Congratulations to Randy Moore

My colleague at the Twin Cities branch campus of the University of Minnesota, Randy Moore, has won an award from the Discovery Institute: The Award for Most Dogmatic Indoctrinator in an Evolutionary Biology Course. Congratulations to Randy! He won it for this paragraph:

The evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and comes from diverse disciplines, such as molecular biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, ethology, and biochemistry. There is no controversy among biologists about whether evolution occurs, nor are there science-based alternative theories. Evolution is a unifying theme in biology; teaching it as such is the best way to show students what biology is about and how they can use evolution as a tool to understand our world. [Evolution] is as important an idea as there is in science - it is a great gift to give to students.

The Discovery Institute claims there are at least four mistakes in that paragraph. Their summary of the "errors" is hilarious, and shows how delusional those guys are.

  • The evidence isn't overwhelming, because their books, Icons of Evolution and Explore Evolution, say so. Those two books are propaganda pieces put out by the Discovery Institute itself, and they are awful: poor scholarship, sloppy reasoning, and and an abysmal ignorance of the science characterize both. If you want some good popular books on the subject, try The Making of the Fittest(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), Your Inner Fish(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), Why Evolution is True(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and The Ancestor's Tale(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), all much better and more informative, and actually representing the evidence accurately.

  • There is too controversy because they have a list of crackpots dissenters from evolution. Any field will have kooks and crackpots on the fringe; compiling a short list of loons is a relatively trivial and entirely meaningless exercise. Even at that, the DI's list is very short on people who are actually biologists…and the whole petition is misleadingly worded.

  • Evolution is a theory in trouble because some scientists discussed alternative modes of evolution at the Altenberg conference this summer. Science is not fixed, but adapts to the evidence, so it is perfectly normal to have conferences that discuss new ideas. The Altenberg meeting did not challenge the fact of evolution or try to displace known evolutionary mechanisms; it discussed some new findings that might add to the theory. It's absurd that people are still going on and on about how a small meeting of scientists working on extending some parts evolutionary theory is a strike against evolution. To the contrary, it's what we expect of good science.

  • There are too science-based alternative theories: Intelligent Design, endosymbiosis, and self-organization. Margulis's endosymbiotic theory was a natural explanation for eukaryote evolution — it is not an alternative, but a part of evolutionary theory. Similarly, self-organization (as, for example, described by Kauffman) does not oppose evolution at all, but suggests that physical and chemical properties of the universe could facilitate evolution. Like I said above, these are part of the normal process of science, that people propose new explanations and try to back them up with evidence, and they become incorporated into our body of knowledge. Intelligent Design creationism does not qualify. IDists don't do science, don't propose testable theories, and don't have any evidence to back up their claims.

So I hope Randy Moore doesn't get too cocky here — the award was given by a gang of incompetent judges who don't know what they are talking about.

More like this

A few disclaimers: I do get kickbacks from affiliate programs when you purchase books after clicking through those links. If you'd rather not fund a perfidious atheist's book addiction, just look up the titles at your preferred source—I don't mind. This list is not a thinly-veiled attempt to get…
At least book memes are easy for me. A book that changed my life: John Tyler Bonner, On Development: The Biology of Form(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). This just happened to be the first book on developmental biology I read. A book I've read more than once: Herbert Mason's translation of the Gilgamesh(…
This really is an excellent review of three books in the field of evo-devo— From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll),…
Robert M. Sapolsky is one of my favorite science writers — if you haven't read Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), The Trouble With Testosterone: And Other Essays On The Biology Of The Human Predicament(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), A Primate's Memoir(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), or Monkeyluv…

Aw, they're just miffed 'cos they missed out on an Ig Nobel again!

Gif

Has the DI won a Darwin award yet?

By BlueIndependent (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

On controversy, Blackadder had it summed up. They were trying to sail around the world, or to France at least, but they were lost. Blackadder thinks that somebody in the crew of the ship might know the way.

Captain: The crew? What crew?
Blackadder: I was under the impression that it was common maritime practise for a ship to have a crew.
Captain: Opinion is divided on the matter. All the other captains say it is, I say it isn't.

Teach the controversy...

By hinschelwood (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

Evolution is a theory in trouble because some scientists discussed alternative modes of evolution at the Altenberg conference this summer.

If they didn't raise questions, and consider changing the theory, evolution would be dogma, and thus not scientific.

If they do raise questions, and consider changing the theory, evolution is in peril. Of course this gets back to the fact that they want an absolute and unchanging "truth".

It's the same way with genes. If genes which can be co-opted for later evolutionary development were not found in animals that missed out on, say, vertebrate evolution, they'd triumphantly declare that evolution lacks the necessary precursors. When they are found, they declare that it's "front-loading."

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

The evidence isn't overwhelming, because their books, Icons of Evolution and Explore Evolution, say so.

They keep bringing Icons of Evolution as if was even a partially comprehensive refutation of evolution, when it had, what, three main "refutations" (Miller-Urey, Haeckel and the tree life)?

....All of which were addressed by real scientists.

It's like watching them take a pin-hammer to a 50-foot tall granite slab.

By Ryan F Stello (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

Come on, PZ, admit it.

You're jealous. You want one of these awards to hang on your office wall.

"The Award for Most Dogmatic Indoctrinator in an Evolutionary Biology Course"?

I wonder if he got a diploma of some kind?

Also, does anyone know if DI intends to give out similar awards to other academic achievers? "The Award for Most Vigorously Attacking All Uses of 'Proof by Faith' in a Course of Mathematics"?

Maybe they don't know what they're talking about, but they know what they don't like!

Galbinus_Caeli #8, I think it would be more like teaching math without multiplication.

Posted by: Galbinus_Caeli | October 15, 2008 11:35 AM
Teaching Biology without teaching evolution would be like teaching Mathematics without the number "3".

I think you are a bit generous, mate. It would be like teaching mathematics without . . . uh, eh, mathematics.

Mathematics without "3"? That's easy.

One, two, lots.

One won't get a lot of mathematics from that but, hey, if the number three offends you...

Oh, PZ, not IDists, but IDiots!
Check Urban Dictionary, - an easy mistake to make :^)

#9. Naw, without multiplication you can still do serial addition.

#10. Without Evolution you can still teach some very limited aspects of Biology. Taxonomy, basically. Pretty much what you can teach to a toddler. "Kitty", "Doggy", "Horsey".

Galbinus_Caeli, Teaching Biology without teaching evolution would be like teaching Mathematics without the number "3".

I disagree. The number "3" could be likened to a gene, for instance, so then, teaching Biology without teaching evolution would be like teaching Mathematics without arithmetic.

By Richard Harris (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

I wonder, what does that award look like? A big Jesus head?

My four year old nephew has combined biology and mathematics when he started counting bunny one, bunny two, bunny three. You get the idea.

At least he knows he is being funny.

By Janine ID AKA … (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

I'm sorry, but that statement doesn't qualify for any kind of "Most Dogmatic Indoctrinator" award. There's nothing at all exceptional about it; most people who teach Evolutionary Biology would agree with it.

The award should go to someone who said something like, "All valid information about evolution is contained in Darwin's 'The Origin of Species'. All other writings about evolution are either redundant or incorrect. Such writings should be ignored, or you can set fire to them if ignoring them is too difficult."

By chaos_engineer (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

Oh wow. Are they really suggesting that Lynn Margulis' theory of endosymbiosis is evidence against evolution!? She's on the faculty at my university, and I've had the opportunity to talk to her about this subject before, a couple years ago. If she knows that the DI idiots are suggesting that endosymbiosis is an "alternative" to evolution, then I can guarantee that she will be positively furious about it. It sure takes some chutzpah to make THAT allegation, given her public distaste for these people.

The [Discovery Institute] Award for Most Dogmatic Indoctrinator in an Evolutionary Biology Course.

"Mr. Kettle? There's a Mr. Pot on line 4. He said something about being black."

Somebody owes me a new irony meter.

Without Evolution you can still teach some very limited aspects of Biology. Taxonomy, basically. Pretty much what you can teach to a toddler. "Kitty", "Doggy", "Horsey".

"But daddy, why are Kitty and Doggy furry, when Fishie and Froggy aren't?"

#5:
It's like watching them take a pin-hammer to a 50-foot tall granite slab.
...and then, upon noticing of a fleck of stone that someone else chipped off, claiming to have demolished it.

I just added that paragraph from Randy Moore to my list of favorite quotes.

I am patiently waiting for President Obama to put the creationist retards of the Discovery Institute in prison for treason.

@ Masks of Eris #11:

Mathematics without "3"? That's easy.

One, two, lots.

Reminds me of the joke from my college days:
Damn, you're drunk. How many drinks have you had?

Ummm, lemme see... one, two, many.

[Evolution] is as important an idea as there is in science - it is a great gift to give to students.

And it's extremely immoral to deny students this gift, which is why I think creationist retards are the most immoral people in human history.

what really amazes me is that anyone pays any attention at all to these people and what they say .
As an old hippie I have met a few cultist and believers in strange things including various conspiracy theorists none of them made any sense, they all seemed a little schizophrenic like they had a bad acid "trip" and got lost in side their heads. the worst of all were the gibbering freaks in rags carrying around raged bibles looking and waiting for "the savior" to let them live for ever and ever.
they are all lost and smell of fear!
they are to be pitied.
I have no pity for the "cult leaders" who exploit their believers need for assurance and fears of death for own benefit.
life is full of strange things

By uncle frogy (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

dissenters from evolution... misleadingly worded.

Speaking of which, I thought it was dissenters from Darwin, which is quite a bit different. I would imagine any biologist who remained a strict Darwinist any time in the last 70 years or so would be viewed as just as much of a crackpot as an IDist. That petition always makes me laugh, because it essentially lists nuts who dissent from a view nobody has. What were they hoping for, apart from a smile, a pat on the head and maybe a lollipop?

I thought the Disco 'Tute (love that nickname, (c) Panda's Thumb) didn't oppose evolution per se ?

By Christophe Thill (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

I thought the Disco 'Tute (love that nickname, (c) Panda's Thumb) didn't oppose evolution per se ?

When you're entire claim is that life on earth can't be explained without god[1] an intelligent designer, you don't have a lot of choice but to attack the thing that, in fact, can explain it.

[1] Yes, yes, I know. "It doesn't have to be god." But just try suggesting it's something else.

When you're entire claim

s/you're/your

"Spell check is not the same as proofreading. Spell check is not the same as proofreading. Spell check is not the same as proofreading."

@20

Well, Tulse, because god made them that way. You can read all about it in your KJV biology text. See, you can tell god loves you because he did all the thinking, so you don't have to.

On behalf of Moores (no relation) everywhere, thank you Randy for upholding our name.

@20: "But daddy, why are Kitty and Doggy furry, when Fishie and Froggy aren't?"

That's not taxonomy, that's comparative anatomy - which demands an understanding of evolution.

By natural cynic (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

Margulis's endosymbiotic theory was a natural explanation for eukaryote evolution -- it is not an alternative, but a part of evolutionary theory.

Problem is, she's taking it so far now that she's become a crank. I attended a seminar of hers last year at UC Berkeley, and was astounded by the lack of hard data and the just-so stories she came up with. I have to say, though, that she's a very good speaker, and her ideas are sometimes intriguing, but without data it's just not very convincing...

By liveparadox (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

That's not taxonomy, that's comparative anatomy

It's comparative anatomy, but it is also putting individual species into groups, which I think of as taxonomy.

I am not really sure how teaching reality would be considered a form of indoctrination. I guess teaching kids 2+2=4 is also indoctrination.

Well that might contradict the Christians who are trying to indoctrinate their kids that 3=1.

"I am patiently waiting for President Obama to put the creationist retards of the Discovery Institute in prison for treason."

Good lord, Bob, don't say that. You might summon Eric Atkinson, or worse yet, Scott from Oregon.

Margulis's endosymbiotic theory was a natural explanation for eukaryote evolution -- it is not an alternative, but a part of evolutionary theory.

Problem is, she's taking it so far now that she's become a crank. I attended a seminar of hers last year at UC Berkeley, and was astounded by the lack of hard data and the just-so stories she came up with. I have to say, though, that she's a very good speaker, and her ideas are sometimes intriguing, but without data it's just not very convincing...

I agree, especially after seeing her post on this same blog.
Look at this:
http://circleh.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/how-not-to-argue-or-do-research/

I think 0 is a slightly more fundamental number than 3. Yeah you really don't need it to do arithmetic or even basic geometry however you can't really do anything sophisticated and worth while without it. It fits the analogy better. :)

By erik Remkus (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

PZ you didn't pull Randy Moore up for not putting developmental biology into his list. The amount of stuff from dev biol is mind blowing.

By Peter Ashby (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

#13:

Without Evolution you can still teach some very limited aspects of Biology. Taxonomy, basically. Pretty much what you can teach to a toddler. "Kitty", "Doggy", "Horsey".

#20:

"But daddy, why are Kitty and Doggy furry, when Fishie and Froggy aren't?"

To be fair, Linaeus did come before evolutionary theory. He understood that creatures existed in a nested hierarchy. There was also a lot of work on comparative anatomy prior to Darwin (and, indeed, that work provided crucial pieces of evidence for his theory). Without evolution, however, all those facts are isolated from each other, without a framework to make sense of them.

If Discovery Institute must torment us with creationism, why can't they use a more entertaining myth?, like Tolkien's "Ainulindale"?

Since there is no Nobel for Biology, this is the next best thing. And PZ? The last line of your post reeks of sore loser.

OK, besides the badge of honor of being called a scumbag by the epitome of scumbag organizations, Randy Moore won a real award for his evolution teaching. See:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2008/US/855_moore_wins_evolution_…

for the announcement I first saw. Congrats Dr. Moore, and PZ, don't get jealous, there's always next year (for either award or both; besides, can Dr. Moore show how he was Expelled, passing over Richard Dawkins? Hah, you win!)

By Alan Conwell (not verified) on 15 Oct 2008 #permalink

From the "article": "...if you guessed the infamous PZ Myers, guess again".
At least you must have been a close second PZ :)

Really, I'm not jealous at all -- I'm even having dinner with Randy and Eugenie Scott on Sunday. I won't be green, I promise.

I'm even having dinner with Randy and Eugenie Scott on Sunday.

The Axis of Evol.

If Discovery Institute must torment us with creationism, why can't they use a more entertaining myth?, like Tolkien's "Ainulindale"?

The Great Green Arkleseizure.

The Axis of Evol?

What does Sonic Youth have to do with it?

By Janine ID AKA … (not verified) on 16 Oct 2008 #permalink

PZ Myers : "I won't be green, I promise."

It's not easy, being green.

If there was an intelligent designer, why did he screw up the human knee joint so badly ?

If it's evolution, it's because you get what works, not what's perfect.