Louisiana and the Future of Science Education May Be At Risk

I am a strong proponent of proper science education. Science is an orchestrated methodological study of the occurences and phenomena experienced by both ourselves and our instruments. It rests in operational language based on empircal backings and theoretical frames with no invocation of a priori intuitions or expectancies.

This is the fabric of science. Yet, there will always exist people who desire, whether with ulterior motives or due to their lack of comprehension, to ruffle the very fabric of the scientific enterprise. Science is used to such ruffling, but sometimes the demagogues in control are too convincing for the ignorant and naive public. Thus, their pseudoscience becomes commonly accepted amongst the non-scientific minded, and accepted into the minds of the laymen as if the mechanics of the pseudoscience was how science operated and function.

Intelligent design creationism (IDC) is the major culprit of the modern era, moreso than persistent quantum physics and relativity deniers and people who still think the caloric is a measurable quantity. It plagues this nation like an annoying flea, hopping from location to location to test the waters of local, state, and federal governments.

Through the decades, creationism has tested itself in the higher courts and utterly failed to present itself as a valid source of instruction. Again and again, its blatant errors being pointed out by not only those who are at the top of their fields of speciality but also by their very students. Even I who have had very little formal training in biochemistry and evolutionary biology can see the errors in those respective fields.

IDC is a mockery not only of the sciences which they attempt to represent in their faux mannerisms, but IDC also makes a mockery of the scientific method in general. By attempting to circumvent the necessary requirement of determining the existence of a designer but instead concentrating on hypotheticals of "designed systems", they fail to meet the requirements of developing a proper operational definition backed with empirical as well as theoretical framework for support. IDC is all presentation with no calculation and no attempt to present itself honestly to an informed audience in the fields tangentially addrsssed by the proponents of IDC.

But why do I bring up IDC? Because the governor-elect of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, has stated that intelligent design is on equal footing with the theory of evolution as a scientific topic to be taught in science class. I fear that the flea infestation is about to begin. Though I do plan on continueing addressing modern research concerning the interface of chemistry and physics, I have a deep commitment to proper science education and the future of my state. Expect more diverging topics in the future.

Send Them Crawling Back to Their Old Hovel

A common creationist reply to examples of evolution in prairie mice, fish, insects, bacteria, and viruses is that those organisms are still prairie mice, fish, insects, bacteria, and viruses, respectively. Despite the level of obliviousness to the genetics and physiologies that differentiates populations from one another, creationists have no problem promoting the "microevolution but not macroevolution" meme. This tactic is simply them crawling into a hole filled with ignorance. Ignorance of biology specifically and science in general. But what happens when they attempt to crawl out of their hovel...?

Nick Matzke indicates that criticisms concerning the classic example of natural selection, the peppered moth story, arose vehemently from the creationist corner when a simple critique of methodology was addressed by, ironically, scientists who study peppered moths. However, to due to the incompetency of the creationists, the creationists failed to differentiate criticisms from a complete dismantling and declared early victories for an alleged defeat of a "Darwinian" paradigm.

However, the very scientist who creationists quoted to support their early victories has been for the past seven years carefully studying the bird predation of the peppered moth. From a news story about his recent talk:

Now a Cambridge professor has repeated the key predation experiments with the peppered moth, only this time he has taken into account the criticisms and apparent flaws in the original research conducted 50 years ago. Michael Majerus, a professor of genetics at Cambridge University, has spent the past seven years collecting data from a series of experiments he has carried out in his own rambling back garden. It has involved him getting up each day before dawn and then spending several hours looking out of his study window armed with a telescope and notepad.

He wanted a definitive test of the idea that selective predation by birds really was responsible for the differences in the chances of survival among black and peppered varieties of B. betularia. His garden outside Cambridge is in an unpolluted area so in this setting it should be the typical or peppered variety of the moth that has a better chance of survival than that of the black or carbonaria form; it is unlikely to be seen by birds against the mottled background of the lichen-covered trees.

In a seminal description of his results to a scientific conference this week in Sweden, Professor Majerus gave a resounding vote of confidence in the peppered month story. He found unequivocal evidence that birds were indeed responsible for the lower numbers of the black carbonaria forms of the moth. It was a complete vindication of the peppered month story, he told the meeting.

"I conclude that differential bird predation here is a major factor responsible for the decline of carbonaria frequency in Cambridge between 2001 and 2007," Professor Majerus said.

"If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution," he said.

Though I would use my words more carefully than Majerus at the end, it would only be because he has tenure at a prestigious university and I am simply a student in progress of my bachelors. Simply put, the peppered moth story is a classic example of natural selection in action. Though the science literature is full of other examples, none are as more easily comprehensible as the story of the peppered moth as it is built off of visualization, a tool even the below average student possesses. So instead of saying generic evolution, as Majerus had, I probably would have simply stated natural selection.

That point aside, Matzke gave us an enlightening tidbit at the end of his post. From the ARN blog:

IMHO...a couple of issues with the most recent peppered moth study. It's still a moth, and the evolution is an oscillation of populations, just like the finches of Galapagos. Of course, the Darwinists will appeal to the "great creators", random chance, natural selection, and the jackpot, hundreds of millions of years. Given enough time, anything can happen, right?

Game. Set. Match. The IDists are forced to crawl back to their creationist meme. Given enough time, perhaps they will finally own up to their history. However, this is doubtful. Those in great denial will do anything to remain in that ignorance-filled hovel.

William Dembski: Spinning Faster than a Whirling Dervish

William Dembski seems to be all in a huff over Kevin Padian's recent book review in Nature (Nature 448, 253-254). In short summary, Dembski begins with a false assessment and faulty aspiration, enters into a non sequitur discussion, and ends with a discussion of the back-slapping from his cronies and fellow misfits.

I especially enjoy Dembski's flaunting of his degrees and denouncing of others. Aside from his digression from Christian humility, his pandering to academic titles and associations as opposed to the arguments at hand is nothing new. Evasion is the key tactic of the intelligent design advocate, and the better rhetorical fluff surrounding your words the better.

Aside from that observation, I have been doodling in the margins of some of Dembski's original works. I doubt I can make as such a strong mathematical argument as Richard Wein (whom Dembski dismisses solely for his degree and not the arguments) or Wesley Elsberry and Jeffery Shallit. Or maybe I can and actually press a quantitative answer from Dembski, else he would be made a fool by an undergraduate.

I can only dream concerning his history of evasion.

Behe's Edge Misplaced

In the spirit of a new blog I stumbled upon, I decided to help out my local bookstore some. I was absolutely appalled at what I saw at my local Barnes & Noble. I am sorry that the pictures are fuzzy; I must learn to take steady photos with my cellphone.

First, I hit my college bookstore. It was atrocious, nay horrendous, to see Behe's diatribe, Edge of Evolution, parked right next to the collected works of Charles Darwin! (But admittedly funny to see a good book against ID, Intelligent Thought, not far from it) I was so traumatized by the site that I had to sit down in the comfy chairs that are only a few steps away from the science section (thank goodness...I wouldn't be so well-read in science and mathematics if the chairs were further away from that section). When I returned, I was resolute to move Behe to his rightful place: the religion aisle. But there were no openings in that section. So I decided on Plan B and placed the two Behe books in fiction. Sadly, the fiction picture did not come out very well.

When I returned to the science section, I saw the most hilarious book title ever: The Idiot's Guide to Intelligent Design. Perhaps the book isn't news because it was published eight months ago, but I can't help to chuckle at the irony in the title: only an idiot would attach themselves to the intelligent design movement. So I flipped through it. The expected arguments were presented in their expected formats. Perhaps if I have enough time, I'll return to that bookstore and review the book in total (I refuse to buy it; I'll just jot down notes as I read). That is, if it didn't get accidentally thrown away. I decided to place this book where it truly belonged; on top of the garbage can.
Next stop, the big Barnes and Noble in my city. I was more frustrated here, however. For one, it is a two story bookstore with all the fiction, philosophy, and religion books on the second floor and the science section on the first. Being secretive would be a difficult task. Secondly, their science section sucked. Dawkins' God Delusion, though a good beach read for a freethinker, was improperly placed in the evolutionary biology section. Perhaps it was just easier to shelf his book next to his other works, but really the book belongs in general science, along with his Devil's Chaplain (which, I would argue, is specifically philosophy of science, but that's too specific for most bookstores). Not far from Dawkins, however, is Of Pandas and People. This book was, without haste, placed on top of the nearest garbage can.
Now, there were four Behe texts advertised in the New Science section and three more stuck in the evolution section. Notice how a big text called Evolution is right next to it. I forget whose work that is, but I recall flipping through the pages and chuckling. That author would be upset if he found out he was only centimeters away from a demagogue. So, I eased his pain. I moved Behe's Darwin Black Box to the Religious Fiction section (picture too fuzzy), and I took all of Behe's books to the most proper section I could think of at the time: New Science Fiction.
What's hilarious it took me two trips to complete that task (I guess Behe isn't that popular in my home town). In between those trips, one of the copies of Edge was taken. I finished my evilness and saw the person who was flipping through the pages setting on that stores' set of comfy chairs. He was your average Sci-Fi nerd stereotype with the fogged glasses and nasal wheeze. I heard him mutter to his friend: "This is the best science fiction book ever". Very fitting, if I dare say so myself. I also found one of William Dembski's books (see below) in the science section, so I placed his in fiction. If you alphabetized Dembski in the Fiction section at my store, he ended up between two teen-girl novel series. Touching.
Lastly, I stumbled upon the Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design by Jonathon Wells. I knew exactly where this book belonged: in the bargain bin. I even removed the red dot that represent "cheap book" from one of the flimsy books in the bin and placed it on the cover. I wonder if any commotion occurred due to that act of pure vandalism? Surely not; I can't think of any person who would even pay $1 for inanity.

I apologize again for the fuzzy pictures. I'll try better to take clearer shots next time with the camera on my phone.

Dembskian Intelligent Design: A Front for Religion

(Note: This was my first post at my first web log. However, that web log has since been deleted, and I cannot even remember its title. I thought I had posted this when I moved to this blogging service, but I guess I did not. The following was my first attempt to expose the ID movement as religiously-centered organization moreso than a truely scientific enterprise. Go easy since it was my first rant against William Dembski)

From The Discovery Institute: Genesis Of 'Intelligent Design':

Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's [William] Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

Willaim Dembski's remarks in this meeting and a trend in his writing gives evidence that his version of Intelligent Design is simply a ploy to teach religion, specifically Christianity, in the school system. Intelligent Design is simply a front to religion. As demonstrated by the previous quote by Dembski, one of the leading components of the movement, as well as what he wrote in his paper titled "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" (published in Debating Design by Dembski and Michael Ruse, Cambridge Press 2004):

Inteligent Design...teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms (323).

Or in other words, the agent of intelligence is above natural mechanisms or essentially is God. Dembski has thus rehashed the First Cause argument of Aquinas to include an intelligent entity which is seperate from the universe but still mintains interactions within it. Though plausible, this statement is not back with empirical evidence or even deduced nor induced by observable datum but asserted. Dembski continues on in the conclusion:

Science is supposed to give the full range of possible explanations a fair chance to succeed...[S]cience may not, by a priori fiat, rule out logical possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by limiting itself exclusively to material mechanisms, has settled in advance the question of which biological explanations are true, apart from any consideration of empirical evidence (329).

Utilizing natural mechanisms as the sole explanation is not an arbitrary assignment from authority, or a fiat. It is from the lack of supporting evidence of a transcendent intelligence. Namely, by the definition of the term itself we would be unable to observe nor comprehend such a specimen, and as such it would simply be speculation as opposed to evidentiary synthesis concerning the pathway of origins. What is worse is this speculation is based entirely off of propositional logic, the form of logic which some scientists would argue is the antithesis of the scientific method or just simply bad science.

The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flaggelum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without an intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of an intelligence. As well, natural chrystals show signs of complexity; these structure came about via natural processes.

Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as as well as concievable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws ; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to percieving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.

Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes excedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexitiy have been shown to not be complex nor specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.

Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millenia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.

Intelligent Design: Affirming the Consequent

As one who is attempting to educate themselves on anti-evolution demagogy, I often hear recited by proponents of intelligent design theory a variant of the teleological argument. The classic teleological argument read as follows:

1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe is designed
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer

However, when we do a proper logical computation of the above argument, one finds that the argument is not sound under all variants.

Let us use the ID variant. Intelligent design proposes that, based on characteristics of a known designer, we can infer a designer from objects that possess certain attributes of design. That is, we know intuitively what occurs when a designer is present, and therefore it seemingly logically follows that we can infer a designer from the designed. That is: "If designer, then design".

So as to avoid confusion, that me rephrase the sentence as follows: "If designer, then complex specified information". Complex specified information is a term coined by IDists, so I will use that term (which is logically equivalent to the "design" mentioned earlier) so I can use intutive symbols to represent the atomic sentences or arguments as

D -> C

were D is designer and C is complex specified information. Now, the IDist claims that complex specified information exists, and that the existence of said complex specified information provides evidence of a designer. However, we see in the construction above that the designer is the antecedent of the conditional sentence and the complex specified information is the consequent. This does not bode well for the IDist.

In logic, it is a non-trivial fashion to show that affirming the consequent is a logical fallacy that renders an argument unsound. The argument is unsound simply on the basis of the definition of a conditional sentence. A conditional sentence is only considered false in a truth analysis when the consequent is false. The sentence is true so long as the consequent is true independent of the truth or falsity of the antecedent. Therefore, one cannot derive a truth-value from analyzing a conditional sentence "backwards" which is the case of the IDist.

Presidential Coincidences Evidence for an Intelligent Assassin

If we truly follow the arguments put forth by intelligent design advocates concerning the concept that all the cosmological constants are "just right" for our existence, then we are seemingly forced to concede much in terms of our human history being pushed by other intelligent agencies. Charles G. Lambdin puts it bluntly with the following example in his review on the intelligent design camp's latest movie:

The thesis of The Privileged Planet is no different than the classic case of Presidential coincidences: Abraham Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860, Kennedy in 1960. Both of their last names have seven letters. Both of their wives experienced the loss of child in the White House. Both were shot in the head on a Friday. Both were assassinated by Southerners and succeeded by Southerners. Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who was born in 1808. Kennedy was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who was born in 1908. Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, has 15 letters in his name. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has 15 letters in his name. Both assassins were known by three names. Booth was born in 1839, Oswald in 1939. As I am unable to imagine otherwise, these coincidences are too great to have occurred due to chance alone, so there must be some Intelligent Assassin behind it. Thus runs the reasoning throughout The Privileged Planet.

To be honest, I never knew this concerning the two Presidents. You learn something new everyday.

Dissenters Accosted at DI Retreat

Recently, our dear friends at the Discovery Institute held a conference at Southern Methodist University. For an organization that preached persistently how they have been censored, it speaks volumes for them to bully dissenters. The article below discusses a group of students from SMU whom came to protest the DI's presence in a peaceful manner: Darwin vs. Design conference - The Mix.

If you desire a full review of the speakers, vist the following reviews:

From Goosing the Antithesis, articles by Zachary Moore:

• Lee Strobel
• Jay Richards
• Stephen Meyer
• Michael Behe
• Q&A
• Final Thoughts
  

From Jason Rosenhouse's Evolutionblog:

• Part One
• Part Two
• Part Three
• Part Four
• Conclusion

Intelligent Design: A Scientific Front for Religion

From The Discovery Institute: Genesis of 'Intelligent Design':

Two years ago, at a National Religious Broadcasters meeting, the Discovery Institute's Dembski framed the ID movement in the context of Christian apologetics, a theological defense of the authority of Christianity.

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

Dembski's remarks in this meeting and a trend in his writing give evidence that his version of Intelligent Design is simply a ploy to teach religion, specifically Christianity, in the school system. Intelligent Design is simply a front to religion. As demonstrated by the previous quote by Dembski, one of the leading components of the movement, as well as what he wrote in his paper titled "The Logical Underpinnings of Intelligent Design" (published in Debating Design by Dembski and Ruse, Cambridge Press 2004):

Intelligent Design...teaches that biological complexity is not exclusively the result of material mechanisms but also requires intelligence, where the intelligence in question is not reducible to such mechanisms (323).

Or in other words, the agent of intelligence is above natural mechanisms or essentially is God. Dembski has thus rehashed the First Cause argument of Aquinas to include an intelligent entity which is separate from the universe but still maintains interactions within it. Though plausible, this statement is not back with empirical evidence or even deduced nor induced by observable datum but asserted. Dembski continues on in the conclusion:

Science is supposed to give the full range of possible explanations a fair chance to succeed...[S]cience may not, by a priori fiat, rule out logical possibilities. Evolutionary biology, by limiting itself exclusively to material mechanisms, has settled in advance the question of which biological explanations are true, apart from any consideration of empirical evidence (329).

Utilizing natural mechanisms as the sole explanation is not an arbitrary assignment from authority, or a fiat. It is from the lack of supporting evidence of a transcendent intelligence. Namely, by the definition of the term itself we would be unable to neither observe nor comprehend such a specimen, and as such it would simply be speculation as opposed to evidentiary synthesis concerning the pathway of origins. What is worse is this speculation is based entirely off of propositional logic; the form of logic which some scientists would argue is the antithesis of the scientific method or just simply bad science.

The claim for intelligence is that there is specified complexity in life. The argument in Dembski's essay essentially relies upon the observation of complex systems, such as the bacterium flagellum or the existence of DNA and RNA transcription and translation processes, in order to be evidence of intelligent design. He argues that Darwinism takes natural explanations a prior, a position which is not objectively verifiable. He calls such a technique "armchair philosophy"; ironic, since it is not justifiable to see a complex system and sum it up as stemming from a purely intelligent source. As previously mentioned, this proposes that complex systems cannot be established without intelligence behind the formation. This is a dubious statement; snowflakes form complex patterns without the aid of intelligence. As well, natural crystals show signs of complexity; these structures came about via natural processes.

Dembski concludes with a quote from Darwin's Origin of Species: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." However, Dembski's position and the totality of Intelligent Design movement has a problem; namely, the problem is that it is not science but arm chair philosophy. The "facts" are based on dubious and weak propositions. His position is against the observation of natural known processes and predicting the combination or recombination of these naturally known process, as well as conceivable and evident ancient processes to give rise to new processes in a biological system. He argues that using unknown variables is simply unscientific. His position is simply summed up as since we have evidence of intelligent beings creating specified complexity, for example humans manufacturing machinery, and we extend this observation into the search of intelligent life, for example the SETI project scans deep space for electromagnetic activity that could be translated into possible communication, then why can not that extension be made into an intelligence which is not dictated by natural laws? The intelligence, by default, is transcendent of natural laws; as such, it is not affected by these laws which would leave a verifiable path of existence. Being organisms with a perspective subjected to such natural laws, we are limited to perceiving only that which exists in the realm we live in, namely one of natural processes and natural observances.

Science is then forced into the realm of naturalism as adding the variable of a transcendent intelligence becomes exceedingly complicated and speculative. Science cannot justify the position with the subjective claim of the existence of truthful specific complexity, especially considering the examples given in papers pushing specific complexity have been shown to not be complex or specific. Science cannot justify positing an unobservable as the general causation. Science is limited to positing causation on observables such as Newton's gravity or Maxwell's heat and electromagnetism. It is "armchair philosophy" to sit back and posit an intelligent designer without valid justification.

Dembski, combined with his previous quote from the article, is simply attempting to inject Intelligent Design into the education system. By first positing the logical possibility of an intelligence and by describing the intelligence as a being that transcends natural laws, he has essentially created the essence of God natural theologians had developed a millennia ago. This is a tactic that is clear, and one can only hope that our education system can maintain its protection from this unscientific, religiously motivated movement.