflegab. Probably a fruit fly has more than a human. They spend time as a larvae and then completely rebuild themselves from imaginal disks into a radically different adult form, metamorphosis.
Posted by: raven | April 7, 2008 6:03 PM
On Common Descent, or "Duke Nukem Forever", as it's known in the computer gaming community.
Posted by: chancelikely | April 7, 2008 6:09 PM
Why is it so wrong to not believe in Evolution?
Science is not always right, it changes a lot when new information comes in.
I just don't get why this website is so militant about it's beliefs. Why do we care? Where is it going to get us in the long run?
Is science going to save humankind from destruction? No
Science is good for improving our lives and putting us to work, but for the most part evolution isn't doing either of these things.
I am all for learning something new when it makes sense and biology is a good thing, but evolution is really a non-issue. It isn't going to change people's point of view or minds.
Do I believe in whatever someone tells me? No. Do I find out for myself what the deal is? Yes.
Why does this website have to be so religious and so militant about being against religion and then trying to make people believe it by adding science instead of God.
You know the old saying that those religious people are shoving those ideas down my throat? Well isn't this blog about doing the same thing but hiding behind a science theme?
The more people on this blog type, the more I see that Athiesm is just another religion, but instead on basing it on God, it is based on science to save people.
I don't have a problem with Athiesm, but this new militant atheism is where I am scared. Fundie Atheism seems to exist and you can find it here.
Posted by: Popgun | April 8, 2008 12:17 AM
Wow, really?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 8, 2008 12:38 AM
"Do I believe in whatever someone tells me? No. Do I find out for myself what the deal is? Yes."
Good. Keep at it and you will get back here with a different view someday.
Posted by: Andre | April 8, 2008 12:43 AM
Wow, the Firefox add-on, Hyperwords, just translated that quote from Portuguese to English, right there in PZ's post. In other words, I am now reading it in English.
holy crap, that is one cool plugin; I just installed it and am quite impressed.
thanks for the tip!
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 8, 2008 1:17 AM
Why is it so wrong to not believe in gravity, or chemistry, or physics?
Evolution is an evidence-based theory of biology.
No-one is arguing against anyones right to believe any incoherent nonsense they want, including homeopathy, astrology, phlogiston, flat-earthism, and numerology, as well as creationism.
However, we do argue that public standards for science do and must exclude non-scientific ideas from being called "science". And those of us who have made a certain study of the issue have the right to refute those who do believe in nonsense.
Who are you to deny us that right of free expression of the truth as best we understand it?
What are you trying to say here?
The word "science" itself comes from the Latin word for "knowledge". The point of science is to gather more knowledge; to gain a better understanding of the universe as it is.
While the goal of science is neither to destroy nor save humanity, what makes you think that there is any hope of avoiding destruction without knowledge; without science?
Then why is there so great a debate over it?
Really, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Eh.
They're actually separate but related issues.
PZ himself is opposed to religion because he sees it as encouraging non-rational approaches to important aspects of the way the universe works.
However, he has stated many times that this is actually his personal preference, not something he demands from everyone. If religious people can compartmentalize their thinking and do good honest work in advancing science and rationality, he's willing to give them a pass.
What in particular scares you? You make a lot of vague and confused statements, but don't address anything specific, as far as I can see.
Just out of curiosity, would you be less scared if it were called rational secular humanism rather than atheism?
Posted by: Owlmirror | April 8, 2008 1:17 AM
Is science going to save humankind from destruction? No
you're kidding, right?
I could easily argue it HAS saved humanity (or at least a significant portion of it), many, many times; and that would just be related to science giving us cures for dozens of otherwise horrid diseases.
stop talking out of your ass. it's just like you morons to not even bother thinking about all the endless things science contributes to your daily quality of life. things you obviously have come to ignorantly take for granted.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 8, 2008 1:22 AM
I don't have a problem with Athiesm
except that you can't spell it correctly.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 8, 2008 1:23 AM
Thanks fishy. I was just about to post the same thing.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 8, 2008 8:53 AM
Popgun: "I don't have a problem with Athiesm."
Ichthyic: "except that you can't spell it correctly."
OK. Popgun misspelled atheism. Could have been a typo. You, on the other hand, reply in the manner of a supercilious asshole. What's your excuse?
Posted by: Susan | April 8, 2008 2:44 PM
We just assumed you were following the Golden Rule--that you wanted to be treated the way you treat people here.
Since you started with barging in with the supercilious assholery, Ichthyic was just following your lead.
Posted by: thalarctos | April 8, 2008 2:58 PM
PS, Susan--Spelling flames may be a little assholish under normal circumstances, but if Popgun is going to make grand, sweeping statements about general principles such as how all we atheists are, it's his job to make sure to get the little details right.
Otherwise, it's quite appropriate to point out that if he can't even get the little things right, what reason would we possibly have to trust his grand insulting inductions about us from flawed data?
You, on the other hand, *are* just a supercilious asshole, with no appreciation of amphibian diversity.
Posted by: thalarctos | April 8, 2008 3:36 PM
Oh, come on now. Susan's typo, "What a hoot! PZ Myers calling someone a 'nutcase' is like a toad calling someone ugly," could have been made by anybody. Obviously it was only a few keystrokes away from, "You rock, PZ Myers! Calling out some nutcase toad for foisting his pseudo-science on unsuspecting laypersons and innocent children may be ugly work, but somebody's got to do it. Bless you, sir! Bless you!"
It's most uncharitable of you to criticize her for such a minor flail. Clearly, if she'd been touch-typing instead of playing hunt-and-peck with her middle finger, she'd have gotten it right.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 8, 2008 3:56 PM
лол, Ксения!
Posted by: thalarctos | April 8, 2008 4:35 PM
Wow Suzie is a little bitch.
ooops. I said that out loud.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 8, 2008 4:58 PM
Мы очень глупы! ;-)
Posted by: Kseniya | April 8, 2008 5:15 PM
thalarctos: "Since you started with barging in with the supercilious assholery, Ichthyic was just following your lead."
Actually, the "supercilious assholery" started long before I poked my nose into this thread. Pharyngula's model of discourse was set long ago by PZ Myers, the Supercilious Asshole in Chief. There may be more bloated egos and insufferable asses in the blogosphere than Myers, but they're hard to find.
Posted by: Susan | April 9, 2008 11:33 AM
Fuck off and don't come back.
Posted by: Steve_C | April 9, 2008 11:35 AM
Can't handle the truth, eh?
Posted by: Susan | April 9, 2008 12:42 PM
Hmmm. There's a creationist regular on talk.origins who regularly promises a Paper (yes, with the capital P) that will "destroy" the theory of evolution. He's been flogging it for about three years now, maybe more, and he also regularly announces and misses deadlines. Maybe he and Paul Nelson should get together and collaborate... perhaps then their work would go twice as quickly.
Posted by: Pocket Nerd | April 9, 2008 6:40 PM
And yet, you just can't seem to stay away, can you? I wonder why that is.
You know what would *really* teach us a lesson, Susan? If you were to storm out of here and never come back.
That would show us. Put us in our place, it would.
Posted by: thalarctos | April 9, 2008 9:43 PM
thalarctos: "Since you started with barging in with the supercilious assholery, Ichthyic was just following your lead."
aww, now I have to backtrack to figure out what it was that I was supposed to have done.
damnit, I hate it when morons make me do extra work just in order to further insult them.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 9:49 PM
oh, btw who is this "Myers" Oh Susanna keeps mentioning?
Can't handle the truth, eh?
your Nicholson imitation rather sucks.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 9, 2008 9:53 PM