Law Evolution Science and Junk Science

Intelligent Design: "Bait on the hook of creationism"

LA Times science writer Robert Lee Holz isn't fooled by the ID propaganda blitz.  He criticizes ID in the course of reviewing three recent Books:

            The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of  His Theory of Evolution
            David Quammen
            Atlas Books/W.W. Norton: 304 pp., $22.95

            Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement
            Edited by John Brockman
            Vintage: 258 pp., $14 paper

            Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design
            Michael Shermer
            Times Books/Henry Holt: 202 pp., $22

He has an interesting statistic:  "Seventy percent of evangelical Christians believe that living things have always existed in their current form, compared with 32% of mainline Protestants and 31% of Catholics, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press."

This is almost completely explainable by the literalist interpretation of scripture employed by most evangelicals.  Too bad, that seems to be the religious equivalent of a "white knuckle drunk."  In AA lingo, a "white-knuckle drunk" stays sober only through desperate, constant vigilance, taking as much time and energy as drinking. It may be alcohol-free, but it's not considered real sobriety."  This seems to describe the ferocity of evangelical opposition to evolution.  Evolution actually does seem to challenge certain literalist beliefs.

Is evolution a religion?

No.

A great interview with Edward O. Wilson on Intelligent Design's many shortcomings.

He makes the point that the public version of ID concedes evolution inthe vast majority of the cases. Once that concession is made, there's not much left.

He also makes the point  that anybody who can develop ID as a scientific theory would be come famous, winning at least the Nobel and Templeton Prize.  For that reason alone, he pooh-poohs any claim of a vast Darwinist conspiracy.  Scientists in competition with each other can't keep a secret.

A matter of fact takedown of Intelligent Design.  Good Job!

(More about Edward O. Wilson here.)

Bizarro Discovery Institute-"defenders of Science"

How many lies can you pack into one sentence?

The Discovery Institute, explains the "Difference Between Teaching Criticisms of Evolution and Teaching Intelligent design" subtitled "Critical Analysis of Evolution is not the same as teaching Intelligent Design."

That "explanation" qualifies for two "whopper" awards.

Panda's Thumb explains why there is, in fact, no difference whatsoever between "criticisms of evolution" and "Intelligent Design" but you knew that already.

ID advocates are in bizarro world when they claim to be "defenders of science."  But, let's take them at their word.  Here's the challenge.  Since the DI does not favor teaching Intelligent Design in schools and does favor teaching evolution, what does their proposed evolution syllabus look like?

Natural selection...check.

Random Mutations?...check.

Common Ancestry?..check.

Fossil record?...check.

Paleontology, Geology, Radiocarbon dating, genetic sequencing, DNA, cellular evolution?...all check? 

Somehow I doubt that the DI really advocated the teaching of  any part of evolution. But I could be wrong.  Well DI, we're waiting.  Tell us how you would teach evolution.

Ann Coulter Craps on White Carpet

One problem in addressing creationist nonsense is that punditry can only be rebutted by facts.  It takes a lot longer to develop the facts than it does to coin an insult.  This is the "White Carpet Syndrome."  In just a few seconds, a pet can "disgrace" a white carpet.  It takes hours to remove the stain and odor.

Coulter's Godless is a crap on the white carpet of solid science.  It will take at least ten times longer to remove this ugly turd, clean up the brown stain and eliminate the odor than it it did to deposit this aromatic gift.

Coulter and her like count on this time differential to exceed most people's attention span.  Too often, the  strategy works. 

A dry recounting of the facts is accurate but not convincing.  There is an art form to marshaling and conveying ideas in an entertaining and convincing way.  Scientists naturally enough do not normally develop the skills to work in this art form and those that do develop the skills often do so at the expense of their research work.  I this sense , solid science is in a rug cleaning contest with one hand tied behind its back.  Dealing with the dishonest rhetoric of Johnson, Dembski and the Discovery Institute and its shills requires some rhetorical skill along with the expertise to handle t he science.  That's why Carl Zimmer's work and The Panda's Thumb group effort are so important.

James Downard rises to the task of cleaning up Coulter's white carpet deposits in two magnificent articles (one)  (two) at Talk Reason.  In an entertaining style, mixing facts and rhetoric, he demolishes any argument that Coulter is honest.

His comparison of Coulter's claim that there are no fossil intermediates followed by her discussion of Tiktaalik, "the animal Coulter couldn't even screw up the courage to call by name" is priceless.  I highly recommend Downard's articles.  They are well written, well researched and thorough.  You have to be when you're cleaning the Augean stables of pseudoscience.

Ann Coulter's Godless mess

I don’t have time to address the sheer volume of misrepresentations in “Godless.”  Let’s just say that the book’s title is apparently the author’s self-description.  I can’t imagine a religiously observant person so brazenly lying.  Yet another law school graduate.

Fortunately, somebody else is devoting the time, and energy—and doing a fine job of it, too.

See Darwin Central’s critique of the anti evolutionary rhetoric of Ann Coulter here and here.

May the in-Annities continue.

The starfissh rebiuttal is as clean as they come in biology.  Coulter asks the killer rhetorical question honed by her years of courtroom cross examination and intense study of the facts, "Why don’t we have ancestors with eyes on the bottom of their feet, on their arms, or on top of their heads?"

Answering rhetorical questions with facts is sweet, isn't it?