Otherwise Known As Kevin Miller (XI)

Who's afraid of freedom?

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), for starters. In response to a proposed "academic freedom bill" in Louisiana, the NCSE's Joshua Rosenau had this to say,

Students at high school don't have background to understand the scientific debate because they haven't learned the basic yet... High school should be about what the scientists agree on so the students are prepared.

Seems rather strange seeing as the NCSE is one of the first to argue that healthy debate is the essence of science. Kevin Mooney of CNSNews.com wrote a fairly balanced article on this issue. Have a read and see if you think the ability for high school students to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is something to fear.

Is Ben Stein turning American youth away from science?

Recently, Kenneth R. Miller, biology professor at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin's God (a book that I quite enjoyed), saw fit to review Expelled for the Boston Globe. Not surprisingly, his review sounds the same alarm as the rest of the Darwinian establisment, warning readers that, "[Ben] Stein is doing nothing less than helping turn a generation of American youth away from science."

Before you allow yourself to be swayed by such fear-mongering, I urge you read through a response to Miller that was recently posted on Uncommon Descent. It concludes with the following quote:

I’ll tell you what’s turning a generation of American youth away from science — it’s a Darwinian thought police who pretend that evolutionary biology has all the answers and who bully those who beg to differ. Stifling the freedom to dissent is the best way to turn a generation of American youth away from science. Miller and his colleagues are doing a fabulous job at that.

Be afraid--very, very afraid

According to Barbara Forrest, PZ Myers and fellow protectors of academic freedom, fast action is required to stop an "anti-science" bill that is about to go before legislators in Louisiana. What's so pernicious about this four-page document? It's designed to encourage critical thinking skills amongst elementary and secondary students when it comes to science.

I know--scary stuff. Especially when you realize the term "critical thinking" is actually a creationist code word for "religious jihad."  At least, that's what you'd think after reading Forrest sound the alarm. But if you read the bill itself, you'll probably conclude the same thing I did--that Barbara Forrest is really starting to develop a beautiful mind. 

The NCSE Exposed?

I realize I'm a little behind the ball on this one, but I just came across this article from John West that offers another perspective on the National Center for Science Education's ExpelledExposed web site, which supposedly refutes the claims presented in Expelled. In the article, West accuses the NCSE of essentially "blaming the victim" when it comes to the persecuted scientists profiled in the film:

the website’s clunky attacks merely provide confirmation that the film’s essential thesis is correct: Darwinists really don’t believe in academic freedom regarding evolution, and they’re more than willing to smear any scientist who disagrees with them.

NCSE Exposed?

Judging from the looks of things, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has added a few more dollars to the budget for Expelledexposed.com. The site is supposed to reveal Expelled to be nothing more than "anti-science propaganda aimed at creating the appearance of controversy where there is none." But all it really does is expose the NCSE as an anti-science, anti-education propaganda mill that is hell bent on stifling discussion and debate at every turn. It also inadvertently proves the main thesis of Expelled--that in the world of evolutionary biology, only one line of inquiry is allowed. Anyone who deviates from the status quo will be squashed.

For those who doubt these claims, check out their contest to "set Ben Stein straight." This sort of cynical approach to the debate is hardly what one would expect from a serious scientific organization. But it is exactly what one would expect from a group that is more concerned with promoting an ideological agenda than defending serious scientific inquiry.

Quote for the day

From artificial life researcher Christopher Langton:

There's a reason for poetry. Poetry is a very nonlinear use of language, where the meaning is more than just the sum of the parts. And science requires that it be nothing more than the sum of the parts. And just the fact that there's stuff to explain out there that's more than the sum of the parts means that the traditional approach, just characterizing the parts and the relations, is not going to be adequate for capturing the essence of many systems that you would like to be able to do. That's not to say that there isn't a way to do it in a more scientific way than poetry, but I just have the feeling that culturally there's going to be more of something like poetry in the future of science. (The End of Science, p. 201)

A modest proposal for the NCSE

The way I see it, groups like the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) are handling the fight against Intelligent Design all wrong. They're running around the country trying to stamp out every flicker of dissent before it bursts into flame. Meanwhile, the situation is getting worse, not better. It reminds me of the War on Terror--or a giant game of "Whack-a-Mole"--and it must be exhausting. So I have a proposal that could potentially make life a lot easier not only for Eugenie Scott and her crew, but for the scientific community as a whole. And who knows? It may just settle this debate for good.

Like all good proposals, mine is fairly simple: Rather than seeking to stymie ID proponents at every turn, why not give in to them instead? Don't deny them research funding, give them the cash. A lot of it. And while you're at it, give them a fully equipped lab, research assistants, and a firm timeline within which to conduct their work. At the end of that time period, we could all get together to see what the IDers had accomplished. If the results looked promising, perhaps the program could be extended, and numerous apologies could be doled out from the scientific community. If not, the ID folks would be forced to admit that their theory is nothing but bunk and promise to never hassle the scientific community again.

You may think I'm being facetious, but I'm a firm believer in the "give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves" school of thought. (It certainly worked for Richard Dawkins in Expelled.) After all, if ID really is nothing but a Trojan Horse, a set of excuses to smuggle religion into science class, wouldn't this be a golden opportunity to prove it?

So don't whack the moles Eugenie, let them live. If they're meant to survive, they will. If not, sooner or later they'll consume themselves in a gloriously enterprising demise. And you won't have to lift a finger.

A response to Bob O'H

Just so everyone understands, I'm responding to Bob O'H's comments on my answers to Nullifidian's five questions. Thought I'd do it as a blog post rather than another comment so it didn't get lost in the shuffle.

I said: I know there are probably many more predictions [from ID theory] than this, but here are a few that I find compelling: 1) that we we'll find specified complexity in biology,
Bob said: Um, can you point to a single example where anyone has actually shown specified complexity in biology? Dembski claims that it can be quantified using CSI (Complex Specified Information), but the only calculations of CSI I've seen reply on a combination of ignoring the evolutionary process and Texas sharp-shooting. If that's how specified complexity is being defined, then evolutionary biology will also predict you can find it. Finding it is equivalent to showing that natural selection works.
My response: Unfortunately, I’m not smart enough to fully understand the mathematics of Dembski’s work. However, I do know enough to understand the argument he is making. ID predicts that we will find complexity in nature that can’t be fully explained by chance and necessity. I think it’s a reasonable prediction. It’s falsifiable, and it’s something we can go out and test. And remember: The question was about what predictions ID makes, not whether evidence has been found to confirm those predictions. In this sense, ID is no different than string theory. Lots of predictions, but not a lot of evidence. But that doesn’t mean we throw out the theory.

I said: 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record,
Bob said: Again, how does that really differ from evolution? The fossil record is far from perfect, so the gaps in a sequence can easily be long enough to "hide" large changes. What is quick at a paleontological scale is awfully slow at the ecological scale.
My response: This is an interesting response, Bob. On the one hand, I hear Darwinists talk all the time about how the fossil record offers conclusive evidence for gradualistic evolution. But when ID folks question such claims, the fallback argument is always that the fossil record is far from perfect and that any apparent gaps are an artefact of the fossilization process as opposed to real discontinuities in the speciation process. Which is it? At any rate, ID predicts rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, and that is exactly what we find with the Cambrian explosion. You can say the evidence is still out there for the gradualist account, but that kind of puts you in X-files territory. Rather than talk about the evidence still to come in (kind of like writing a blank check to yourself), how about discussing the evidence that is rapidly accumulating upon the table.

I said: 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms,
Bob said: Again, this is consonant with evolutionary theory. Where it might diverge is if the "similar parts" could not have a common ancestor.
My response: If you think about it, this prediction fits with both ID theory and Neo-Darwinism. If every organism evolved from a common ancestor (or ancestors, as many people now believe), one would expect re-usage of similar body parts. However, if every organism was designed by the same designer, it’s likely you’d see the same thing.

I said: 4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found,
Bob said: This just says "ID will be found to be true". Other than that, it's so vague as to be meaningless.
My response: Not exactly, Bob. What it’s saying is, ID predicts that chance and necessity are insufficient to produce the diversity and complexity of life on this planet. It predicts that another force (or forces) will be found to explain that complexity and diversity. And that force could just be a designing intelligence that frontloaded information into the system. Once again, even People like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins are open to this possibility. Just as long as whoever frontloaded the information is not what we would define as God. This also brings up the most important issue in this debate, from my point of view. Information runs the show in biology. To get new organs, new species, to get life, you need information. So where does that information come from? Did it arise through blind natural forces like chance and necessity, or did someone pre-program it into the biosphere? Those are two legitimate lines of inquiry. Only right now, for the most part, the second one is being ruled inadmissible out of court.

I said: 5) vestigial organs will be found to have some function for an organism,
Bob said: Once more, this doesn't differ from evolutionary biology. I'm sure PZ has covered this several times.
My response: I love all these references to PZ. If PZ has covered it, I guess that’s the end of the discussion. I don’t buy that for a second. This prediction is completely at odds with evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology predicts that animals will be full of vestigial organs, because all species are in transition. Evolutionary biology claims that these organs will be shown to be useless, not useful.

I said: 6) much of the so-called "junk DNA" will be found to have some purpose.
Bob said: Guess what? For some definition of "much", we're in agreement. We've known for a long time that some non-coding DNA has a function. We also know that some is ust crap - pseudo-genes, remains of transposons, transposons etc. There are good reasons why these are in the genome (selfish DNA, evolvability etc.).
My response: Once again, I completely disagree with you here, Bob. Neo-Darwinism predicts an accumulation of junk DNA left over from the evolution process. Evolutionary biologists were surprised to learn that much of this supposedly junk DNA actually has a function.

The First Five Questions

You can thank Nullifidian/Nestor for these.

1. William Dembski says, "Of Pandas and People was and remains the only intelligent design textbook. In fact, it was the first place where the phrase 'intelligent design' appeared in its present use." What does it show about intelligent design that, as brought out during Kitzmiller v.   Dover, that the phrase intelligent design "in its present use" was simply a replacement phrase for the word "creationism" following the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard?

It’s been a while since I studied the cases you mention here, but my initial response is to say that how the term “Intelligent Design” originated or how it is used has nothing to do with whether Intelligent Design theory has any practical application. The only thing that really matters is, can Intelligent Design produce new and interesting lines of inquiry? While I believe the ID folks are asking some interesting questions, I think the jury is still out on whether or not they will lead to fruitful research—largely because as soon as someone identifies him or herself as an ID proponent, funding gets cut off, they lose tenure, they’re ostracized by their peers, etc. Several people who have suffered such fates are featured in Expelled.

2. Hat tip to mike: What are the names, if any, of the professors who have been fired for teaching intelligent design?

In Expelled, the person who comes closest to fitting this category is Caroline Crocker. While George Mason University denies they ended her teaching contract due to her mentioning Intelligent Design in class, Crocker continues to insist that is the primary reason her contract was not renewed. I have spoken with Crocker and a spokesperson for George Mason about this issue. And to this point, I have no reason to doubt Crocker is telling the truth. But I think the more important thing I discovered while making this film is how many professors and researchers are scared stiff of mentioning their predilection toward ID for fear of losing their jobs.

3. What does it indicate about the hypothesis that Darwin's ideas influenced the Holocaust that Adolf Hitler privately affirmed views that are similar to those of today's creationists?

Clearly, Hitler imbibed ideas from several sources—some from his Christian background, and some from the best and brightest scientific minds of his day. There’s no question that Hitler saw some races as superior and other races as inferior. He also saw those races in a struggle for survival. In his view, by eliminating the weaker races, he could help the stronger races survive. If this isn’t social Darwinism, I don’t know what is. I challenge you to visit the memorial at Hadamar, Germany and speak with Uta George, director of the memorial. This is where the Third Reich invented and perfected its killing techniques. And there’s no question that the scientists and doctors employed by the Reich were greatly influenced by Darwin. For more info, read Peter Weikart’s book, “From Darwin to Hitler.”

4. What is the *mechanism* of intelligent design, and what is the evidence for this mechanism, if any?

As far as I understand things, ID proponents are not going around promoting any particular mechanism of biological change. What they are saying is this: Information runs the show in biology. To get new biological structures, new species, to get life, you need information. Code. The question is, how did that code get there? Are purely natural mechanisms, such as random mutations coupled with natural selection, sufficient to produce that information within the time frame required or do we need to consider other forces, such as some sort of pre-programming intelligence, to achieve all that the biosphere has achieved to this point. I think it’s a legitimate question, and one worth pursuing. It’s also a question that even someone like Richard Dawkins is open to consider, just as long as that creative intelligence is not God or a supernatural agent.

5. What predictions does the intelligent design theory make that differ from evolutionary biology as understood today, or how is its explanatory power greater than that of evolutionary biology? If neither, then there's no reason to prefer it as a scientific theory.

I know there are probably many more predictions than this, but here are a few that I find compelling: 1) that we we'll find specified complexity in biology, 2) rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record, 3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and 4) informational structures beyond the inherent abilities of blind natural forces and random chance will be found, 5) vestigial organs will be found to have some function for an organism, 6) much of the so-called "junk DNA" will be found to have some purpose.

Confused about Intelligent Design?

I think this guy gets it right.