…and this is a 
They call this “science”?
Category: Creationism
Posted on: April 2, 2008 9:14 AM, by PZ Myers
The Institute for Creation Research is a treasure trove of sloppy pseudoscience. I mentioned one "research" article that they put out that was nothing but a flurry of bible verses wrapped around an argument from incredulity; now a reader has pointed me to another article that tries very hard to ape the form of a real scientific paper, and fails horribly.
It's titled "COMPLEX LIFE CYCLES IN HETEROPHYID TREMATODES: STRUCTURAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN IN THE ASCOCOTYLE COMPLEX OF SPECIES", by Mark Armitage. Oooh. Sounds so sciencey. And then you read further, and you see that it almost follows the correct form.
It has the difficult title. It has a list of keywords. It has an abstract. There's an introduction: it contains a brief summary of the complex life history of these trematode parasites, which are small invertebrates that live in the internal organs of fish, and it promises something.
In this paper, specific, complex life cycles and morphological structures of Ascocotyle leighi, A. pachycystis and A. diminuta, collected from fish hearts in Mississippi, Texas and California are evaluated in the light of the creation/evolution paradigms.
Then the paper has a materials and methods section, just like the big boys — the author extracted parasites from fish and used light and scanning electron microscopy to look at them. Finally, there's a discussion and conclusion.
Notice anything missing? Right, no results. That's a metaphor for the whole creationist movement right there. There are some photos imbedded in the methods section, but it's like a random set of random photos of random parasites this guy found in his fish; there's nothing systematic about it, and the photos aren't even very good — the SEMs are way too contrasty.
Since he has no data, he has nothing to evaluate, and his discussion is a rehash of review papers he has read that highlight the complexity of the trematode life cycle (and it's true, it is complex with a series of hosts), and that every once in a while raise a pointed question, such as, "What allows this cercaria to resist digestion within the fish stomach…?", which I would have thought would be reasonable kinds of questions for a grad student to actually, you know, study. If this had been my grad student, anyway, I would have told him to knock off the pointless microphotography and focus on one of these questions and try to answer something.
But no. He's not interested in answering questions, since to the creationist mind the existence of questions calls science into doubt, so it's sufficient to throw out a flurry of unsolved problems … never mind that a primary research paper should have the task of addressing some problem. Even worse, a big chunk of the discussion is a paean to Michael Behe, who "shows the utter foolishness of expecting that a gradualistic, Darwinian mechanism could have produced such elegant systems, by chance, using the trial and error method". Behe has shown no such thing. "Irreducibility" is not a barrier to addition of steps to a pathway, and Armitage has done no experiments to test "irreducibility" in his work — the concept is a non sequitur, and it's introduction is irrelevant to this paper.
The work boils down to a summary of complex life cycles in some trematodes, taken from other people's work, and a few tourist's snapshots of trematodes that contribute nothing to the literature. It perpetuates the fundamental error of a common creationist argument against evolution: that something is complex could not have evolved. This is utterly false. Evolution is an undirected process that accumulates variation which is pared into shape by selection; it is eminently capable of generating more noise than signal and creating organisms that are absurdly complex. Complexity not only fails to be a strike against evolution, it's an expected outcome of evolution.
This paper is completely unpublishable by any legitimate science journal. I doubt that it could get past an editor, who typically screen out the obvious crackpottery, and no reviewer would be fooled by it; it's experiment-free and even its few observations are incoherent and pointless. Its conclusion reveals that the author doesn't even understand the theory he claims to be criticizing. This is, apparently, why the creationists at ICR and Answers in Genesis are establishing their own venues for "research" publications: their standards are so appallingly low and the work they do is so pathetic that they need these fake journals to get their work published.
Comments
So, the guy wrote a bunch of pseudo-scientific crap, solving no problems drawing no conclusions ?
And he expects what from it ? a pat on the back from his fellow cdesign proponentsists ? and to think they scoffed at Galileo. Oh wait. . . Galileo Delivered the Goods.
(to paraphrase Carl Sagan).
To me, these cdesign proponentsists are saying "we can't figure this out, so God must have done it".
I know, I know... cheering for the home team . . .
(trying to get away from "preaching to the choir" as a simile)
Posted by: DLC | April 2, 2008 9:28 AM
"Peer-reviewed" is no problem at all ... if you get to pick your peers!
Posted by: Zeno | April 2, 2008 9:29 AM
i suppose the idea is to write as many papers as possible which look scientific to the lay person (or even a judge) and present them in court and say 'see, heres the research'.
i quickly skimmed that article, looks like it kind of says 'this is what i'd expect to see (in the evolution 'paradigm'), but i dont, so goddidit'
Posted by: extatyzoma | April 2, 2008 9:32 AM
i would think that god's design would be beyond human comprehension.
Their god looks a lot like daddy and daddy looks a lot like him.
Posted by: tsig | April 2, 2008 9:34 AM
"Notice anything missing? Right, no results. That's a metaphor for the whole creationist movement right there."
Ah-hahahaha! You made my morning with this.
And they say there's "No Intelligence Allowed" in Big Science. Bwah.
Posted by: Muse142 | April 2, 2008 9:35 AM
Seems like its another attempt at the diety of the gaps argument. Which isn't really an arguement but just a statement.
Posted by: Jason | April 2, 2008 9:35 AM
You mean "more signal than noise", right?
Posted by: rnewson | April 2, 2008 9:37 AM
They call this science because that is all they've been taught that science is - collecting piles of observations.
Posted by: Cheezits | April 2, 2008 9:37 AM
Funny how you can find all these articles and Mr. Kevin Wirth (from a few posts back) still can't provide us with the Peer-Reviews articles by the three people he mentioned.
Articles he says deal specifically with ID and have passed through the peer-review process.
Odd.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 2, 2008 9:38 AM
Hi rev BDC
It passed through peer review in the same manner food passes through the alimentary canal. With much the same result.
Posted by: tsig | April 2, 2008 9:41 AM
Maybe he should try and send this paper to Proteomics...
Posted by: Abie | April 2, 2008 9:44 AM
I don't suppose he tries to discuss why God would infest poor innocent fishies with parasites, does he?
And when he's done with trematodes, he can go on to the irreducible-unevolvable complexity of the malaria plasmodium.....
Anyone? Bueller?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 2, 2008 9:45 AM
Remember when Ohio was going to change its science standards to teach kids about notable scientists, such as "Newton, Galileo, Einstein, and Behe"?
Man, that still makes me laugh years later.
Posted by: Chris Bell | April 2, 2008 9:46 AM
Nice one PZ.
May I make one pedantic point ?
"It's conclusion reveals that..." should not have an apostrophe in "Its"...
Posted by: Gib | April 2, 2008 9:46 AM
Check out the reference list. Talk about clueless....
Posted by: qetzal | April 2, 2008 9:47 AM
Yeah I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting this article above passed through legit peer-review, just the echo chamber.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 2, 2008 9:52 AM
For you mathematical types: I've always wondered if a river rock, when described mathematically, is any less complex than an arrowhead. I rather suspect not. Seth Shostak is right. Complexity does not equal artificiality.
Posted by: mikespeir | April 2, 2008 9:53 AM
"He's not interested in answering questions, since to the creationist mind the existence of questions calls science into doubt, so it's sufficient to throw out a flurry of unsolved problems."
This really does sum up the poverty of intelligent design. In my youth I attended a small Adventist Christian college in California as a Biology major. With the likes of Gundry, Adventists have been at the ID business a long time. It was impossible for me to grasp the beauty of biology because our sole focus was simply documenting the complexities of life. We had no exposure to the elegant ways that evolution answers questions and makes verifiable predictions. Now that would have excited me as a young student--the prospect of actually contributing to a body of knowledge.
Posted by: FullFrontal | April 2, 2008 9:58 AM
I have a fetish involving Google Earth. Whenever I see an address in a town that I don't know the location of, I drag out GE and look it up. So I looked up the address in the article mentioned and I ended up looking at what appears to be some sort of business or industrial park. Doesn't look like any school I've ever seen. Just to be sure I turned on the school layer of GE. No school there. (There's a preschool near the address.)
But wait, does GE's school layer show colleges and universities? I look for UCLA. Hmm... nope, but it DOES show me Bally's gym! I've since written to GE telling them of there egregious error. (FWIW, it does show UM-Morris. But not West L.A. College! WTF?)
Posted by: Vernon Balbert | April 2, 2008 9:58 AM
#5 wrote:
> And they say there's "No Intelligence Allowed" in Big Science.
No, no and no.
You are (or rather PZ was ;-) being expelled, because there's No Intelligence Allowed -- inside the movie theatre.
Posted by: Chris | April 2, 2008 10:00 AM
Gib @ #14:
you're right. Someone forgot to do the grammar check...
"...and its introduction is irrelevant..."
"...even its few observations..."
"...Its conclusion reveals..."
It's probably the effect of reading good science... Nothing to worry, though. It should last less than 24h.
Posted by: Joao | April 2, 2008 10:12 AM
Nonsense. This paper is a sure cover article for....Proteomics. I'm sure Mike Dunn and his crew of ace reviewers will pull it out of a hat and slap it in the next issue.
The coverup continues and Proteomics isn't worth reading.
Posted by: raven | April 2, 2008 10:13 AM
On Methodological Beheism.
Here is described a new method, called "Methodological Beheism" which is to be used by ID pseudoscientists in the future in order to generate an endless stream of ID research papers:
1. find a biological organism XXX that seems more "irreducibly complex" than "Behe's flagelum".
2. copy and paste whatever one may find in real scientific research on that organism
3. add the magic paragraph :
"If Behe can see intelligent, planned design in a bacterial flagella, then clearly he would see intelligent, planned design in the XXX organism. These and other features found within the members of the XXX organism can be no less objects of intelligent, planned design than Behe's bacterial flagella."
And the job is done.
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 2, 2008 10:14 AM
Vernon: Well, clearly the paper is from the pre-school, they just got the address wrong. To be fair to them though, it *is* a pre-school.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | April 2, 2008 10:14 AM
Peer review? Hmmm. I think we need a new phrase for situations like these. How about "peek review"?
Posted by: Kseniya | April 2, 2008 10:15 AM
No, I meant more noise than signal. Look in the genome -- a tiny fraction is functional and important for the organism, and most of it is noise. Similarly, most developmental pathways are complex because of how they got there, by a random walk through time.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 2, 2008 10:17 AM
Cheezits said:
Well, piles of something anyway.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | April 2, 2008 10:17 AM
Did anyone notice this in the "paper"?
Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism
Pittsburgh, PA, August 3-8, 1998
Copyright 1998 by Creation Science Fellowship, Inc.
Pittsburgh, PA USA - All Rights Reserved
Is this some kind of typo? 1998? The Fourth ICC was indeed in 1998.
Posted by: Tim | April 2, 2008 10:22 AM
They don't do peer reviews in the same way that God doesn't do personal appearances now that cameras have been invented.
Posted by: Peter Mc | April 2, 2008 10:24 AM
This posting, as conveyed in the next issue of Creation Research:
Or maybe just:
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | April 2, 2008 10:26 AM
Yeah, the "more noise than signal" issue is critical since one would expect no noise whatsoever in a system designed by an omniscient being. In fact, it represents to my mind one of the key indicators that there is no intelligence allowed in ID fantasizing.
The path of evolution is like that of a hammered drunk on his way home from the bar who is occasionally returned to the sidewalk and /or pointed in the right direction by helpful neighbours who know where he lives. he'll either make it home eventually, be taken in by a friend who recognizes him or be creamed by a car...
Intelligent design is a taxi ride home with a driver who cares...
Posted by: Andrew | April 2, 2008 10:29 AM
Religion isn't science.
http://www.icr.org/article/3777/
Posted by: Eric | April 2, 2008 10:31 AM
Hearts!?! Trematodes that live in hearts!?!
ROTFLMAO!!!
Cargo-cult science indeed.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 2, 2008 10:31 AM
I just emailed the institute with "The "Result" section is missing.
Does Mr. Armitage realize that the article has ben edited or mis-printed?"
Lets wait and see!
Posted by: tony | April 2, 2008 10:37 AM
They call it an article, but I think this drivel stretches the definition of article past the breaking point. Good for a hearty laugh, though.
Posted by: Derek | April 2, 2008 10:39 AM
The reference section appears to have been constructed around the article, i.e. where can we find a reference that states 'x'. . . There only 'honest' way to get numbered references referring to other numbered references is incompetence.
Posted by: mothra | April 2, 2008 10:48 AM
Then the paper has a materials and methods section, just like the big boys -- the author extracted parasites from fish and used light and scanning electron microscopy to look at them. Finally, there's a discussion and conclusion. Notice anything missing? Right, no results. That's a metaphor for the whole creationist movement right there.
Since Intelligent Design has no testable theory, they have no choice but to stick to what amounts to 'cataloging':
"About thirty years ago there was much talk that geologists ought only to observe and not theorize; and I well remember someone saying that at this rate a man might as well go into a gravel-pit and count the pebbles and describe the colours. How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view if it is to be of any service!" (Charles Darwin)
Posted by: Sastra | April 2, 2008 10:52 AM
Re. the river rock versus stone arrowhead question: by most measures of complexity, a rough rock is far more complex as it would take far more information to describe an exact duplicate of the rock. The arrowheads' smooth faces make it quite easy to describe. The hallmark of designed objects is not, in general, their "complexity"; it is the marks of their manufacture. We recognise the arrowhead as a product of human technology because we see the traces of how it was made.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | April 2, 2008 10:54 AM
Gee, isn't sounding 'sciency' enough? If the whole point of the exercise is to generate a body of impressive-looking supposedly peer-reviewed papers that one can brandish and allude to in discussions with hell-bound Darwinists, why should they have any actual merit? Dr Myers-- you're just a wet blanket!!
Posted by: SkipChurch | April 2, 2008 10:59 AM
Re: #33
Yes, fish have a trematode-shaped void in their hearts.
[snurk]
Posted by: CortxVortx | April 2, 2008 11:02 AM
The complaint ("utter foolishness") is that going through several hosts is inefficient for "survival of the fittest."
Which means nothing, because of course they're not going to consider evolutionary explanations, such as the matter of getting to a host in the first place, and the possibilities for transfer to a more useful host in the second place. Nor, why such bizarre lifestyles might be "designed".
One has to wonder, when design of successive hosts is considered preferable to "survival of the fittest" explanation, what this buffoon thinks the point is. Maximum pain, misery, and loss to the hosts?
Of course they're not about to consider known design characteristics (rationality, purpose, unrestricted borrowing with non-omniscient designers, and novelty), it's all that "it's just too complex," surely one of the greatest marks of the idiocy of those IDiots. Complexity arising over time, however, is the prediction of evolution, while IDiocy can predict exactly nothing.
What is more, it's entirely possible that evolution would produce less efficient life cycles for parasites, since evolution could make a former life cycle less successful at a later time, while the parasite would often be unlikely to be able to switch to unrelated hosts. The whole "efficiency" argument made from their rational design perspective is complete bollocks, since reproductive success is only relative, while targeted efficiency is what is to be expected from the design perspective.
The whole analysis issue is moot anyhow, certainly, because they're not even interested in doing anything but using their ignorance to "evaluate" evolution and to find it wanting, then to declare that God designed malaria, mosquitos, and parasites. At least they've totally abandoned the notion of a God of love being visible in the world, or that the designer is at all attractive.
What's their point now, if we don't kowtow to their God, he's going to (re-)design us poorly, or alternatively, he's going to design parasites (inefficiently) to afflict us? We're back to the Old Testament God with ID by now, we're not supposed to be drawn to the Creator, we're to fear his wrath, his creative power, and his ability to devise parasites and diseases to afflict evilutionists (the pious will get hit, too, which makes their viciousness into self-defense).
I suppose the best thing about watching these IDiots is how they manage to shift and morph into increasingly different versions of liars and disparagers of God. But it's all to keep God's wrath and carefully designed parasites from them, so it's a good thing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 2, 2008 11:04 AM
Where's the grammar-nazi when people violate there/their/they're? Or is he only the oberleutnant in the Indefinite Pronoun platoon in charge of "it"?
"It's --" [explosion]
Posted by: CortxVortx | April 2, 2008 11:10 AM
Unfortunately, the currently rational argument that the IDiots are not published in peer-reviewed journals will be lost when enough of the crackpots and their rich backers create a "scientific journal" that allows all and sundry creationist crap into it. Then they can say "see, we ARE published in a peer-reviewed journal." Of course, this will not change the merit of their "research" but will buttress their arguments to non-scientists. Just as they want to redefine what "science" itself means, they will redefine what a "peer-reviwed journal" is. Then it will be up to legitmate scientists to expose their "journal" for what it is: crap.
Posted by: Gene | April 2, 2008 11:11 AM
Not to make SciBlogs all-framing, all-the-time, but I think this article and PZ's response are a good example of why I'm tremendously doubtful of any approach to communicating science that doesn't emphasize the importance of rationality, evidence, and the methodology of science. What the ICR is doing is essentially cargo-cult science -- it has all the trappings, but none of the substance. But in order to communicate that effectively, one has to communicate what science actually is, what it involves. Trying to counterframe this article in terms of something like "evolution has helped us manage fish stocks better" seems ridiculous. What should be said is exactly PZ's take -- "This is not science." Likewise, when presented with ID and creationism, the "frame" of utility seems silly compared to "ID and creationism aren't science".
Posted by: Tulse | April 2, 2008 11:12 AM
The ability of creationists to continue to masquerade their faulty theology as science is directly related to the abysmal situation of science education in public schools.
No student should be allowed to graduate from high school without having a basic understanding of the scientific process - i.e., knowing what a theory is in scientific terms, understanding the process of review and reproducability of results, understanding the interconnectedness of various scientific disciplines, coping with a world in which there are many more questions than there are answers, etc.
The fact that a large number of Americans believe that evolutions is "just a theory" is ridiculous. The fact that large numbers of Americans believe that the creation story in Genesis is literally true is absurd.
I oftentimes feel that people would rather believe a lie than to hear the truth. Some people are uncomfortable with the truth - but that does not mean that they are allowed their own reality. Believing something to be true cannot and does not make it true. No matter how fervently or completely one may believe in a creator/designer, there is no way whatsoever to establish the existence of such an entity nor can any amount of stamping of feet and sticking fingers into ears change the fact that species change over time and these changes, from time to time, lead to new species. The fossil record is overwhelming; the Biblical "evidence" is nonexistent.
Religion must understand its limits. Relgion has its own realm and should learn to leave science alone. Most mainstream religions are in their death throes - hence the desperateness to promote creationism and attack evolution - and are finding that they can provide fewer and fewer answers about the world around us. I don't need religion to tell me about the origins of life. Yet I don't need science to tell me about the nature of my soul.
Posted by: Jonathon | April 2, 2008 11:16 AM
Sastra,
"Since Intelligent Design has no testable theory..."
What do you mean, the testable theory is clearly outlined in this article :
Theory : if an organism is deemed more complex than Behe's flagelum, than it must have been designed.
Test : ask Behe, make use of the infailible "detector of irreducible complexity".
I'm not inventing it, it's written in the before last paragraph before the conclusion :
"If Behe can see intelligent, planned design in a bacterial flagella, then clearly he would see intelligent, planned design in the HCl sensitive cercarial penetration glands and the HCl resistant, yet trypsin and pH sensitive metacercarial cyst of Ascocotyle which requires it to be HCl resistant at one point in its fantastic voyage, and yet precisely trypsin and pH sensitive at another. These and other features found within the members of the Ascocotyle complex can be no less objects of intelligent, planned design than Behe's bacterial flagella."
That's what I call a simple, easy, testable theory. No need for big science research investments, hard work, expensive equipment, just refer to Behe's godly capabilities to identify irreducible complexity and the job is done.
Posted by: negentropyeater | April 2, 2008 11:19 AM
What we need... is a Practical Theology of Peer Review. This being the abstract of the latest paper in the h-h-h-hilarious Answers in Genesis Journal:
'Despite the centrality of peer review to the development of a scholarly community, very little is
known about the biblical basis and Christian conduct of peer review. We find that peer review is
rooted in several Christian virtues, such as reflecting Christ, being honest, seeking wisdom, humbly
submitting, showing Christian love, correcting error, and being accountable. Given these principles,
we recommend that creationists use a double-blind peer review system, wherein the identities of the
author and peer reviewers are confidential. Additionally, we recommend that creationist publishers
develop a regular public audit of their peer-review process.'
'Showing Christian love'?!?!!? Oh, that's brilliant. I'm sure that's what a lot of scientists have in mind when writing up their papers.
Anyway, if you read further into this article (which I did, because I'm feeling masochistic), it appears they have rather missed the point - we don't ridicule their journals because they're not 'real' peer review, we ridicule them becuase they've already all made up their minds!
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | April 2, 2008 11:23 AM
Sorry, failed to proof my last post (#33). The process ICR has begun will over time build up a selection of Sciency sounding titled papers that can be used in court. The judicial function as 'gatekeeper' will be all the more burdensome.
Posted by: mothra | April 2, 2008 11:24 AM
Oh lord, sorry about the terrible formatting in my comment there. I didn't realise it would turn out that way...
Posted by: Stuart Ritchie | April 2, 2008 11:25 AM
The complaint ("utter foolishness") is that going through several hosts is inefficient for "survival of the fittest."
It's even more inefficient as design.
They say life is too complex to have evolved. I say it's too complex to be designed.
Posted by: Cheezits | April 2, 2008 11:27 AM
I visited their website. It looks like they are moving, but they still have time to urge YOU to Break The Law!
They say to buy our products and "...give them to your school science department". To be fair, you COULD do this at a private school, without breaking the letter of the law, although, IMO this IS child abuse, which, if I am not mistaken, IS against the law.
Entire quote:
"Each set contains our popular, but now discontinued, youth ministry resource products. A limited number of "mystery" boxes are available at clearance prices. These resources are suitable for personal, educational, and ministry uses.
Purchase them for yourself or give them to your church library, school science department, youth ministry, or other places where the message of the Creator needs to be proclaimed."
http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=2714&cPath=44&zenid=99b0b9d56622a3464146a007435020ae
Posted by: J-Dog | April 2, 2008 11:30 AM
Yup, They replied
"Hello Tony,
Thank you for contacting The Institute for Creation Research (ICR.org) and informing us of this issue. Can you please provide more information (such as an article name, date, link, etc.) so we may track down the problem?
We appreciate your interest in and support of ICR.
Best regards,
Mark Mason
Institute for Creation Research
web@icr.org
Renewing minds, defending truth, transforming culture (Romans 12:1-2)"
Posted by: Tony Kw | April 2, 2008 11:34 AM
I hope you all realize that the scientific community is not the target audience for this paper. However, it will do its job quite nicely in school board meetings across the US.
God, save America from religion! ;)
Posted by: Hans | April 2, 2008 11:36 AM
They could at least have added a Conclusion, along the lines of "God really, really hates fish."
Posted by: MissPrism | April 2, 2008 11:37 AM
"All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all."
a few tourist's snapshots of trematodes
Hmm, I have some snapshots of huge nasty-looking cercaria, and now I only need to write something about how parasites that bore through your skin prove that there's a benevolent creator? One easy publication coming up!
Posted by: windy | April 2, 2008 11:43 AM
Thank you, Tulse. This is the argument I have been musing about for some time but never managed to phrase succinctly.
Posted by: xebecs | April 2, 2008 11:53 AM
It nearly makes one want to become a creationist "reasearcher" I mean they must get paid somehting and all they have to do is publish their doodles on something they don't understand anyway. It would be alot easier then actualy working and produceing output. Now if only I could shake theis darn scruples.
Posted by: The Backpacker | April 2, 2008 11:58 AM
Re. the river rock versus stone arrowhead question: by most measures of complexity, a rough rock is far more complex as it would take far more information to describe an exact duplicate of the rock. The arrowheads' smooth faces make it quite easy to describe. The hallmark of designed objects is not, in general, their "complexity"; it is the marks of their manufacture. We recognise the arrowhead as a product of human technology because we see the traces of how it was made.
Excellent response. If I may, I would just like to add that usually a "river rock" is quite smooth, but even so, I would expect that smooth shape to be actually quite difficult to describe mathematically, more so than most arrowheads. And even if not, like you say, there is the other evidence and the context in which each is found that makes them distinguishable as an act of nature or an act of intelligence.
Re: the Armitage paper:
Feynman's three words come to mind: "cargo cult science"
Posted by: SteveM | April 2, 2008 12:03 PM
Why are the references padded by referencing previous references?
Posted by: Randy | April 2, 2008 12:08 PM
Where's the grammar-nazi when people violate there/their/they're? Or is he only the oberleutnant in the Indefinite Pronoun platoon in charge of "it"?
don't forget "then"/"than" too :-)
Posted by: SteveM | April 2, 2008 12:09 PM
"Sciencey"! The true analogue of Colbert's "Truthiness" -- I like it.
Posted by: Geoffrey Alexander | April 2, 2008 12:10 PM
"What the ICR is doing is essentially cargo-cult science -- it has all the trappings, but none of the substance."
I'm concerned this could well be a libel on cargo cultists, who I have read somewhere (but can't find where at present) were surprisingly empirical in their approach: when one set of rituals failed to bring the cargo, they modified them repeatedly. I've also heard that many Papuans quite reasonably thought that since the missionaries had lots of cargo, and placed great store by the Bible, it must somehow be crucial to attaining the necessary knowledge. Accordingly, they studied hard and learned to read it - but eventually came to the conclusion that the missionaries were tearing out the crucial pages. Not so far off the mark...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 2, 2008 12:19 PM
#53 "I hope you all realize that the scientific community is not the target audience for this paper. However, it will do its job quite nicely in school board meetings across the US."
Very true, and a lone voice or two complaining that it's "not real science" or "not a reputable journal" will not look credible. "You mean they went to all the trouble of writing this paper and publishing this journal just to fool us?" Of course the answer is yes, but it seems unbelievable to an outsider. What then?
Maybe a highly reputable science organization should maintain a web-accessible list of phony science journals and papers. Suggestions for entries could be submitted by anyone. Only obvious pseudoscience should be on the list, and there should be a disclaimer that the list is incomplete. Because even fake science takes time to produce, this list may soon be quite complete. The list could then be used as a fairly good proof of bogosity. "See, the NSF has this paper listed in its directory of fake science."
Posted by: charley | April 2, 2008 12:27 PM
Thanks for this, Nick. I don't know why the cargo cultists of the Pacific should be unfairly compared to these saboteurs of science: the cargo cultists were genuinely interested in the results of their replication--they honestly wanted cargo.
These dweebs, on the other hand, have no interest in actually doing science themselves and are actively attempting to destroy it for the rest of us too. Their only goal is a grotesque parody with which we are all forced by legislation to be satisfied.
The comparison would be apt if the cargo cultists performed their rituals in order to deny cargo to everyone else.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 2, 2008 12:34 PM
#s 38 & 58 (and anyone else I might have missed):
Thanks for the replies. That's pretty much what I was thinking. We know and arrowhead is intelligently designed and manufactured because we have experience with intelligent beings designing and manufacturing them. As far as I know (just to be generous) nobody has ever seen any god designing or manufacturing anything.
Posted by: mikespeir | April 2, 2008 12:47 PM
Gene (#43) said: "Unfortunately, the currently rational argument that the IDiots are not published in peer-reviewed journals will be lost when enough of the crackpots and their rich backers create a 'scientific journal' that allows all and sundry creationist crap into it."
But they have already done that. "Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design," W.A. Dembski, General Editor, is the peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design, W.A. Dembski, Executive Director. It got off to a roaring quarterly start in 2002, faltered through a couple of "double issues" for lack of material, and stalled in July 2005. Nothing since then.
Gene, your trepidation may be premature. Intelligent Design can't come up with enough "research" even to keep their own vanity journal afloat.
Posted by: Olorin | April 2, 2008 1:02 PM
Perhaps it's just my browser/resolution combination, but when I click on the article it shows up as a narrow band of text with margins as wide as a third of the screen on either side. I don't let my freshmen get away with enlarging margins to make it look like they wrote more, but somehow I'm not surprised that ICR does.
Posted by: Carlie | April 2, 2008 1:11 PM
The paper may be totally inane, but I think we may have to give ICR some credit for the fact that it doesn't seem to be publicly linked from anywhere on the main part of their site.
Posted by: Ian | April 2, 2008 1:16 PM
Seems someone forgot to tell him:
Oh, I forgot; baby Jesus weren't there then.
Posted by: Torbjörn Larsson, OM | April 2, 2008 1:22 PM
So what exactly did parasites eat before the Fall?
Trematode life cycles are scarily complex, and hard to account for (I did a seminar years ago on trematode evolution that skirted the really tricky parts), but creationists don't want to be messing with "intelligently designed" parasites.
Posted by: Darby | April 2, 2008 1:25 PM
The one thing that really gets under my skin: for nitwits like this to do any actual (pseudo)scientific research requires money. That money could be spent on REAL scientific research. The reagents that are wasted for SEM so nitwits like this can whine about evolution could be used in REAL experiments or investigations wherein we might actually learn something.
Buggers...
Posted by: Chris | April 2, 2008 1:32 PM
Interesting. Maybe this is my inner Pollyanna speaking (again), but I think this demonstrates something positive about the baseline inquisitiveness and rationality of human beings in the absence of authoritarian pressures that discourage those traits and the activities which naturally follow.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 2, 2008 2:06 PM
Come on Darby, this is obvious. Don't you know that Darwin introduced parasites after The Fall©.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 2, 2008 2:24 PM
#72. I tend to agree - I'll try and track down some references on this stuff. Another item I remember hearing/reading was about how fast traditional healers in non-literate communities would discover the useful and/or dangerous properties of newly introduced plants (years rather than decades I think) - only the knowledge would then be attributed to a respected predecessor, or the ancestors.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 2, 2008 2:37 PM
MATERIALS AND METHODS
"Methods are described by Elohim et al (4004 BC)."
Posted by: jeh | April 2, 2008 2:42 PM
Perhaps we should ask those Creationists why their Creator would allow parasites to infest fish in the first place. Their response would probably be that parasites are part of the curse brought by God upon the world by man's Original Sin. But why would man's sin affect any animals, which cannot sin? Then the Creationists might suggest that the Devil made the parasites. But that would make the Devil a creator as well! And if the Devil is a Creator, wouldn't that make him a God too?
Gee, I wonder how many Satanists are also Creationists!
Posted by: Dale Husband | April 2, 2008 2:48 PM
PZ!!! CRACKPOTTERY! I LOVE IT.
Posted by: Elyse | April 2, 2008 3:26 PM
Maybe he should try and send this paper to Proteomics...
actually, I'm sure it's been submitted to Rivista di Biologia already.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 3:48 PM
#53 "I hope you all realize that the scientific community is not the target audience for this paper. However, it will do its job quite nicely in school board meetings across the US."
this, and the comments on "peer review" of the paper, makes me think you folks thought this a published work?
look again:
It's little more than a poster, presented at a group of guffawing yahoos.
there is no peer review. there is no publication.
It's worthless to anyone outside of the circle jerks who were at that conference.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 2, 2008 3:55 PM
If you want to see what it would look like if there were a wide range of pseudoscientific creationist journals accepting woefully substandard research, look at So-Called Alternative Medicine.
And yes, the general public cannot tell the difference. If you say that a peer-review homeopathy journal is not a real, accepted science journal, they just think you're prejudiced. "No, studies show homeopathy works." The studies don't have to be any good. Non-experts just have to be able to point to them.
Posted by: Sastra | April 2, 2008 4:22 PM
Whoops! There goes Sastra, dissing "other ways of knowing" again.
I love it when she does that! 8-D
Posted by: Kseniya | April 2, 2008 4:49 PM
I'm sorry, but as a high school physics teacher, I wouldn't have given that paper a very high score as a lab report.
In a lab report, I think there should be four sections, each centered around answering four questions:
1) Why am I doing this?
2) What did I do?
3) What did I see?
4) What does it mean?
It seems that the paper left out the third section, which is, as far as I'm concerned, the most importa