Sigmund Comments on the BioLogos/Discovery Institute Rift

Jerry Coyne has a guest post on his blog by Sigmund.  Sigmund has noticed the bad feelings between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos and has seen fit to comment on it.  He writes:

The slow descent into irrelevancy of BioLogos continues apace. From its inception by Francis Collins in 1997, the BioLogos Foundation’s original emphasis on increasing the acceptance of science amongst evangelical Christians has been gradually replaced by a more traditional focus on ‘worship’ and an increasing defense of Christianity from the challenges of secular reason.

This is a mite peculiar since many of the posts recently that I have seen including my own don't deal with what he describes whatever. My series of posts deals with the evidence for human evolution and three days ago, Dennis Venema started a series of posts on the basics of evolutionary theory. While it is true that Pete Enns expends much energy writing excellent columns on the nature of biblical interpretation, there are quite a few posts about basic science and, ironically, Sigmund writes that BioLogos has gotten away from science yet the whole purpose of his post is to illuminate a rift between the two organizations that is science-based.

He comments on the recent reaction to Dennis Venema's review (which I thought was smack on the money) of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell by the author.  Meyer argues that complex specified information such as that found in the cell can only come from intelligent causes, while Venema states that there are natural causes that can create complex specified information without the need to invoke a designer.  Meyer responds to this charge (in a way that Sigmund describes as “shifting the goalposts”) by arguing that he was only writing about biopoesis, not established life.  Darrel Falk responded to Meyer's article in a way that Sigmund finds baffling. Sigmund and Falk are both fully aware that Meyer moved the goal posts, however Sigmund writes: 

It was at this point that the real problems with the new BioLogos strategy become apparent. Falk, needing to see the best in every Christian, comes across as the theological equivalent of Woody Allen in the aftermath of the nymphomaniac scene in ‘Play it again Sam’. Falk spends almost the entire article wondering “How did I misread those signs?” and getting sidetracked into talking about “complex specified information” an imprecise term regarding complexity, only used by ‘Intelligent Design’ supporters.
While it is clearly a case of the usual dishonest creationist tactics of trying to be vague and then shifting the goalposts when caught out, Falk doesn’t seem to be able to state the obvious.

I feel for Darrel here, because, as Christians, we are called to see the best in people, even in a scientific setting. But Darrel has been on the receiving end of questionable Discovery Institute practices before at the Vibrant Dance conference.  Commenting on it at the time, Steve Matheson wrote: 

The question is not whether Christians should point to the things they agree on. It's not about whether affirmations of shared belief are beneficial or appropriate when Christians find themselves in disagreement. For me and, I suspect, most of the critics that Falk was referring to, the question is whether BioLogos should cosponsor a conference on faith and science with organizations that seek to mislead people about science.

Here, Steve is referring to both the Discovery Institute and Reasons to Believe, an organization that Todd Wood has dealt with. I have written about them as well.

Those of us who follow Jesus Christ want to believe the best in our fellow Christians but the sad fact is that we have examples in Christendom where scientific evidence is very poorly treated or misrepresented outright. I would never accuse Ken Ham of not being a Christian. But I would also never state that he honestly treats the scientific evidence.  It is our duty to point out these errors in the hopes of reaching our fellow Christians and informing them that honest scientific inquiry can go hand in hand with Christianity.  If the goal posts get moved, it is our duty to point that out as well.  Darrel has done this.  We might fault the force of his response, but we should not fault his intentions.   

Martin Gaskell and the University of Kentucky

The University of Kentucky just settled out of court a discrimination suit brought by Martin Gaskell who felt that he was denied a position because he was a Christian. Here is the story from Inside Higher Ed and here is the essay that got Dr. Gaskell into trouble. Two things come to mind when I read the story and the essay: first, the University of Kentucky acted shamefully in many ways during the whole episode and, second, if I had been relevant professors at the University, I would have been a bit nervous too.

First, the University:

But Gaskell says it was Kentucky’s biology department that sank his candidacy for the observatory directorship. Upon discovering his lecture notes online, several members of the search committee expressed curiosity, though not necessarily alarm. “Clearly this man is complex and likely fascinating to talk to -- but possibly evangelical,” wrote one committee member in an e-mail. “If we hire him, we should expect similar content to be posted on or directly linked from the department website.” Another, noting that he was aware of Gaskell’s religious disposition, responded, “Personally, I believe in freedom of religion, and have no problem with Martin as long as he does not use the classroom or official university sites as a pulpit.”

Gaskell says that the biology department, whose members had no astrophysical experience or training were allowed to influence the decision to hire him. Understandably, this was upsetting. There was, additionally, clearly some future projecting going on:

“[A non-committee member] suggested, in particular, that we might one day wake up to a [Lexington] Herald-Leader headline citing ‘UK hires creationist as Observatory Director,’” wrote one member of the search committee in an e-mail. “Such a headline would probably not be a fair representation of Martin’s personal views, which are not simple, but the headline could appear nonetheless.”

You cannot hire or not hire somebody based on something that may or may not happen that has little bearing on their position. One might just as easily say that they have a problem with hiring someone for a biology position because they go to church. God only knows what that church might teach some Sunday.

Second, Martin Gaskell. After setting up the various divisions within the church with regard to the teaching of evolution and the age of the earth, he uncorks this:

It is true that there are significant scientific problems in evolutionary theory (a good thing or else many biologists and geologists would be out of a job) and that these problems are bigger than is usually made out in introductory geology/biology courses, but the real problem with humanistic evolution is in the unwarranted atheistic assumptions and extrapolations. It is the latter that “creationists” should really be attacking (many books do, in fact, attack these unwarranted assumptions and extrapolations).

What exactly are these “significant problems?” He does not say (nor, I will warrant, would he be able to). The first thing that comes to my mind when I read something like this is “Discovery Institute party line” and red flags go up. Here is a man who complains that biologists who have no expertise in astrophysics are having an influence on his hiring and yet appears to feel perfectly free to denigrate a science of which he knows nothing. Further, the statement isn't just wrong, it is pejorative, implying that biologists are pulling the wool over people's eyes when they teach it or practice it. That is uncalled for and unprofessional. He continues:

A discussion of the current controversies over evolutionary theory and how Christians view these controversies, is beyond the scope of this handout, but the now extensive literature discussing and reviewing books such as those of Phillip E. Johnson (“Darwin on Trial”) and of biochemist Michael J. Behe (“Darwin's Black Box”) will give you some of the flavor of the diversity of opinion of Christian biologists (and geologists).

Why has he mentioned no books by mainstream biologists, such as Kenneth Miller or Francis Collins? They are both Christians and well-respected in the field of biology. The only flavor you will get with the list Gaskell provides is “Intelligent Design”.

So, was the University of Kentucky right in denying him the appointment? likely not. It is not clear that his views on biology would have made the slightest difference in the performance of his duties as an astronomer. It is also true that he should have known that if he hung a big sign around his neck reading “Discovery Institute” that problems would arise.

While most scientists have taken to ignoring the young earth creation groups such as the ICR and AiG, the Discovery Institute is viewed as a real threat because of the thin veneer of “science” that it promotes as well as the their suspect practices (See Steve Matheson's open letter to Stephen Meyer of the DI) involving their portrayal of scientists and their promotion of debatable legislation damaging to the teaching of evolutionary theory in public schools. It is not surprising that the biologists reacted the way they did.

----------------
Now playing: They Might Be Giants - Science Is Real
via FoxyTunes

Reasons to Believe and the Credibility Gap

Todd Wood has wrapped up his long series on the problems with Fuz Rana's interpretation of the human/chimp DNA differences and his responses to Dennis Venema's writings. He closes with some sobering thought:

To be honest, I do not believe that RTB will pay any attention whatsoever to this series of posts. Given Rana's insulting response to Venema's critique, I expect that they'll treat this as yet another "ad hominem attack." I've mostly written this series for third parties that might be confused about the Venema/Rana exchange. As far as I'm concerned, RTB's credibility is completely shot (read my analysis of their handling of the Neandertal genome for more evidence of errors and exaggerations on the part of Ross, Rana, and Samples: parts one, two, three). I would recommend that no one accept any of RTB's arguments without fact-checking their claims first. I do not know whether these problems are due to lazy scholarship, ignorance, intentional deception, or ideological blinders. What I do know is that you cannot trust Reasons to Believe.

This is very disappointing but, having read enough of Steve Matheson's writings, not entirely surprising. Once upon a time I had much respect for Hugh Ross and the work he did to try to convince the evangelical community that there could be a fulfilling theological construct that incorporated an old creation. He came to the University of Tennessee in the early 1990s and gave a series of compelling, cogent lectures on the astrophysical evidence. Even then, though, I had misgivings about what his (and his organization's) treatment of the biological data would be like. Now, it seems that my misgivings were well-founded and we have our answer.

Steve Matheson: More on BioLogos and Chrisian Unity

Steve Matheson over at Quintessence of Dust has a follow-up post to his original musings about the Vibrant Dance conference, in which the Discovery Institute revealed itself to be nothing more than a hack organization, interested not in open dialogue but bitter debate. Steve clarifies some things:

What I'm trying to do here is make it clear that I don't think that Darrel Falk and Dennis Venema and Deb Haarsma were mistaken to participate in the Vibrant Dance or to call for respectful engagement with those there who disagree with them. I'm saying that they must make it clear that the DI and RTB regularly violate standards of intellectual integrity. Both the DI and RTB promulgate falsehoods, and they do it knowingly. It should go without saying that such behavior is unacceptable among self-described scholars; that the scholars in question are Christians, functioning as public Christian apologists who seek to influence the thought and actions of millions of fellow Christians, only amplifies this concern.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Discovery Institute has no intention of treating the data in an honest fashion. The first hints of that came with the Wedge Document and were on startling display at the Dover trial in 2005. Steve has stated in the past that he still holds out hope for RTB, although even here there seem to be problems of integrity.

Perhaps the odd thing about Reasons to Believe is that they treat the astrophysical data in an honest fashion and yet make a complete hash of the biological data and evolutionary theory. It is as if, when it comes to anything involving humans directly, the blinders go on. The Discovery Institute is a one-trick pony. Anything not dealing with evolution is ignored and then the evidence for evolution is twisted and misinterpreted.

It is not clear that there will a change anytime soon regarding any interactions between groups like BioLogos, which seeks to actually honestly interpret the data in a way that is in keeping with the integrity demanded by both science and a Christian walk and groups like RTB and the Discovery Institute, which do not seem to.

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Guitar Song (Demo, 1973)
via FoxyTunes

The Discovery Institute Wastes a Golden Opportunity and Shows Its True Colors

Steve Matheson, in response to the news that BioLogos and the Discovery Institute would be part of a larger symposium on the nature of science and religion called "The Vibrant Dance," wrote a blistering column on his blog on the cost of Christian unity. In it, he wrote:

In short, I take the following to be evident: unity is not an end in itself, and is not achieved by wishful thinking or gushy happy talk. I'll look at those two points in two posts on BioLogos and Christian unity.

So, I'm occasionally frustrated by the stance of my friends at BioLogos when it comes to Christian unity. Consider a recent and widely-discussed piece by Darrel Falk, on the question of why BioLogos is co-sponsoring a conference (called The Vibrant Dance) with two organizations known to regularly misrepresent science: Reasons To Believe (RTB) and the Discovery Institute (DI). Falk notes that this choice has been criticized by believers and skeptics alike. In my opinion, his defense of that choice misses the most important criticisms. His defense amounts to a claim that Christian unity matters more than just about anything else.

The focus behind Matheson's apprehension is his complete distrust of all things Discovery Institute and he has written extensively on this topic. I have also addressed their propensity for twisting language out of its original meaning.

Well, as Steve might say "I told you so." The majority of the conference apparently went according to plan and Darrel Falk writes that, as a whole, it was very well organized. Then the Discovery Institute pulled off its mask. Panda's Thumb refers to this as a classic case of bait and switch. As Darrel Falk writes:

Five days before the meeting, the Discovery Institute posted a statement about the upcoming event:

“Next week the Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science becomes the God and evolution showdown in Austin…”

The posting then went on to state:

Attendees have three days of speakers and sessions but should prepare for a rumble on Thursday, October 28, when Stephen Meyer and Doug Axe will go up against Darrel Falk and Randy Isaac in a debate on the origin of life…

The way this was described by the Discovery Institute was exactly what had concerned me most about this meeting. Knowing that this may have been inadvertently put up by someone who was not aware of the intention of the meeting, I immediately contacted the organizers and asked that the statement be taken down and that it be replaced with a statement which indicated an assurance that the Discovery Institute was committed to enter into our breakout session, not in the spirit of a “God and evolution showdown” or a “rumble” but within the Spirit of Christian unity. I felt the task was difficult enough as it was that unless we both clarified our mutual commitment from the start it had the potential to harm the Church.

The organizers asked the Discovery Institute to take the statement down; it was not granted. I was told that it was an Associate Director of the Discovery Institute who had denied the request. I felt strongly that there was a need to publically acknowledge that the tone of the post was not consistent with the nature of the meeting. I also felt that it was important to make a public statement about our commitment to work together in the Spirit of Christ. Because an Associate Director of the Institute acknowledged that he knew about it and wouldn’t grant the request, I pulled out.

I have often wondered if the Discovery Institute has a split personality with the researchers working on problems involving the nature of biocomplexity and the PR wing of the institute engaged in hucksterism and propaganda. Now we find that I am wrong. The rot goes all the way to the top, with the higher eschelons engaged in this intentional antagonism.

Bravo to Darrel for pulling out of the session involving the DI. This is yet another reason why other organizations refuse to take them seriously or to entreat with them. They had a golden opportunity to engage BioLogos on the legitimacy of evolutionary creationism and intelligent design and, because of their juvenile, immature approach to this complex question, they wasted it. Darrel ends his post with this:

BioLogos remains more concerned than ever about ensuring that we all—together as Christians—can come to peace with mainstream science, including biology. We do not think it is fundamentally flawed even though we know there are those who have misused it for their own philosophical agendas. We look forward to ongoing discussions with those who see things differently---but not where it has been announced to be a showdown and not where it has been presented as a rumble.

It is clear that the Discovery Institute, like the ICR and AiG, is not interested in honest debate on the topic of origins and evolution and, like those organizations, should be avoided in future endeavors like the Vibrant Dance. Steve, you were right. Good riddance and bad rubbish!
----------------
Now playing: They Might Be Giants - Mammal
via FoxyTunes

Genetic Redundancy and Disruption

Steve Matheson has written a great post over at Panda's Thumb that expands on some well-known evolutionary mechanisms that bear a closer look. He writes:

The common picture, painted all too often by commentators of various stripes, depicts a world in which mutations run a harrowing gauntlet of selection that is likely to foolishly discard both the gems and the proto-gems of biological function. Oh sure, the cream eventually rises to the top, but only through the magic of seemingly endless eons and limitless opportunities. I hope that most readers of the Panda's Thumb are annoyed by this crude caricature, but it's the standard tale, and when the narrator only has a paragraph, it's the one we're most likely to hear.

Evolution is, of course, much more complex, with much genetic interaction in the form of linkage disequilibrium and polygenesis just to name a few of the processes that occur. Add to this that there is genetic drift in populations that often results in gene fixation and flow between them that allows for the persistence of deleterious genes. Now it seems that evolutionary "buffering" occurs.

It is well known that, in the course of genetic replication, there is, often, duplication of genes. This extends to developmental genes as well. As Steve notes, most developmental genes are regulated by other genes called enhancers. These are also susceptible to replication. Recounting recent work by Frankel and colleagues on flies, he writes:

What if the redundant enhancers can also buffer against genetic disasters? The experiment was straightforward: they deleted one copy of a major developmental control gene (called wingless). Those animals are just fine, until they lose the buffering of the shavenbaby [a developmental gene] shadow enhancers. Without the redundant system, the loss of one wingless gene leads to a significant change in developmental patterning. The conclusion, I think, is quite interesting: the impact of the shadow enhancers only becomes apparent when the system is stressed, by environmental challenges and even by genetic problems elsewhere in the genome.

In other words, these developmental duplications allow for the genome to withstand some seriously bad mutations. This increases genetic diversity and genetic load in a population, which allows for greater adaptability to environmental change and insult. Neat stuff.

Win a Free Copy of Signature in the Cell

Anyluckyday.com is sponsoring a contest in which you can win a copy of Signature in the Cell, the book by Stephen Meyer promoting the idea that the molecular genetics of the cell show the handiwork of a designer. Here is the promo video:



As you know, there is a lively discussion going on right now about the book between Meyer and Steve Matheson, up at Calvin College. He reviewed it chapter by chapter in his blog and the latest installment can be found here.

----------------
Now playing: Steve Hackett - Hands of the Priestess
via FoxyTunes

Steve Matheson Writes an Open Letter to Stephen Meyer

Steve Matheson has posted on his blog an open letter to Stephen Meyer following their colloquium/debate at Biola University. Subsequent to the event, a posting on the Discovery Institute's blog Evolution News and Views claimed that Dr. Matheson had conceded that design was the best explanation for origins of life questions. In a previous post, he writes that this isn't so. Here, he takes the gloves off:

Your Discovery Institute is a horrific mistake, an epic intellectual tragedy that is degrading the minds of those who consume its products and bringing dishonor to you and to the church. It is for good reason that Casey Luskin is held in such extreme contempt by your movement's critics, and there's something truly sick about the pattern of attacks that your operatives launched in the weeks after the Biola event. It's clear that you have a cadre of attack dogs that do this work for you, and some of them seem unconstrained by standards of integrity. I can't state this strongly enough: the Discovery Institute is a dangerous cancer on the Christian intellect, both because of its unyielding commitment to dishonesty and because of its creepy mission to undermine science itself. I'd like to see you do better, but I have no such hope for your institute. It needs to be destroyed, and I will do what I can to bring that about.

As Glenn Reynolds would say: Ouch! It is quite clear that those writing for the Discovery Institute have a fairly minimal grasp on the discipline (evolution) that they so seek to denigrate. This is clear from the writings of William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Marks, Jonathan Wells and Philip Johnson. It is also true that many posts or press releases from the Discovery Institute are either misleading or false (here, here, here, here and here just to name a few). All told, this gives one pause as to whether this organization is really involved whatever in a scientific enterprise and that it seeks to address the debate in an honest way.

----------------
Now playing: Todd Rundgren - Open My Eyes
via FoxyTunes

Steve Matheson Fires Back

Steve has posted a response to the Discovery Institute's claim that he admitted design was the best alternative. It is here. One of the key arguments that design proponents (or "cdesignproponentsists" if you prefer) put out is that evolutionary theory does not have a good explanation for origins of life questions. Stephen Meyer, author of The Signature in the Cell, believes that this is where design comes in. Matheson responds:

It may be the case that we don't have a complete account of the origin of life, and it's certainly true that we don't have a complete account of the origin of genetic information control systems. But such an admission implies nothing about whether such an account is possible or even likely, and that's where Meyer would have to do his philosophical work in order to help his case. In other words, to assert that "we haven't explained X" is most assuredly not to assert that "we cannot explain X." Think about it: there would be no such thing as science if this were the case. Scientists are all about asserting that "we haven't explained X," then proposing a way to change that.

Origins of life questions have never been a center of evolutionary biology studies. During the formation of the synthesis, these question were largely ignored and it was not until the Miller-Urey experiments in 1953 that these question were associated with evolutionary theory. These question are, in a sense, like those governing those of the Big Bang. One can theorize back only so far until it becomes a conjecture. Evolution deals primarily with the changes in established life forms and with common descent issues. One can look at the fossil record and see that, as one moves through time, there is greater diversity of life from simpler forms to more complex forms and that transitional fossils (fishapods, frogamanders) exist at junctures that, chronologically, precede in one case, teleost fish and tetrapods and in the other case, frogs and salamanders. This is very largely corroborated by DNA studies, which reflect the similarities and differences in organisms and have given rise to divergence trees. That these trees mirror, to a very large extent, the fossil record is not exactly a smoking gun for universal common descent but it is pretty good model from which to work.

Hi experience was not entirely positive, however:

Anyway, Meyer spent a lot of time explaining why it matters that certain origin-of-life postulates are ineffective, but he never bothered to show that the current theories are in fact ineffective. What he did instead was attack a strawman (random flying-together of biological structures) at length, then erect a second one (a crude caricature of self-organization ideas) and attack it more briefly. Current thought focuses on the RNA World, and Meyer completely omitted any discussion of it. He meant to mislead the audience, and I think he was successful.

This straw man argument is not so unusual. While the Discovery Institute continually claims that evolutionary biologists put up straw men arguments about design, every single argument against evolution made by the writers there, from Phillip Johnson to William Dembski, takes the form of one. Steve's second and third posts should be up soon.

----------------
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - In The Lap of the Gods, Pt. 2 (Backing Track Rough Mix)
via FoxyTunes

Stephen Meyer to Face His Critics: Update

Somehow, I linked to the wrong description of the event that I posted about yesterday. Here is the correct announcement:

Dr. Stephen Meyer has written a book that is shaking the evolutionary establishment like “Darwin’s Black Box” and “Evolution: A Theory in Crisis” did in previous decades. Meyer has assembled a set of ideas based on the latest research on living cells that must be answered if traditional Darwinism is to survive. So we have assembled a powerful group of credentialed critics of Meyer’s “Intelligent Design” position to let him have it with both barrels. No hiding in dark libraries or murky laboratories - if Meyer has the goods, he needs to debate his toughest critics face to face! In addition, we will be screening some clips of the latest Illustra Media DVD titled “Darwin’s Dilemma” and providing free copies to each family who attends.

I have just heard from Steve Matheson, who will be on the panel. Steve is no friend of Signature in the Cell, Stephen Meyer's most recent book, so I suspect it will be a lively time.

BTW, the event description that I accidentally linked to takes place the following day and is called "The Cambrian Explosion: The Data Behind Darwin's Dilemma." It is hosted by "Paul Nelson, Rick Sternberg, Doug Axe, Stephen Meyer, John Bloom, and more."

----------------
Now playing: John Coltrane - My Favorite Things
via FoxyTunes

Steve Matheson, Signature in the Cell and a Persistent Misunderstanding on the Part of the Discovery Institute

Steve Matheson has posted his reviews of chapters 9 and 10 of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell. It does not start well. He writes:

Chapter 9 is called "Ends and Odds." Chapter 10 is "Beyond the Reach of Chance." Between them, they advance a straw man so idiotic that I wonder whether Meyer will be able to reclaim any significant intellectual integrity in the chapters that follow.

Matheson's point is that Meyer has gone to great lengths to argue that complex biological systems are too intricate to have arisen by chance. The problem is that this is exactly what Richard Dawkins argued in The Blind Watchmaker, in 1986. Dawkins wrote in that book that selection doesn't act all at once but rather in steps so that organisms become better adapted to their environments gradually. This is not random and does not happen by chance (Hence the METHINKSITISAWEASEL program). Yet, that is exactly what Meyer is arguing again.

This central failing of the book was addressed by Francisco Ayala, who wrote:

The keystone argument of Signature of the Cell is that chance, by itself, cannot account for the genetic information found in the genomes of organisms. I agree. And so does every evolutionary scientist, I presume. Why, then, spend chapter after chapter and hundreds of pages of elegant prose to argue the point? It is as if in a book about New York, the author would tell us that New York is not in Europe, and then dedicate most of the book to advancing evidence that, indeed, truly, New York is not in Europe.

What, then, is Meyer's point? Is this a misunderstanding of evolution on a phenomenally basic level? Beginning evolutionary biology students are taught that selection is not random and yet this seems to have completely escaped Meyer and the other writers at the Discovery Institute.

This sort of straw man is echoed in William Dembski's writings, in which he he equates genetic variation with a mathematical fitness function to show that evolution cannot create new forms. As I wrote about this:

Basically, he is stating that genetic variation, left to its own devices, won't turn up anything complex no matter how many iterations it goes through. In this instance, all fitness functions are averaged. Here's the problem: in no environment are fitness functions averaged. That is like saying that the earth has one climate all over and that it imposes no selection pressures.

This has been echoed by other writers and Dembski has never responded to this criticism. It is as if the concept of natural selection is completely foreign or is so repugnant as to be unacceptable and therefore, the DI writers continue to misunderstand it.

The problem that I have with this perspective is that this misunderstanding of natural selection has not gone uncorrected. Kenneth Miller, Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Jerry Coyne, Steve Matheson and Darrel Falk, just to name a few have written treatises strongly rebutting this position held by Meyer, Dembski and Michael Behe. These have been ignored. Therefore, to continue to promote this misunderstanding of natural selection and its role in evolution constitutes, as they say, a terminological inexactitude. This would not be the first time the Discovery Institute was accused of that.

----------------
Now playing: Steve Hackett - The Pool Of Memory And The Pool Of Forgetfulness
via FoxyTunes

Steve Matheson Takes on Signature in the Cell

Steve Matheson, professor of biology at Calvin College in Michigan has been going through Stephen Meyer's The Signature in the Cell. He is now on chapter seven. He points out something that probably bears some thinking about:

The question, it seems to me, is not whether superintelligent beings could have done this or that. It's whether we expect that they could have done this or that. And specifically, whether and when we are warranted in seriously considering their action as we formulate explanations. That's more tricky than most people seem to understand. On the one hand, superalien (aka supernatural) activity has a poor reputation as a scientific explanation, for very good reasons. On the other hand, there are situations we can imagine wherein superalien activity really is the only reasonable explanation at hand.

This is sort of a variant of "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." credited to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (one of the people suspected, by the way, of perpetrating the Piltdown forgery). The scientist in me just yelled

"yes, but it isn't testable."

This strikes at the nature of science. Is a scientific hypothesis testable or simply logical? As Steve notes, Meyer has to eliminate all possible causes for an explanation before the conclusion of Intelligent Design can be reached. As i wrote in his comments section: "Thus, while Meyer and other ID researchers can posit a supernatural design-by-fiat explanation for things like the flagellum or the blood clotting cascade, as long as there are reasonable evolutionary explanations, there is no compelling reason to consider Meyer's. Sure, you can't exclude ID from the realm of possibility but it provides no usefulness as an explanation. Such a dismissal is not necessarily simplistic. Given the current state of ID, we simply aren't warranted in considering the actions of a designer in formulating our explanations. Not yet."

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Sky Dawn
via FoxyTunes