What world do these people live in?

I'm talking about supporters of ID over at Dumbski's blog, UncommonlyDense.

A recent poll showing McCain gaining in the elections is quoted over at UD as saying:

Obama is losing badly among Catholic voters - by double digits now according to the pollster’s findings. The significance is that Roman Catholics make up about 40% of the Pennsylvania vote, slightly less than that in Michigan and are strong percentages in other states of the old rust belt running from Michigan, down through the Great Lakes and up into Ohio.

Their reasoning for why Obama is losing the Catholic vote?


Someone (their site has Pharyngula Watch where they normally attribute authorship) claims that PZ Myers is to blame for his little stunt a few weeks ago:

Paul Myers has not been at all bashful about aligning the flagship website of Science Blogs with Barak Obama and bashing Sarah Palin at the same time. As many of you know Paul went far above and beyond the call of duty recently by publicly desecrating the Catholic Eucharist and thereby making himself the enemy of Catholics everywhere.

So thanks, Paul, for doing such a bang-up job associating Obama supporters and Palin bashers with enemies of the Catholic Church. With friends like you Obama doesn’t need enemies!

PZ Myers's blog is very popular and attracts a lot of readers (including those who hate him and his views), but even his blog -- which has --- hits daily, has that kind of influence on the polls. Sorry, too much preaching to the choir (as it were) to think that he could be changing the course of the election (not to mention that he's not sold on Obama, though he views the Dems as a lesser evil sort of vote in general).

Denyse O'Leary, she of several blog posts cross referenced on several blogs, notes that many IDiots are upset at Ben Stein for criticizing Sarah Palin as the VP nominee for the GOP. As if ID were the only issue.

Delusions of grandeur. You would think they would have learned something after the box office failure of Expelled. Then again, they haven't even learned Biology 101.
Read more!

DaveScot and religion, again

DaveScot responds with a blog post to a comment made over at UncommonlyDense that argues that religious belief is the motor behind ID.

DaveScot replies:

Guilt by association is a logical fallacy.

You can’t ask any ID proponents to give up their religious faith anymore than you can ask an atheist Darwinist to acquire some religious faith. That isn’t how science works.

However, since I’m not a religious person I can quite easily give up any notion that the designer of either the universe or of life itself is a deity. I have no data on the nature of the designer other than what I can determine through the nature of the design.

As far as criticizing ID based on the religious beliefs of a number of its proponents (nearly all of them, actually), DaveScot is correct, it is a logical fallacy. This doesn't mean that ID isn't some sort of religious belief (it is, as I argue below), but it means we shouldn't determine that based on the beliefs of its supporters.

For the same reason, modern evolutionary theory shouldn't be criticized for being supported by a number of atheists (of course, not all supporters are: Ken Miller, Brown University professor and author of one of the most popular biology high school textbooks, is a Catholic -- as is Michael Behe, supporter of ID, to name but one example).

But DaveScot says "I’m not a religious person," a claim that rings hollow given his recent post that correlates ID as proof of God's existence and his claim that ID has a creator.


Here he supports that there was a designer and that designer, while he does not (he compulsively cannot) say it, is a stand in for God. It is an argument from ignorance as well (logical fallacy):

The counter-claim that chance & necessity is capable of the necessary tasks has not been demonstrated. It has not been shown that small mutations can ever accumulate into significant novel functional architectures that we observe in living things today. It has not been shown feasible by computer simulations of population genetics, in a laboratory, or in field observation.

Yes because something "has not been demonstrated" doesn't mean it didn't happen (he applies this rule to ID as well). Science does not work by giving up and suggesting that something supernatural (by definition, the designer is supernatural since there are no "natural" (naturalist is perhaps more appropriate) proofs of its existence) accounted for

directing or steering the course of organic evolution.

In accepting the concept of ID and the concomitant designer behind it, DaveScot is showing that he may not be religious (i.e., he doesn't go to church, pray, read the Bible, what have you), but he certainly believes in something.

In a previous post (commented here on this blog), he states,

So what exactly do they “see” that convinces them that God’s hand is all over the place? Obviously it isn’t rational evidence that can weighed, measured, or otherwise rationally evaulated because that would be science and furthermore it would be the science behind intelligent design.

Here he unequivocally connects "God's hand" with "the science behind intelligent design." If "the science behind intelligent design" shows its supporters "that God's hand is all over the place" -- then why doesn't he believe in God? He may say he doesn't believe in God and he may not even be lying (he may be confused; in order to lie one has to have awareness of an objective reality), but he is certainly confused, unless he doesn't really "believe" the science behind ID. If that's the case, he's just feeding off the money of Christians, just like the televangelists, et al.
Read more!

ID's DaveScot an agnostic?

One of the bloggers as Uncommon Descent, the one who goes by DaveScot, claims to be an agnostic. He is certainly convenient for the movement to try to claim that non-religious people can support ID. I normally don't bother with Dumski's website but while checking to see if I managed to register on their radar (so far I haven't, given my blog's lack of popularity, it could stay that way for some time) I saw a post made by DaveScot. I should also note that while I have followed the debate, I have an awareness of who he is but not of his positions (though he had a meltdown some time ago when Dumbski invited O'Leary to join his blog and DaveScot insulted O'Leary in a post that apparently is still available). On the other hand, I've encountered morons who like to invoke DaveScot's self-proclaimed agnosticism to try to refute ID's creationist roots.

But in this post from August 22, DaveScot reveals his own theism. The post is a response to a video prepared by the AAAS to the horrid documentary Expelled.

The video shows a number of science teachers who support the modern theory of evolution and still believe in God.

DaveScot questions their views, writing

So what exactly do they “see” that convinces them that God’s hand is all over the place? Obviously it isn’t rational evidence that can weighed, measured, or otherwise rationally evaulated because that would be science and furthermore it would be the science behind intelligent design.

The statement makes the following connection "God's hand" "all over the place" = "the science behind intelligent design."

This following statement is absolutely bizarre and I am not sure what to say in response:

Personally I think these people are either liars who are not convinced they see God all over the place or they are being truthful in becoming convinced of things with no rational evidence which technically means they are hallucinating and probably shouldn’t be allowed to drive a car lest they start seeing these big designing hands in the road and swerve to avoid them.

By his (admittedly faulty) reasoning here, if one believes in God, then one supports ID (or should), if one doesn't, then one should support modern evolutionary theory (or should). His reasoning is wrong (as I explain below, there is no reason why one cannot be both a supporter of modern evolutionary theory and believe in God -- Pope John Paul II apparently did) but by his own reasoning, he is not an agnostic since he supports ID.

He closes with the following:

Sorry if I’m offending anyone but these people disgust me. They’re all like “I believe in rational inquiry, science, and bearded thunderers who live in the sky and worry about my immortal soul”. Please. Choose one or the other but not both.

Stephen Jay Gould was fond of saying that religion and science do not interfere with each other (or at least, they don't have to) as they refer to different magisteria. Science is guided by methodological naturalism and is a method of examining the world around us. Religion is not directly contradicted by the claims of science. Even Pope John Paul II had no problems with the theory of evolution: God was important in two moments in the history of the universe: its creation (a point that cannot be proven or disproven by science per se; and one that has no bearing on the theory of evolution -- the creation of the universe is a problem for physics) and giving humans souls (definitely outside the realm of science).

If religion is about the soul and science the body, there is no contradiction. One can use science and say that God doesn't exist -- there's certainly no need for God to exist in science's view (see the concept of God of the Gaps). One can use religion and say we have a soul (it's not measurable by scientific instruments) and science can say that it doesn't have a weight (even dark matter and dark energy are detectable, in part because of their weight and influence they have on the universe), but if you want to believe that, that's fine (as far as science is concerned).

DaveScot wants to eliminate the distinction between religion and science and make them the same. Again, if he supports ID, then he has just professed his faith in the existence of some sort of God. If he doesn't, then he's a hypocrite.

Of course, so far all the evidence that science provides shows that God is not necessary. I read a nice essay before the Dover trial (summer or fall 2005) that pointed out that not only was ID not science, it was also bad theology. Maybe that's why the Catholic church has yet to embrace it (and if they distinguish it from theistic evolution, they probably never will).
Read more!

So ID is creationism: ask Denyse O'Leary

A few weeks ago, Rob Breakenridge of The Calgary Herald wrote an article that questioned Albertans' commitment to creationism. He refers to the choice of Albertans because a poll was taken of Canadians from across the country, giving them evidently three options: evolution, humans were created in their present state about 10,000 years ago by God, and don't know. The overall results:

Overall, 58 per cent of Canadians say they are believers in evolution.

But Breakenridge notes a tendency:

By region, the numbers are more or less in keeping with the national average.

And an exception:

However, there's one notable exception in this poll: Alberta.

A shockingly low 37 per cent of Albertans supported the position that humans beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years. An even greater number of Albertans -- 40 percent -- agreed that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.

He then wonders about why Albertans are different from other Canadians:

Does this represent some serious shortcomings in our educational system? Have we been swayed by the charlatans of the Intelligent Design movement? Is there some truth to the stereotype of Alberta as a hotbed of religious fundamentalism?

And rather than providing an answer suggests:

If these numbers are accurate, we need to understand the source of the problem and correct it. The fact that Alberta boasts Canada's first creation museum suggests that these depressing numbers are not the product of some rogue poll.

And one thing he looks into is the lack of evolution education included in the school system:

but here in Alberta two trouble spots need to be addressed.

Evolution is taught in Alberta schools, but not to the extent that it ought to be. Evolution is a component of Biology 20, and further explored in Biology 30. Of course, for high school students, those courses are optional.

Other experts have cited the need to further incorporate evolution into the science curriculum and, poll numbers aside, the case for such an overhaul is strong.

Furthermore, although Alberta's model of school choice is commendable, is may also be a source of the problem.

Alberta taxpayers should not be subsidizing pseudoscience and religious dogma masquerading as legitimate curriculum.

The government recently announced an increase in per-capita funding to private schools, providing those schools meet a specific set of criteria. That criteria should include a ban on the teaching of creationism and its gussied up offspring, Intelligent Design.

And it is the final sentence in this passage that upsets O'Leary who states her own preference for "humans were created in their present state in the last 10,000 years, writing:

Breakenridge also frets, “An even greater number of Albertans—40 percent—agreed that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.” That’s easy to explain. It was the only other option (barring “don’t know”). The ever-popular “God uses evolution” choice wasn’t offered.

Forced to choose between excluding God and including him, I’d pick option two, even though I accept NASA’s estimate of our Earth’s age (4.5 billion years) and consider common ancestry a reasonable idea.

That she supports Intelligent Design (she is now a co-blogger at William Demski's blog, Uncommon Descent) and believes that "humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years" and that "God uses evolution" are fairly synonymous with ID is quite telling.

ID has worked hard at its PR campaign (and that's about all ID is, since they haven't produced anything resembling real (scientific) research) distinguished its views from creationism; part of the whole point of calling it Intelligent Design was being able to talk about creation through design without having to discuss the nature of the designer (that's God, in case you lost track).

The strategy has failed thus far. They lost the only important court case they were in (Dover, Pennsylvania) and it was revealed there that their textbook was rewritten from a creationist textbook after the Supreme Court prohibited the teaching of creationism in 1987. No credible scientist has professed an interest in ID. The few that have have only furthered the criticisms that mainstream scientists have of ID by failing to produce any form of research that supports ID.

The columnist, Breakenridge, has a rebuttal to O'Leary's piece which was published by the Herald. He notes:

O'Leary's piece ran Saturday in the Herald, although there is no web link for it. Her piece, though, is very typical of the ID movement - she offers nothing to make the case for ID, but rather attempts to point out flaws in evolutionary theory.

He also presents evidence that undermines her criticisms of evolution.

But O'Leary's biggest mistake was associating her answers with God.

Remember this for the next case; with all these gaffes I'd be surprised if it even makes it to trial.
Read more!

Religious organization lawyers = idiots

University of California vs. ACSI

After witnessing the Thomas More Law Center crash and burn in the Dover trial, and witnessing the regular stupidity of Casey Luskin of the Discovery (sic) Institute regarding Intelligent Design, it is perhaps not a surprise that the lawyers for a Christian high school in California were inept.



Besides losing the case (not a surprise), a scan of the ruling for summary judgment on the remaining claims (I'll address this in a later post in a couple of days; maybe I'll even have a reader or two by then) reveals utter incompetence (on several levels). The document reads:

The newly acquired expert affidavits, in which the experts analyze each of Plaintiffs' 38 challenged course rejections, were signed by the experts on June 12, 2008 (Vitz), June 12, 2008 (Stotsky), June 9, 2008 (Behe), and June 13, 2008 (Guevara).

What reveals one layer of ineptitude is the following:

The discovery deadline passed on July 15, 2007. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(C) required all expert discovery to be complete at least by August 21, 2007, 90 days before the trial date. (Docket No. 48.) One month after this expert discovery deadline passed, this Court continued the trial date indefinitely in light of the massive volume of filings and issues presented by the first round of summary judgment motions. (Docket No. 145.) This continuance did not revive the discovery period for experts.

A further ineptitude is when the testimony served as, what one poster or commenter at scienceblogs (probably at dispatches from the culture wars, though I may have read a post at another scienceblog about the trail and this tidbit) a self goal. Scored by Behe.

In case you weren't aware, Michael Behe is a professor at Lehigh University where he has been largely disowned by his department -- both his website and the department's own site include statements about Behe's interest in Intelligent Design and how his colleagues do not see that as science (they are right, but that's another topic). He was an expert witness for the defense in the Dover trial and tried to argue that ID is scientific. Instead, what he admitted was that in order for ID to be scientific, the rules of science need to be adjusted to as they were in the 18th century, when, among others, astrology was a science. Astrology. Horoscopes. Goal! -- for the prosecution.

In this trial he testified that dogmatic points of view were bad for intellectual development. Goal! This time for the defense. Except he was a witness for the plaintiffs. He was apparently trying to say that presentation of modern evolutionary theory without criticism was a dogmatic approach. Of course, there is absolutely no scientific controversy over evolution. The judge decided to use the statement to criticize the fundy school's use of biology textbooks that say that where science and the Word of God (by Bible, presumably in King James translation) conflict, one should take the Word of God over the results that science provides. Goal -- again, self goal.

With lawyers who can't even follow rules of procedure and "expert" witnesses like Behe, the fundies and other allied groups will continue to lose lawsuits.

And here is the rest of it. Read more!