Law Evolution Science and Junk Science

Another Creationism Speciation Event

Another creationism speciation event has been observed.

Creationists, including Intelligent Design proponents, argue that speciation does not occur or if it occurs it occurs very rarely. The fossil record, according to creationists, shows no (or arguable very few) incidents of speciation where one species evolves into another. Creationists further argue that that depiction of the record is accurate.

Now, some creationists are not shy about explaining how all those species arose. They arose by special creation. God made them more or less as they are now or as they were preserved in the fossil record. These creationists forthrightly acknowledge Gods’ role in creation and they are to be applauded for their intellectual honesty.

Evolution on the other hand describes the mechanism of natural selection where speciation is a common event. In several Chapters of Origin of Species, Darwin discusses the near impossibility of distinguishing between varieties, breeds and species, suggesting that varieties and breeds are incipient species, since there is no principled way to reliably distinguish between varieties and species. Since Darwin, speciation events have been observed many times, enough to demonstrate that Darwin’s description of natural selection is correct. The observation of various types of ring species is enough to demonstrate both that “species” is a fuzzy description and legitimate disagreements can arise when exactly a new species arises, and new species arise pretty frequently with full lines of transition mapped out pretty thoroughly.

Species of creationism:

Robert Pennock,in his book, Tower of Babel outlines several species of creationists. Such species include:

Young earth creationists—those who believe more or less that the earth was created recently, more or less literally as set out in Genesis. Each spieces on earth now, more or less specially created by God. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species

Old earth creationists—those who believe the earth is geologically older, and God specially created various “kinds” of animals that may have evolved to some greater or lesser extent into today’s animals. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species

Progressive Creationists: Those who believe God created earth and species over time. Each species is/was specially created some recently as God continues His work. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

ET creationists—These creationists believe that life on earth was brought or placed here by extraterrestrials or time travelers. Several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

“Public Consumption Intelligent Design.” This is the version put out for public consumption by Behe and Dembski. Agnostic on age of earth, apparently natural selection is “mostly” correct and accounts for the majority of earth’s species today. Nevertheless there are a few detectable instances of special creation where the designer, for example, stuck a flagella to the butt of some bacteria, organized one (but not every) blood clotting cascade and one (but not every) immune system. There might not be very many instances of special creation but they are there and can be identified by their irreducible complexity and the explanatory filter’s elimination of regularity and chance.Definitely, several varieties/subspecies/incipient species.

Creationism Speciation.  Sometimes a member of one of these groups splits off, forming a new species. As Darwin noted, when this happens the parent and offsrping species can exist side by side for quite soem time. I previously identified a creationism speciation event where creationism was identified as “a minority scientific viewpoint (MSV).”

The common thread for all forms of creationism: rejection in whole or in part of common descent and natural selection and a corresponding belief that some life forms were specially created in whole or in part. If you hold that belief you are a creationist.

But people don’t like that term because it carries so much baggage, conjuring up images of ignorant bible thumpers. It also has the unfortunate attribute of being a religious belief so it can’t be taught in pubic schools. People will go to great lengths to avoid the creationism label while eagerly retaining the special creation concept. Thus, old earth creationism evolved into scientific creationism which in turn evolved into intelligent design, which recently evolved into MSV.

Now, a new creationism speciation event is observerved as yet another creationist attempts to avoid the creation label and evolves into a “Post Darwinist.”

Here is her statement:

I concluded that Darwinian evolution cannot, on the evidence, be the whole explanation of the history of life on Earth. Clearly, intelligent design was also involved. But because I do not subscribe to any brand of creationism, I call myself a post-Darwinist.

She adds:

“Whether life forms with a high information load are produced by intervention or by initial encoding can possibly be answered by research.” (yes it can, and has been)

Sorry, you are a creationist. You believe in special creation, whether it’s called intervention or not, of certain life forms on this planet.

Logical Fallacy Part II

 

As I discussed in Logical Fallacies Part I, the rhetorical device employed by Intelligent design proponents is the Logical Fallacy of the False dichotomy.  Once I get agreement that a false dichotomy was improperly employed, we can discuss the real issues.

First we can address the question, “Is Intelligent Design science?” Here, a second problem surfaces. For every PZ Myers, there is a Michael Behe. For every William Dembski there is a Jason Rodenhouse or Mark Perakh.  For every Robert Pennock there is a David Berlinski. For every Gary Hurd, there is a Fritz Schroeder. And then there’s James Shapiro, in a class by himself. In short, upon superficial observation, there are apparent “experts” on both sides of this scientific question. That is, there are people with a doctoral degree in the field or in an apparently related field, or perhaps a scientific field or perhaps with a general interest in science, expressing an opinion on the subject. All these people claim the mantle, "expert."

That’s not all. Many of the so called experts, such as Phillip E. Johnson, Jonathan Witt, Denyse O’Leary or any number of evangelical and religious apologists, also hold forth some claimed expertise on evolutionary biology. I’m sure the biologists are more amazed than I am that people with little or no training in biology can pontificate so confidently on a subject despite their lack of qualifications. When they do so they rely on Johnson (who has the same qualifications I do) or one of the usual characters. When I point out that these people are simply not experts in the field I am accused of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

Should I plead guilty?

No, I should not. I am correctly relying on authority! This “Appeal to Authority" fallacy has to be one of the most frequently misunderstood and misused ideas since people started believing that Einstein said, “Everything is relative."

The Fallacy of the Appeal to Authority is something I happen to know quite a lot about because I work with some version of it every day. It’s perfectly legitimate to appeal to appropriate authority. Most people don’t realize that the full name of the fallacy is Appeal to Inappropriate Authority

I call this the "Advertiser’s Fallacy" because it’s so prevalent in commercials, such as the one where a famous baseball slugger gives medical advice on erectile dysfunction (that should pick up the hit count!). No. See a properly qualified doctor for ED, see Rafael Palmiero only if you want to improve your baseball swing.

An appeal to Authority is improper if any of the following are true:

1. The matter is one that can’t be decided by recourse to an “authority.” What’s better, opera or country music?” Experts really can’t resolve some things and everyman’s opinion is just as valid as that of any claimed “authority.” (Country.)

2. The “authority” doesn’t’ have sufficient expertise to be relied upon. I’ve had people correct my California legal interpretation because they once took a business law class and,      besides, their cousin is a paralegal in Texas and told them something different. Well, pardner, we’re not in Texas, here, and one business law class is just a start on the road to expertise, not the destination. The minimum requirement to practice law in California is a bar ticket. Mine is # 114001.

3. The “authority” doesn’t have any expertise in the field. Phillip E. Johnson, Denyse O’Leary, and Jonathan Witt are all examples of people with no qualifications in biology, evolution or science. An appeal to any of them or the entire combination for an opinion on evolution can only be mocked and ridiculed. Nevertheless, each could be a recognized authority in criminal law (Johnson) journalism (O’Leary) and beauty in literature (Witt). All are probably authorities, to a greater or lesser extent, on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians.

4. The “authority” is affected by bias. We see this in court all the time. Mold testing experts, not surprisingly, always seem to come down in favor of extensive testing. Chiropractors always seem to require months of adjustments for an indefinite length of time, while the orthopedic surgeons can solve the same problem on the same person with a few swipes of a surgical knife in one afternoon, often for about the same amount of money.

5. The “authority” is not consistent with other authorities in the same field. Authorities such as Behe are not consistent with the great weight of authority in biology. This can best be demonstrated, ironically, by examination of theological discussions. There are several      streams of opinion by experts in biblical interpretation, for example. There is often no consensus of experts in such cases and an appeal to authority is, therefore, misplaced. I also consider an appeal to authority when you know that authority is a minority position to be dishonest. Publishing a list of ID books as representative of current thinking in biology, for   example, is deceptive.

 

6. The field of expertise for the authority is not legitimate. It’s pretty obvious that an appeal to authority on UFO abductions to prove the existence of UFO’s would not be valid. The Psychic Stock picker is not a good authority for future stock market trends. The field of expertise has to meet a threshold of establishing that it is somehow a legitimate discipline. So far, Intelligent Design has not been able to meet this test. For example, what is the Intelligent Design position on the age of the earth? If it pretends to be science, the answer should be concise and brief. The truth is ID doesn’t have an answer to that question.

7. The authority is unidentified. It is invalid to appeal to the authority of “Time Magazine” because we cannot evaluate whether the authority is actually an authority or has any      expertise at all.

In summary, an appeal to authority is a valid method of argument and of making decisions. It recognizes the obvious fact that we cannot all be experts in everything. It would be a mistake to have your neurosurgeon change the brakes on your car and your car mechanic to operate on your brain tumor. If you see a neurosurgeon for your brain tumors and a car mechanic for your disc brake adjustments and you don't know much about either, you are essentially betting your life on an appeal to authority.  We all reasonably do that every day.

Analyzing Intelligent Design under the appeal to authority fallacy immediately  presents several problems.

1. This is a matter that can be decided by expertise. The study of biology, including evolution, is a coherent scientific field that also uses elements of physics, chemistry and mathematics, confirming its overall validity.

2. Public figures pontificating on Intelligent Design such as Phillip Johnson, Denyse O’Leary and Jonathan Witt are not authorities. They have no expertise, qualifications or training. Fritz Schroeder, although he has a degree in chemistry also is unqualified. He is an “expert in something else”-- the biological equivalent of reliance on a proctologist for neurology questions. Pennock, Miller, PZ Myers and any number of biologists are authorities whose      opinions simply eclipse those of non-scientists and scientists who don’t deal with biology in their day to day work.

3. Behe should be judged by his peer-reviewed output on the subject in contrast to the peer-reviewed work of, for example Miller, Mayr, Myers or any number of biologists. Otherwise, we must conclude he does not have sufficient expertise in the field to give weight to his opinions. Certainly a psychiatrist who gets the facts bluntly wrong is an authority, but not on evolution. 

4. Anyone connected with the Discovery Institute is biased. Here’s how you can tell. Compare the links and bibliography of talkorigins to that of the Discovery Institute,  or here and here. Despite the claims of the Discovery Institute and its fellow travelers to teach the controversy, none of them have any interest whatsoever in teaching or even acknowledging any other viewpoint but its own. That’s intellectually dishonest. Yes that's right, it's lying. When they put up a bibliography like this maybe they can claim to be unbiased with a straight face.

5. The overwhelming majority of biologists and scientists recognize that evolution is essentially correct. That’s why Project Steve is relevant and not an Argument ad populam fallacy.

6. There’s a real question as to what is even meant by Intelligent Design. Does it exclude Young earth creationism? We can’t be sure. Does it even exclude evolution? We can’t be sure. What claims about the physical world does it make? What actual research is ID performing? Any at all? Apparently not. This has all the hallmarks of a UFO hunt. Come to think of it, ID doesn’t even exclude UFO’s either. So what does it do? Whatever it does, it's not science.

We can reasonably and safely rely on the combined authorities of Darwin, Gould, Mayr, Myers Rodenhouse, Miller, Pennock, Hurd and Perach when deciding whether Intelligent design is science. they unanimously conclude it is not.

Logical Fallacies Part 1

In discussing ID with what I hoped was a reasonable but misinformed person, I explained that ID was simply not science. The person dearly wanted to believe in ID because it would, eventually, lead to my salvation. He didn’t bother to ask about my religious beliefs, merely assuming I was a godless atheist in need of salvation. I may be in need of salvation but I am not atheist, sorry.  Of course, he pointed out that Phillip Johnson had written a strong book completely demolishing evolution and David Berlinski and Jonathan Wells had recently completed the destruction of evolution. News to me. Amazing what a couple of non-biologists can do that thousands of biology Ph.D's simply overlooked, somehow.

He also told me in detail why evolution was wrong. Needless to say his science was incorrect, since it was gleaned from the Isaac Newton of Information. Now, to change people’s minds, I usually try not to convince them they’re wrong and I usually try not to convince them that they’ve been taken in by a scam. People feel “stupid” when you do either of those things and are more resistant to seeing the point you’re trying to make. This goes double if religion is involved.

Here’s my basic strategy. The vast majority of people who oppose evolution do so for religious reasons. It is a losing proposition to attack anybody’s religious beliefs if you want to change that person’s mind on evolution. (Yes, I am the master of stating the obvious, but sometimes it need to be said. I learned this as I was arguing my legal cases before judges. Sometimes you have to make your points both often and loud. It frequently doesn’t sink in the first several times, unfortunately)

So, I often explore why that person thinks evolution conflicts with the person’s religious beliefs. Usually, there is no conflict. (Sorry, I can’t help Yong Earth Creationists.) I can usually point to a long list of religious authorities and theologians from Augustine to the Pope that do not find any conflict between evolution and religion or theology in general and people seem to be very willing to talk about these issues as theological concepts not necessarily scientific ones. I keep some of those sources on the left rail and add to the collection as I find more. Often people are very surprised to learn how many theologians deal quite comfortably with evolution.

It suddenly is not the threat to religion that it appears to be. In my experience, if you can get people to accept that battles over evolution are not surrogates for a war between godless atheists on one side and religious people on the other you are halfway there. Ultimately, even YEC’ers must concede that the large majority of their co-religionists do not hold their views regarding science, so, even for YEC's, it is not fair to characterize the conflict as one between religion and science. It’s between their interpretation of Genesis and all others' interpretaiton. "All others" includes the vast majority of Jews, the vast majority of Christians, other religions and agnostic views as well.

Usually those people of good faith initially in favor of Intelligent Design will agree that there is a false dichotomy between science and theology. Once that is agreed upon then we can discuss whether asserting that  Intelligent Design is not science is simply an appeal to authority as is often claimed. In my next post, I'll show how poorly understood the Appeal to Authority fallacy really is. Stay tuned.

Objection: Macroevolution has not been observed

Link: phylum level evolution.

Often Intelligent Design proponents will admit to the possibility of "microevolution"--evolution within a species-- but deny the possibility of "macroevolution" at the phylum level.  This article discusses several transitional fauna at the phylum level, complete with artist's conception and and photograph of the fossil.  Very good work!

Evolution explains "macroevolution" just fine. The difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a matter of degree only and a distinction frequently made only by Intelligent Design/creationism proponents.  The taxonomy of species, families, orders and phyla are all artificial constructs.  Nature is not bound by, or even aware of, these constructs.