Eradicating Junk Science
Intelligent Design, RIP
Signature In The Cell
Nazis Ideology: Religious, Creationist And Anti-Darwin
A Logical Challenge To Intelligent Design Proponents
H/T Robert Eldredge
Child Abuse, Exhibit A
Michael Behe Continues to Push For Respectability
Beware of attempts like this by Michael Behe, and others, to "publish in peered-reviewed journals." These folks, if anything, are very persistent.The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of "intelligent design." While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
Ken Miller: Is He Consistent In His Application of Science?
However, Dr. Miller is a practicing Roman Catholic and a believer in "theist evolution". According to Wikipedia, theistic evolution asserts that classical religious teachings about God are compatible with the modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. In short, theistic evolutionists believe that there is a God, that God is the creator of the material universe and (by consequence) all life within, and that biological evolution is simply a natural process within that creation. Evolution, according to this view, is simply a tool that God employed to develop human life. Thus, theistic evolutionists reject the active intervention within evolution that ID proponents claim. However, are these concepts really significantly different? They both posit an intelligent creator of the universe and everything in it.
Since there is no evidence in support of either theist evolution or intelligent design, why should someone who is educated in and accepting of science methods and principles accept theist evolution or intelligent design? He or she should not, to be consistent in thinking. However, many people do and this blogger was one of them for decades. A person may work within the parameters of science professionally, then turn off that process and believe something without evidence when in a non-professional environment. This blogger broke away from such mental gymnastics. Will Ken Miller ever make the same move toward consistency of thought?
The Grand Design
A recent blog post on the Freethought & Rationalism Discussion Board sums up this controversy:
"When a scientists says they think that a god is necessary, based on
something outside of their area of expertise, creationists tout their
opinion as something we should all accept at face value, because they're
scientists, dammit, isn't that what we atheists should respect?
When a scientist says they think a god isn't necessary, based on
something inside their area of expertise, the creationists sneer at them
for some imagined failure.
And they're the morally superior ones?"
Intelligent Design, Alternative Medicine and Pseudoscience
Upon reflection, I felt a need to gather a few thoughts for a brief posting.
- - - - -
There are some commonalities among ID and Alternative Medicine (AM), for example:
Both ID and AM embody the concept of Pseudoscience.
-
Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status. (Oxford English Dictionary; Hansson, Sven Ove (1996)
Both ID and AM complain about an organized science conspiracy against them.
- - - - -
Proponents of ID generally are willing to accept "microevolution" (evolution within species) but not "macroevolution" (evolution between species). However, biologists do not see a relevant difference between microevolution and macroevolution. Both happen in the same way and for the same reasons, so there is no real reason to differentiate between them. There is no magic line between microevolution and macroevolution as far as science is concerned. Macroevolution is merely the result of alot of microevolution over a long period of time. Another problem with differentiating these terms is that the definition of what constitutes a species is not consistently defined.
- - - - -
Proponents of ID generally attempt to contrast historical origins science with experimental empirical science. This is wrong because historical origins science is based on observations so it is empirical. Of note, this statement is from the American Scientific Affiliation, which is an organization of scientists - and engineers, and scholars in fields related to science, such as philosophy of science, history of science, and science education -- who are Christians.
Complex Specified Information
A few days ago this blogger posted on "Irreducible Complexity" (IC), which is most prominently promoted by Michael Behe. The other major concept in support of "Intelligent Design" (ID) is "Specified Complexity" (SC) - also called Complex Specified Information (CSI), which is most prominently promoted by William Dembski. The first part of this post will address this concept of CSI.
CSI
According to Dembski, CSI is intend to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex. He states that specified complexity is a reliable marker of design by and intelligent agent. He argues that specified complex patterns can be found in living things and indicated some kind of guidance in their formation, which is indicative of intelligence. He also argues that CSI cannot result from a combination of chance and necessity.
The concept of CSI is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, complex theory or biology (sample of references here, here, here and here).
A study by Ellsberry and Shallit states that "Dembski 's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship and misrepresentation of others' results".
CSI critics cite reports of evidence of the kind of evolutionary "spontaneous generation" that Dembski claims is too improbable to occur naturally (sample of references here and here) .
Evolution through selection is frequently used to design certain electronic, aeronautic and automotive systems which are considered problems too complex for human "intelligent designers". (reference here)
Researchers are also using computer simulations to investigate artificial life. Jeffrey Shallit states:
The field of artificial life evidently poses a significant challenge to Dembski's claim about the failure of evolutionary algorithms to generate complexity. Indeed, artificial life researchers regularly find their simulations of evolution producing the sorts of novelties and increased complexity that Dembski claims are impossible.
Summary
Virtually all unbiased scientists agree that present-day organisms have evolved from a single common ancestor and that this is as well-established as any other fact of science. Studies in biochemistry and molecular genetics, far from weakening evolutionary theory, have broadened and strengthened the science of evolutionary biology. Pharmaceutical companies, the agricultural industry and epidemiologists base their findings on Darwinian evolution and not intelligent design theory or any other form of "creation science" because evolution is the best explainer of nature.
In the two decades since the concept of "Intelligent Design" (ID) was first presented, there have not been any rigorous tests proposed that could identify the effects of ID. (reference here and here) In addition, no peer-reviewed articles supporting ID have been published in any mainstream scientific journal. (reference here)
Essentially, ID has not been the subject of scientific research or testing as ID has not formed the foundation for any scientific process. Behe concedes, "You can't prove ID with an experiment".
-------------------
Bottom line, in this blogger opinion, if you are a denier of evolution, your thinking is no different than a Holocaust, Apollo Moon Landing or Heliocentric denier.