The blog’s been a bit quiet lately, because I have been busy.  Partly with work, but also because I embarked on reading one of the major works in the Intelligent Design canon.

I am halfway through Stephen Meyer’s opus ‘Signature in the Cell’. (I bought this as a Kindle edition, which hasn’t been well put together by the publisher).  So far he’s been alternating between schoolbook level molecular biology, and a history of theories of the origin of life (his treatment of origin of life is rather more detailed, and presumably reflects elements of his PhD thesis).  Intermingled with this are strange bids for sympathy (for example over the Dover trial and the fiasco of the improperly refereed paper) and odd anecdotes, which resemble parables and which are claimed to be examples of how he teaches students, via bizarre straw man arguments. Oh, and a credulous treatment of Dembski’s version information theory (specified functional information is frequently mentioned but never defined adequately). It’s all very odd, and so far seems to be building up to the proposition that because science hasn’t explained the origin of life satisfactorily (to Meyer’s satisfaction, I mean), that a supernatural entity must have done it. Stylistically, the book’s a mixture of clarity and obfuscation, which may well reflect the subject areas that Meyer is most and least comfortable with.

I’m looking forward to a detailed description of how Meyer thinks an intelligent designer may have brought all this to pass.  Hopefully I’ll have finished the book reasonably soon, when I’ll put together a review.

Update: I note that Jack Scanlon (So, Discovery Institute, do I win an award or what?) has been flagged at another post at the ridiculously named Evolution News and Views ‘blog’ (One of These Days, Alice, One of These Days. Pow! Right in the Kisser!).  Well, I began trudging through the 550-odd pages of text as soon as the book was delivered to my Kindle.  I am still manfully ploughing through it.

Bookmark It

Happy Kitzmas. This is the sixth anniversary of the famous decision in Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board, which really exposed the duplicity of those in the Intelligent Design creationist movement. Judge Jones, who many did not see as a particular ally to those fighting this incursion of religion into American schools, actually provided a exceptional smack-down of the devious and dishonest strategy taken by those wishing to push Intelligent Design creationism as science. This has led to many US-based bloggers to conclude that Intelligent Design creationism is something of a ‘busted flush’. But in reality, this is only true in the USA, where publicly funded schools are prohibited by the Constitution from teaching or promoting religion. In contrast, here in the UK we have a government that actively encourages the development of faith schools, and via its ideologically driven Free Schools raises the spectre of increasing the presence of creationism in our nation’s schools.

I have been re-reading much of the Dover trial transcripts and associated material available on the web, and quite frankly the hopelessness of the Intelligent Design creationists’ position should have been evident from the start.  In fact it was obvious to the Discovery Institute, who with drew their ‘big guns’ from the case.  Crucial to the case was the testimony of Barbara Forrest, who’s book Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (written in collaboration with Paul Gross) clearly demolishes any pretence that Intelligent Design is in any way different from any other religious ideology.  Indeed, the underlying history of the ID creationist movement is littered with creationist and religious outpourings by ID creationist principals, all of whom I suspect clearly recognise where their support (particularly financial) was to be sourced.

The Discovery Institute did their best to prevent Forrest’s testimony.  In an article written a few months after Jones handed down his verdict, Forrest makes some interesting points, including the appearance of a faked interview (later flagged as a ‘parody’) – unfortunately this appears to have been ‘disappeared’ from the web. Interestingly, one reads that William Dembski attended Forrest’s deposition – and withdrew from the case four days later.

So, why do I not recognise this as the end of Intelligent Design creationism?  Because in the UK, we are seeing an upsurge of interest in religiously motivated schools, using the government’s Free School programme.  This of course is seen by some as pushing at the open door labelled ‘Faith Schools’.  If the Catholics and Church of England can run so many schools, why can’t the more aggressive evangelical arm of creationism do the same? (There are some other kinds of faith school, but this article is concerned mostly with those of a christian focus.) The British Humanist Association is most concerned (More creationist Free Schools planned for 2013 opening), as is the BCSE.

One possible source for creationist material is the Centre for Intelligent Design (C4ID). C4ID is based in Glasgow, is run by a triumvirate of evangelical christians (at least one of whom preached the literal truth of the creation as described in Genesis), and funded by unclear means.  It seems to be largely a conduit for pushing the kind of material produced by the Discovery Institute. Recent events organised by C4ID have included an especially secret Intelligent Design conference, a lecture tour (mostly of churches) by American ID proponent Michael Behe, and last month a lecture by the senior Discovery Institute figure Stephen Meyer. I was invited to the latter event, and blogged about the reasons I didn’t go - also see this follow-up article.  On the ground, we have a young man, Jonathan McLatchie, with a strange internet presence. I don’t think he’s officially part of C4ID, but he is clearly part of the ID creationist machine, frequently posting his garbled and distorted accounts of biology in attempts to make evolution look unfounded.  Amusingly, McLatchie often cross-posts his material over at a christian website, where his other postings make interesting reading.  His latest biology related drivel can be seen at the (bizarrely named) Evolution News and Views blog: Treasure in the Genetic Goldmine: PZ Myers Fails on “Junk DNA” (in which McLatchie has another go at PZ Myers – see Moran and Myers’ take at Sandwalk) and Animation Reveals Engineering Elegance of RNA Interference (in which McLatchie seems somewhat overawed by an animation of molecules in action).  I do worry that all this blogging activity will jeopardise his progress towards gaining his Masters in Evolutionary Biology.  Yes, Jonathan McLatchie, a person who choses to believe that evolution is wrong and that life is due to the efforts of a supernatural entity, appears to be studying for a Masters in Evolutionary Biology.  When my irony meter subsides, two thoughts cross my mind – firstly, whether McLatchie seeks to emulate Jonathan Wells (who’s misapprehensions of Junk DNA he frequently parrots), and secondly, how he presents his belief system while at university.

So, Merry Kitzmas to my American colleagues.  Not such a Merry Kitzmas over the pond in Blighty, where an entrenched faith school system coupled with ideologically driven educational policies leave British kids vulnerable to being taught bullshit as an alternative to evolution.  With any luck, the C4ID crew will botch things as badly as did the defendants back in 2005.

Update: I forgot to include this link to an article in the New York Times revealing how the Thomas More Law Center sought a case like this.  The article (In Intelligent Design Case, a Cause in Search of a Lawsuit) begins…

For years, a lawyer for the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan visited school boards around the country searching for one willing to challenge evolution by teaching intelligent design, and to face a risky, high-profile trial.

It’s worth a read.

Bookmark It

I see that Jonathan McLatchie has crossed Larry Moran’s radar (Fishing for Creationists).  Jonathan published one of his verbose articles taking issue with Jeffrey Shallit’s takedown of a video featuring Phillip Johnson, the grand-daddy of Intelligent Design creationism  (This Video Should be Shown to all Biology Students - see also A Discovery Institute Flack Responds) – it’s a video dating to the early days of the Intelligent Design variant of creationism, and reveals Johnson’s ignorance of biology and evolution.  The whole thing’s blown up to include another example of ID creationism misquoting, selectively quoting, and just plain failing to comprehend the scientific literature, this time on homology (both morphological and molecular).

Paul Nelson, in particular has weighed in at Sandwalk.  In case you’re wondering about Nelson’s background in biology, it is the usual extensive education seen in ID creationism.  According to his Wikipedia page,  ”In 1998, Nelson gained a PhD in philosophy from the University of Chicago”.  Anyway, the discussion has spilled out into a new post, Homology, where I expect the discussion to continue, amid the accusations that he’s selectively mis-quoting and misrepresenting the literature.  Worth following.

And on the ‘further incomprehension by McLatchie’ front, we have this blog article cross-posted to crossexamined*: An Eye-Opening Discovery: The Remarkable Vision of Anomalocaris. This is a ‘teaser’ paragraph from the full article at the very silly and mis-named Evolution News and Views, to which I don’t link, due to its ‘no comments’ policy).  For the rational-minded, the new discovery is really very interesting: that the ‘top predator’ in Cambrian seas was equipped with an effective visual system comprising a high resolution compound eye.  The proposal has elicited quite a bit of discussion, not least around whether or not the eyes are really part of Anomalocaris (which, interestingly, McLatchie doesn’t refer to), but also that it suggests that Anomalocaris had arthropod affinities.  Anomalocaris itself has had an interesting history in palaeontology, having over the years had body parts identified as three different species.  While I cannot fault McLatchie when he says “This beast poses mysteries both small and large”, he then ruins it by charging off into his usual nonsense.  Apparently the new discoveries make it another “tough day to be a Darwinian”, though it’s not clear quite why he says this, other than senior ID creationists say so (Meyer, Nelson and Chien** – the latter being one of the few biologists in the ranks of ID creationists), and that it’s the hoary old story of ‘sudden appearance’ of complex structures (such as a very high resolution compound eye) in the fossil record that exceeds his capacity to grasp the science.

For my part, I am fascinated by Anomalocaris, and look forward to further discoveries about the Cambrian seas. Not so much the ID creationist mangling of those discoveries!

*Jonathan McLatchie seems to be the sole blogger at crossexamined.  Many of his posts there are ‘interesting’.

** Chien apparently leads the Discovery Institute Paleontology Research Program, according to his Wikipedia page, though that page suggests he’s a biochemist rather than a palaeontologist.

Bookmark It

Jonathan M who seems to have become a regular blogger for the Discovery Institute has noticed this blog once again (From the Darwinist Blogosphere, Stephen Meyer’s Trip to London Elicits a Typical Reaction) in a posting at the bizarrely named Evolution News website – no comments permitted there, it would seem. The BCSE believes Jonathan M to be Jonathan MacLatchie (sometimes his name is given as McLatchie), an undergraduate student in forensic science [UPDATE: Jonathan is now taking a Masters degree in Evolutionary Biology & Systematics at the University of Glasgow (!) ] who appears to have absorbed a typical strategy beloved of Intelligent Design creationists: of devising neologisms that don’t correspond to normally used science terminology, and combined this with ignorance of biology. P. Z. Myers was exposed to some of his ‘thinking’ while visiting Glasgow.

Jonathan begins with a quite mind-bending outline of DNA structure in regard to its genetic role.

For one thing, the point that Meyer makes about the bonding in DNA is that “there are no chemical bonds between the bases along the longitudinal axis in the center of the helix. Yet it is precisely along this axis of the DNA molecule that the genetic information is stored” (SITC, p. 242). It is this fundamental property of DNA that allows DNA to carry the information it does. The bases of DNA do not align in the sequential arrangement they do because of physical necessity or chemical affinity. The arrangement, on the contrary, is arbitrary — any arrangement is possible, but only some arrangements convey functional specificity.

This paragraph just baffles me. I presume this quotation is referring to adjacent bases along each DNA strand, rather that the base pairs themselves. I’m not clear why this ‘fundamental property’ bothers Jonathan M – he seems to have a major comprehension failure at this point.

Meyer’s argument also does not say that “x is complex; therefore, x is designed,” nor does Meyer commit the “god-of-the-gaps” fallacy. On the contrary, Meyer argues — based on the standard historical (abductive) scientific method — that there is only one known cause, one category of explanation, that is known by virtue of our uniform and repeated experience to be able to produce large volumes of highly complex (improbable) and functionally specific information. Thus, in the absence of viable competing explanations, it follows that the most likely explanation for this phenomenon is that it too arose by virtue of an intelligent cause.

Oh, for goodness’ sake, this ( “x is complex; therefore, x is designed,”) is exactly what Meyer is saying. He cannot envisage a mechanism giving rise to the genetic code, so he invokes a supernatural entity. And, yes, we have clearly demonstrable mechanisms by which genetic information can grow in both quantity and complexity. I even see this happening in the lab in experimental timescales.  Jonathan is ignorantly regurgitating ID creationist neologisms, to invoke a supernatural entity.

Jonathan takes a contributor to the CIS forum, Simon, to task, accusing him of not reading the ID creationist literature (I suspect that Simon, or “Simon” as Jonathan rather disparagingly refers to him, is somewhat better qualified to understand the science than he is, judging from his profile at the CIS forum):

“Simon” also cites polyploidy as a means by which specified complexity can arise. But Signature in the Cell is concerned with the origin of such specified complexity in the first life, and polyploidy concerns genome duplication in eukaryotes. Moreover, even in eukaryotes, polyploidy only appears to have a major effect within plants — so its relevance to the origin of the first life is dubious.

This is Jonathan wiffly-waffling around a subject he doesn’t seem to have a strong grasp of. It’s often stated in ID creationist circles (such as the C4ID) that there is no known source of ‘information’ other than from an intelligent mind. This is clearly nonsense, as Simon knows: gene and genome duplication provides the raw material for whole families of diverged genes to arise. What is ‘specified complexity”? Is it the genetic code itself? The mere existence of heritable material? Is this the same as Meyer’s undefined “specified information”?

Jonathan – your statement on polyploidy is naive. Genes duplicate. Sections of chromosome duplicate. Chromosomes can fuse and duplicate, genomes can duplicate. It’s not all about polyploidy. But once there is genetic redundancy due to duplication, novel gene functions can evolve. There are good examples of this in the scientific literature.

On Intelligent Design creationism’s testable predictions, as presented by Jonathan:

For example, it predicts the presence of complex and functionally specific information in the cell; it predicts the already-alluded-to rarity of functional protein folds in amino acid sequence space; it predicts certain patterns in the history of life (e.g., the saltationist nature of the fossil record; morphological disparity preceding diversity, etc.); it predicts that design purposes will be discovered for systems that are currently thought to be functionless (such as the discoveries of the past decade or two which have uncovered a myriad of functions for so-called “junk DNA”). In astronomy, it predicts that, as science progresses, the number of instances of fine tuning in the laws and constants of physics will increase and not decrease over time. And it makes many other predictions as well.

OK, here is why I think this is just so much nonsense:

“it predicts the presence of complex and functionally specific information in the cell” – This is a quite bizarre claim. The Intelligent Design variant of creationism arose in the 1990s. At that time, the presence of large amounts of genetic ‘information’ in cells was well-known. In what way is the presence of information a sensible prediction? And as far as I can tell, this whole ‘complex and functionally specific information’ remains remarkably ill-defined (see for example this demolition by Myers), and in particular is inconsistent with conventional information theory. If we’re now going to think of the origins of life and the genetic systems we see around us today, all ID creationists are saying is that they cannot understand how it happened, and in their religiously motivated world-view prefer to fall back on supernatural intervention rather than taking a genuinely scientific approach to the problem. How is complex and functionally specific information defined?

“it predicts the already-alluded-to rarity of functional protein folds in amino acid sequence space”. This is quite interesting, particularly given Axe’s background as a post-doc in Alan Fersht’s lab in Cambridge. But as far as I can see, this boils down to the usual incredulity argument. For Axe, with a pedigree of working in a prestigious lab in Cambridge, I would have thought a more prestigious outlet for this review might have been possible. As it is, he’s reduced to publishing in the Biologic Institute house journal, with the not-so-impressive archive of 7 papers over its two years of existence, all authored by members of the editorial board (all of whom appear to be creationists of one variety or another).

“it predicts certain patterns in the history of life (e.g., the saltationist nature of the fossil record”; morphological disparity preceding diversity, etc.). This sounds almost as though Jonathan is proposing a rather more interventionist kind of creationism than I normally understand is represented by Intelligent Design creationism: that intervention by a Designer (who, let’s face it, for the Discovery Institute is really the Judeo-Christian god, not Zeus, or Odin, or any other mythological entity) has been repeatedly intervening in the appearance of life-forms on Earth.  Of course, the links between Intelligent Design creationism (which publicly denies that the designer/creator is God) and other forms of creationism, notably those of the Young Earth persuasion have been pretty clearly documented.  Indeed the main figures in C4ID have clear links to biblical literalism and young earth creationism.

“it predicts that design purposes will be discovered for systems that are currently thought to be functionless (such as the discoveries of the past decade or two which have uncovered a myriad of functions for so-called “junk DNA”)” OK, so here Jonathan says that a prediction from Intelligent Design creationism is that design purposes will be found. This is frankly astonishing. How can purpose be ascribed to an unidentified ‘Designer’? How can we divine purpose? What purpose would Jonathan ascribe to his Designer/god’s intent to create the so-called Junk DNA? Where in his Bible does he see the culturally primitive scribes mention DNA when they are transcribing the word of the Designer/god?. This supposed prediction also invokes visions of the stultifying effect of dogma. It may well be that at church/temple/mosque/synagogue pronouncements can be made in the expectation that the word of the deity (as relayed by the priesthood) will be unchanging, but in a world of science, evidence counts. Not the ID creationist kind of negative evidence (“it seems improbable to me; I can’t understand why this is so”), but real, experimentally derived, evidence. Accordingly, the collective understanding of genome structure and function changes as evidence accumulates. As an undergraduate in genetics, one of the great mysteries was the so-called ‘c-value paradox’ – why did genomes vary so greatly in size, even between apparently closely related species?  As techniques and technologies advanced, a clearer and clearer picture of genome composition has been revealed. And, yes, some DNA has been referred to as ‘junk’. But as evidence is uncovered, some of this stuff does have a function. Not always a genetic function. And a lot of this is semantics. DNA sequences could have a ‘function’ related to their propagation (I’m thinking here of P-elements in Drosophila), but not a function that has a role in the biology of the organism.

“In astronomy, it predicts that, as science progresses, the number of instances of fine tuning in the laws and constants of physics will increase and not decrease over time. And it makes many other predictions as well.” The fine-tuning argument has always seemed to me to be somewhat tautologous. Had the constants been different, we would not be here to look at the Universe and its physical constants. We have a sample size of 1. Exactly 1. Who knows if physical constants could have been different. I certainly don’t (I’m not a physicist). I doubt that Jonathan does either, except it’s another of those claims that creationists parrot.

I would have thought the stand-out prediction of Intelligent Design creationism would be the unequivocal demonstration of the existence of that Designer/creator.

On the subject of Meyer’s book, I am at least displaying honesty when, as Jonathan observes, I say I didn’t read his book. Which is why I didn’t review the book, and I didn’t review the talk. Actually, one reason for thinking of attending the lecture would have been to get a copy of Signature in the Cell. But balancing the cost (not value) of the book (£8.99 at Amazon) with the travel costs to and from the venue (several times more than the cost of the book) I decided that wasn’t a good deal. I suppose the cost of travel may explain why Jonathan didn’t attend Meyer’s lecture either, and has chosen as I have done to make comment on Meyer’s other outputs. Besides, science isn’t usually advanced through popular science publications (which for example tend not to appear in University libraries). Usually, the popsci books follow genuine scientific advances published in bona fide science journals. Peer-reviewed journals. Genuinely peer-reviewed publications from Meyer are quite thin on the ground.

Jonathan refers to a list of supposedly peer-reviewed ID publications. I note the prominence of BIO-Complexity, the Biologic Institute’s house journal. With its seven papers in two years, it is hardly prolific and might be best regarded as vanity publishing. I have looked at two sevenths of its published output, and neither is a research paper.

Finally, I’m not a Professor, at least in the British sense of academia.

And finally, finally, I expressly did not review Meyer’s book, even though Alastair Noble claims I did in a comment in this blog.

Bookmark It

The Christians in Science website (which I’ve hitherto not visited) has a brief report on Stephen Meyer’s C4ID sponsored lecture (Stephen Meyer – 17th Nov).  This is the lecture that I didn’t attend last week (An evening with the Centre for Intelligent Design: why I didn’t attend).  Sounds like I didn’t miss much!  The writer begins by saying that pretty much everyone he know sin the Science Faith community was invited to the lecture.  He goes on to review the contents and the (anonymous) reaction of at least one senior attendee, before concluding:

I was hoping for a much better talk from so well known a speaker, but basically it boiled down to the incredulity argument coupled with a God of the gaps conclusion. The event reminded me of why I no longer bother to read any of the ID literature, and generally consider anyone who takes ID seriously as either being naive about science or alternatively a bit stupid.

Pretty much par for the course for the strategy of ID creationists, I’d say.

Bookmark It

Back in September, I received a plain envelope at my work address.  In it was an invitation to attend an event in Whitehall, London.  This invitation from Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was for an’”Evening lecture and supper with Dr Stephen Meyer”, which would feature a “careful presentation of the ‘fiendishly difficult’ problem of the origin of life and the evidence for intelligent design”, and was held on 17th November.  I’ve obscured my name from the image below (click the image for a larger version).

Interestingly, the front of the invitation was a little coy about the organisers.  It did surprise me that Lord Mackay, one of the more outstanding lawyers of the 20th Century (according to Wikipedia) would take an interest in intelligent design creationism.  But Lord Mackay was a member of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland until a rumpus developed following his attendance at a Roman Catholic colleague’s funeral.  From Wikipedia:

Lord Mackay of Clashfern is also remembered for an incident when he, an elder of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, attended the funeral Masses of two close Roman Catholic friends. On one of these occasions, Lord Mackay attended in his role as Lord Advocate as the deceased was a member of the judiciary. This was considered a grave offence by the Free Presbyterian Church authorities and he was suspended from church office, bringing about a split and the formation of Associated Presbyterian Church in 1989, which supported greater “liberty of conscience”.

Notably, the triumvirate  behind C4ID hold strongly religious views, and at least one is a lay preacher.

All is made clear on the reverse of the invitation, where the Centre for Intelligent Design logo is prominently displayed.  And indeed the accompanying letter is headed with the C4ID logo.  All attendees are to be blessed with a copy of Meyer’s book ‘Signature in the Cell’.

Bizarrely (as you can see), the reverse of the invitation uses a piece of puffery from  Thomas Nagel, Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at New York University.  This, rather than being derived from an actual review of the book (which, it might be suggested, a Professor of Law and of Philosophy might not be best equipped to deliver) was actually Nagel’s submission to the Times Literary Supplement 2009 Books of the Year.

I haven’t read Meyer’s book, so receiving a copy would have been interesting.  I have, however, read a number of articles about the book, both supportive and dismissive (particularly those who take issue with Meyer’s (mis)use of information theory), together with a number of Meyer’s articles.  Most of these are un-refereed book chapters, though a recent review paper has appeared in the Biologic Institute house ‘journal’ BIO-Complexity (of which, more later in this article).  As an aside, the Discovery Institute has released a brief publication entitled ‘Signature of Controversy‘, which is a response to the many criticisms of Signature in the Cell and very largely figures the rather abusive and puerile writing of one David Klinghoffer.

It would seem that the topic of the lecture (entitled “Is there a signature in the cell?”) principally relates to the origins of life, and in particular, it would seem to relate to the difficulty Meyer has in understanding how the genetic code was able to arise in the first place.  Of course, once organisms with heritable genetic material were present on Earth, normal and well understood evolutionary processes would have given rise to the diversity of life on the planet.  I don’t suppose that is something Meyer subscribes to, since he is one of the principal architects (and an author) of the Wedge Strategy- the duplicitous strategy that aimed to supplant evolution with creationism by an extensive rebranding exercise.  The scheme came a little unstuck when the Dover school board in Pennsylvania, which was at the time influenced by creationists, attempted to force Intelligent Design into science classrooms.  The subsequent trial (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) ruled that Intelligent Design was a rebranding of creationism, that it was not a scientific approach and that teaching it in American schools was unconstitutiomal.  This judgement forced the Discovery Institute onto the back foot.  More recently, the Centre for Intelligent Design was established in the UK, based in Glasgow, apparently to regurgitate the DI line.

The Centre for Intelligent Design makes much of the supposition that only intelligence can bring about ‘information’.  Unfortunately from their point of view, increase (and decrease) in gene number and genome size are clearly observable, not only by comparative genomics studies of a wide variety of taxa, but by direct observation of within species genome variation. What’s more, those of us engaged in laboratory genetics are well aware of the kinds of genome changes that can occur even within the timescale of laboratory work.

In contrast to the ongoing efforts of science, one of the hallmarks of Intelligent Design creationism is that they don’t conduct novel research aimed at proving the existence of design.  How can they? – ID isn’t science and makes no testable predictions. What ID creationists do is to focus on individual cases where they assert evolutionary biology cannot explain how some feature arose (usually by claiming “irreducible complexity” or some such tosh) and claim that if evolution wasn’t responsible, intelligent design is the only alternative – a pretty dubious way of claiming evidence for ID.  Unfortunately for the likes of Michael Behe, each time one of these assertions is made, those pesky scientists come along and knock it down.  Examples include the bacterial flagellum and the vertebrate immune system.  The rather wonderful Nova TV documentary about Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District I linked to the other day (US TV Documentary – Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial) demolishes those two canards of intelligent design creationism in a very accessible fashion.

From what I’d read of Meyer’s written output, it seemed likely that Meyer’s tack would be to claim that the probability of the appearance of a genetic code that enabled life to begin is so vanishingly small that it must have been designed.  What I have noted is a paper by Meyer (with his colleage  Paul A. Nelson) in the Biologic Institute house ‘journal’ BIO-Complexity.  The Biologic Institute is funded by the Discovery Institute and really fits the Wedge Strategy as an attempt to portray ID as a scientific discipline, largely by playing at science.  BIO-Complexity is an example: an apparently above-board journal website with quite specific aims:

BIO-Complexity is a peer-reviewed scientific journal with a unique goal. It aims to be the leading forum for testing the scientific merit of the claim that intelligent design (ID) is a credible explanation for life. Because questions having to do with the role and origin of information in living systems are at the heart of the scientific controversy over ID, these topics—viewed from all angles and perspectives—are central to the journal’s scope.

(I note that Kluwer, a respectable scientific publisher, originally planned a journal called Biocomplexity: its launch issue was cancelled due to a lack of submissions.  I don’t think this should be confused with the Biologic Institute creation.)  BIO-Complexity’s editorial board comprises a disparate collection of people who support Intelligent Design creationism or, it would seem in some cases, a more conventional young earth creationism.  To date, and through two years of publishing, only a handful of publications have been made.  And these are derived from members of the editorial board, and largely include members of the Discovery and Biologic Institutes (vanity publishing?).

Meyer and Nelson’s recent publication in BIO-complexity is really an objection to the work of Yarus and colleagues modelling how an RNA world could have come into being.  It’s not really a research paper, and kind of fits the ID strategy of knocking down science with the intention of allowing an ID ‘explanation’ to fill the gap.  This would be in keeping with Meyer and Nelson’s expertise (Meyer qualified as an earth scientist and has a PhD in Philosophy of science, while Nelson similarly has a PhD in Philosophy): Nelson appears in the past to have held young earth creationist views.

My particular scientific field is not related to the origins of life, and it’s always seemed to me that figuring out how life began on Earth is particularly challenging, especially as our understanding of likely pre-biotic conditions changes periodically. Nevertheless, the scientific approach is to try and figure out plausible hypotheses: if Meyer and Nelson have bona fide concerns about Yarus’ hypotheses, I’d be the last to censor them.  I’d be even happier if Meyer and Nelson had the science background sufficient to set up their own experimental programme.

An email communication from C4ID a week or so before the lecture said in part (the comment is mine):

At the request of some guests and to encourage open discussion, we wish to conduct the evening with a modification of the Chatham House Rule as follows:  Guests are free to report, formally or informally, on the content of the lecture, the nature of the issues raised at question time, and the identities of the host, lecturer and representatives of the Centre for Intelligent Design.  However the identities of all the other guests who attend and who may contribute to the debate should not be revealed unless specific permission is given by them to do so. [ It's hard to see how the planned release of video recording of the event could avoid identifying attendees if they questioned the speaker] We thank you for respecting our wishes in this matter.

Quite what significance (if any) this holds I don’t know.  But one interpretation might be that attendance from individuals outside the obvious ID creationism circles was looking low, and the organisers felt this statement might encourage them to come along.  In the end, I chose not to attend, not because I have scientific objections to hearing Meyer’s message, but because I object to the Discovery Institute’s working methods, its deceptive Wedge strategy (of which Meyer is an author), and that attendance might be taken as offering support to ID creationism (despite C4ID’s intention that attendee identity be kept secret). I did not want to add apparent legitimacy to ID creationism my my attendance, even though my attendance would have been as a private individual rather than as a representative of my employer. Finally, I don’t believe that lectures delivered to lay audiences are the most effective way of communicating science (or, in the case of ID creationism, pseudoscience): I would much rather read the technical literature. Unfortunately, Intelligent Design creationists are unable to generate research of the kind that would find its way into the science literature.

Bookmark It

There’s a post over at Uncommon Descent in which Jonathan Wells laments quote-mining as applied to his career history (Here’s Jonathan Wells on destroying Darwinism – and responding to attacks on his character and motives*). Wells has had an eventful life, as judged by his account at Uncommon Descent (and his page at Wikpedia) – he sounds like a guy it would be fun to talk to. Apart from the gulf that lies between us over science, that is.

Wells has not one, but two doctorates. The first is in Religious Studies (Yale, 1985), the second in Molecular and Cell Biology (UC Berkeley). What’s interesting is the reason why someone with such a commitment to the Unification Church (and with such strong opposition to evolutionary explanations of life’s diversity) would embark upon a PhD in a subject related to one he has such difficulty in accepting. Incidentally, the Unification Church was founded by Sun Myung Moon (known in the media as the Moonies), and was the subject of much alarm in the UK during the 1970s due to its perception by the media as a destructive cult.

At any rate, Dr Dr Wells claims to have been selectively misquoted as to his motives in undertaking his second PhD. Personally, I find this quite amusing, given the typical quote-mining strategies often employed by creationists to discredit Darwin and evolutionary biology.   The quotation that’s doing the rounds on the internet, and which Dr Dr Wells believes is being improperly taken out of context reads as follows:

“Father’s [Sun Myung Moon's] words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism.”

Dr Dr Wells paints a scenario that differs from this account in some respects, mostly because there is rather more detail:

I still felt called to devote myself to toppling Darwinism, however, so in 1988 I resigned from my position to return to graduate school—this time in biology. I applied to several schools in California and moved there with my family, only to learn that I had not been admitted anywhere. I took a job as a medical laboratory technologist (the Army had taught me a trade!) and sometime afterwards went back to New York to attend a meeting between Unification Church leaders and Reverend Moon. When he learned that I was planning to go back to graduate school he admonished me not to do it, saying that I was too old (I was 45 at the time). After the meeting, however, I prayed for a long time and decided that I had to continue on my course.

I returned to California and applied again to various graduate schools. In 1989 I was granted interviews at Cal Tech, Stanford, U.C. Berkeley, and U.C. Davis. I chose Berkeley, where I completed a Ph.D. in molecular and cell biology in 1994. By then—having been exposed to the actual evidence—I was skeptical of Darwin’s claim that all living things share a common ancestor. [my emphasis]

The essence of the disputed internet quote is that Dr Dr Wells undertook his second doctorate with the specific aim of trying to undermine ‘Darwinism’ (Wells conveniently elaborates on what he means by Darwinism) – but judging from the emphasised words in the quoted section, this would seem to be the case, though without Moon’s blessing.

But over at this site (which appears to be run by the Unification Church), we see this account, penned by Wells (Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D.):

Father’s words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.

Presumably this refers to Wells’ first PhD, in Religious Studies. Wells continues…

I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles’ heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop. In 1989, I entered a second Ph.D. program, this time in biology, at the University of California at Berkeley. While there, I studied embryology and evolution.

It’s true that an understanding of developmental biology is one of the approaches to understanding evolution (but not the only approach**), but this quotation contains the widely quoted statement (emboldened). Essentially, he embarked upon a PhD, and a postdoc position with a clear preconceived goal, namely that ‘Darwinism’ was wrong, and that he would work to topple it.  And this in the face of mountains of evidence sufficient to convince the vast majority of active research scientists of the reality of evolution.  That is not science.

I see that Wells says he wrote that document for private consumption within the Unification Church, and that its wide publication was made without his wishes:

A senior Unification Church leader then asked me to write something for other church members explaining why I went for a second Ph.D. even after Reverend Moon had admonished me against doing so. I wrote an essay that I thought would be for in-house use only, but it was subsequently posted on the Internet without my knowledge or permission.

I first learned that my essay was available online in 2001, when Jerry Coyne made it the alpha and omega of his review in Nature of my book Icons of Evolution.

But why should he tell one version to the Unification Church while seeking to send a different message to the world?  Could it be that confession of his motivation would significantly dent his work towards ‘destroying Darwinism’?

* I don’t often read Uncommon Descent because I find reading stupidity rather irritating.  But I note Larry Moran (who has taken the time to plough through Dr Dr Wells book on junk DNA, and written a lengthy series of articles detailing his criticisms chapter by chapter) has engaged with a bunch of commenters who largely spout vast amounts of pure stupidity and ignorance.  I envy Larry his patience.

** I have to observe that the vast published enterprise of biology contains a huge body of literature supportive of evolution. The distinction between the scientific approach to biology and that of the ID creationist is that where poorly understood cases are uncovered, the scientist seeks to find an explanation, whereas the ID creationist merely invokes a supernatural agency as a designer.  More on this in a later blog post.

Bookmark It

Here’s a YouTube link to an American TV documentary about the famous Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case concerning the attempts of the Intelligent Design creationists to inveigle their anti-science into American school science classes.

I wonder if Alastair Noble and the rest of the C4ID people have ever watched this.  And in particular taken note of the demolition of the notion that Intelligent Design creationism is some kind of scientific enterprise.  And indeed the evidence of ID as a mere rebranding of creationism by ‘cut-and-paste’.

Bookmark It

Dr Alastair Noble has penned a rather defensive article at the C4ID website, in response to James Williams’ recent blog concerning some radio discussions he had had with Noble (Intelligent Design Creationism is not Science). Unlike Williams’ blog (and this one), the C4ID website does not brook any comment, preferring to push their line of reasoning unchallenged.

I have a number of comments and observations relating to the latest Noble epistle and in particular in relation to Intelligent Design creationism as an alternative to an evolutionary explanation of life’s diversity.  For my rebuttal of many of C4ID’s claims about ID as an alternative to evolutionary biology, see my article “C4ID’s Introduction to Intelligent Design: A critique”.

Firstly, is Intelligent Design creationism actually a scientific enterprise? Well, the origins of ID as a front for biblical creationism are well-established (the ‘Wedge Strategy‘). ID was devised as a way of adding an apparently scientific veneer to creationism as a way of inveigling creationism back into American public schools. Unlike the UK, where we are plagued by a high proportion of church schools, the American consitutional separation of church and state essentially forbids the teaching of religious doctrine (most notably theologically aberrant doctrines such as Young Earth Creationism). We mustn’t get diverted into a supposition that YEC is the only form of creationism: there are a variety of creationist stances, including those of a more theistic evolutionary bent. And that is to only consider christian creationism.

So, it’s clear that ID was devised as a front for creationist infiltration of the American school system, and that it does this by using words and arguments lifted from science. But is it science? The answer to that has to be a resounding ‘no’. ID creationism merely takes the stance that a complex living system seems to be to complex to have evolved, and that a designer must somehow have put that system in place. This is a profoundly un-intellectual approach, and is essentially saying “I cannot understand how this has come into being, I will not investigate and I will assume a Designer”. And what supernatural entity would have had the capacity to design the bacterial flagellum (in all its varieties), bacteria (in all their varieties), plants, animals, fungi etc? Who else but the god of Alastair Noble. If this is not creationism, I don’t know what is.

Does ID creationism advance credible, testable hypotheses? No. ID creationism merely takes the observation of biological complexity and advances the claim that it must have been designed. There is no proof of design other than the observer’s ignorance. Does ID creationism have any truly explanatory power? No.

Williams’ contention that I don’t know the definition of Intelligent Design used by the Discovery Institute is just fatuous. The primary definition of ID, widely used by Discovery, is that ‘certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not by an undirected process such as natural selection’.

Well this may be attractive to someone who, as a chemist, may well have received little or no biological education. But for those of us who have, and who are both active researchers and teachers in the biological sciences, this is trivial fluff. Natural selection is the process that ultimately gives the illusion of design, using as raw material the genetic variation that continually arises.

What that means is that there is hard evidence in nature which suggests design. The starting point is the evidence. No-one is imposing design on nature and then looking for evidence. It’s the other way round. What James Williams seems to find difficult is the difference between a scientific conclusion and its implications. Of course ID has profound religious and philosophical implications, but those are consequent to the interpretation of the evidence. [my emphasis]

The key here is that design is suggested. Not that it is a reality. One really cannot conclude that something is designed just because it looks that way. In my opinion, Noble is disengenuous here here when he claims that the religious and philosophical implications are consequent to interpretation of evidence – I cannot believe he is unaware of the evidence that ID creationism was devised for the purpose of infiltrating religious views into American schools. Much of this evidence comes from the Discovery Institute and was famously examined in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

And as to whether Williams’ position on the claim that ID creationism is truly science, I refer the reader to the very article to which Noble takes exception (Intelligent Design Creationism is not Science) – it would be unreasonable to cut and paste so much text.

Alastair Noble, who holds a PhD in Chemistry, frequently writes about DNA. From his writing, he appears to be rather ignorant, misguided or just ill-informed on the subject. This PhD of his is much-touted as some kind of qualification as a scientist – presumably it’s hoped (with some justification) that the public won’t grasp the distinction between chemistry and biology. Unfortunately a PhD awarded about 40 years ago in a non-biological discipline (albeit followed by a brief research career in chemistry) does not really qualify him to make many of his public statements on biology. What may be more of a guide to his attempts to further ID creationism is his religious background (Noble is an elder of the Cartsbridge Evangelical Church in Glasgow and a lay preacher). Indeed very, very few supporters of ID creationism are biologists (and those that are, such as Michael Behe, hold strong religious views).

Scientists of course don’t know how DNA came to be the near-universal genetic material, though many hypotheses have been forwarded, among them that the forerunner may have been RNA. Aspects of these hypotheses frame testable questions, though how good an explanation of life’s origins we can reach is debatable. From the point of view of evolutionary biology, this is moot: evolutionary biology deals with the processes by which the diversity of life around us arose, not the origins of life. It is interesting to note the congruence in strategy between ID creationisms and young earth creationists as they all consider the origins of life to be a big problem for evolutionary biology.

Noble recommends that:

[...] Williams reads ‘God’s Undertaker – Has Science buried God’ (Lion 2009) by Prof John Lennox, a world-class mathematician at Oxford, who certainly knows what he is talking about when he deals with types of information.

Yes, Lennox, who is I believe a creationist and holds strong religious views is a mathematician, not a biologist.

It may be hard for someone with a 40 year old qualification in Chemistry to grasp this, but decades of biological research involving genetics and molecular biology has not only demonstrated that genetic information can and does increase (and decrease) during the diversification of life, but has clearly shown how these changes can and do occur. Alastair Noble exhorts us to read more on the subject:

For biological life, it matters a great deal whether the information is functional or not, and Shallit simply fails to deal with this. Stephen Meyer in his book ‘Signature in the Cell’ (HarperOne 2009) certainly does.

Well, Meyer is the founder of the Discovery Institute. His biography at the Wikipedia page is informative: several of his qualifications derive from religious institutions, and none are in biology.

What, then, of the vast scientific enterprise, particularly in the biological sciences, for whom evolutionary biology is key to interpreting experimatal data? Are all these investigators really denying the truth of the existence of a Designer? Is this a conspiracy against the lone intellectuals in the ID creationist movement? Is this, as Alastair Noble contends, ‘Intellectual Fascism’?

Or is this really the paranoia of a small band of energetic people pushing a religious agenda?

Bookmark It

C4ID’s Director Alastair Noble has come out fighting against proposals to legally prevent creationism in its many varieties being taught in school science classes.  His campaign, as ever, revolves around contributions to a variety of christian organs.  In the online christian magazine, Inspire, he has an article protesting against the proposal (Centre for Intelligent Design rejects ‘false claims’ of Dawkins and Attenborough).  [Note that while I can open that link using Firefox, Google Chrome cannot - at least on my computer]. As with many a christian website, commenting doesn’t appear to be possible.

With what appears to be a complete irony failure, Noble says:

“If this was about the integrity of science education,” says Dr Alastair Noble [...], director of the Centre, “then they would be campaigning for students to have access to all the scientific evidence about evolution and origins – including the positive evidence for design in nature and the evidence both for and against evolution.

“Scientific theories are only credible if they take account of all the evidence. Science always moves on. The 30 scientists who have signed up to the ‘Evolution not Creationism’ statement are attempting to prevent students from hearing the rational, well-evidenced arguments that cast doubt on neo-Darwinism.”

Dr Noble is always portrayed as a scientist (he has a PhD in chemistry rather than a biological discipline), yet he appears not to understand how science works. Intelligent Design creationism is not a scientific approach.  It has no explanatory power.  It makes no testable predictions.  It fails at all points of a definition of a scientific activity.  He does say:

“Students also need to understand the provisional nature of the scientific consensus. Science is not done by consensus. Indeed, students should be aware that some crucial scientific discoveries were made by individuals who challenged the consensus. The reality of science is that one individual scientist with sound evidence can trump the consensus.”

Intelligent Design creationism has no scientific approach of collecting evidence and interpreting it in a way that generates explanatory hypotheses for further testing.  Its sole approach seems to be to identify specific individual cases where an ID proponent cannot see an evolutionary explanation, then proudly proclaiming that it must have been designed – “God did it” rephrased as “the Designer did it”. Unfortunately for Intelligent Design creationism, each and every case where such claims inferring design have ben debunked using evolutionary mechanisms to explain their origin, supported by a wealth of comparative biological data.

Another chemist (again, not a biologist) is quoted:

John Walton, Professor of Reactive Chemistry at the University of St Andrews, agrees: “There are many doubtful passages and leaps of faith in the molecules-to-man evolutionary narrative scenario. The authoritarian attempts by old generation scientists to suppress discussion of alternatives are ill-advised and go against the open spirit of enquiry science should foster.”

Leaps of faith!  My irony meter just leapt off scale. Walton’s language is amusing – he’s using the language of church here.  Yes, there are gaps in our understanding of the pre-biotic world (which actually doesn’t really fall within the purview of evolutionary biology).  But at least some scientists are trying to construct hypotheses that offer an investigative route into understanding chemical events that may have occurred billions of years in Earth’s history.  What do the likes of Noble and Walton offer?  Merely intellectual cowardice and a desire to invoke a supernatural entity.  And as an aside, who, or what is that entity?  It’s notable that with very rare exceptions, ID supporters are fervent christians.  Noble and his C4ID triumvirate are clearly active christians (Noble is a lay preacher) – why don’t they come off the fence and identify their god as the designer?

Noble’s closing line is

“Dawkins argues that ID should not be taken seriously because its main protagonists are theists,” says Dr Noble. “But we don’t hear him arguing that by the same token evolution should not be taken seriously because its main protagonists are atheists.”

I would strongly suggest Dawkins’ position is really that ID creationism should not be taken seriously because it is an entirely unscientific enterprise. One might recommend that those persuaded that ID creationism is science might take a look at Why Intelligent Design doesn’t cut it: A Primer.  Again in this context, there’s an interesting article by James Williams (a Lecturer in Science Education), written following what sounds like an exhausting series of interviews alongside Alastair Noble for BBC local radio (Intelligent Design Creationism is not Science ).  I strongly recommend this account of the interview and Noble’s failure to grasp the objectives of the Intelligent Design Wedge Strategy.

Footnote: Personally, I am uncomfortable with the notion of legal prohibition of the teaching of anti-science in science classes, but frankly the disinenguity of proponents of ID creationism makes such a proposition increasingly attractive.

Bookmark It