June 9, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Sarah Palin has been cleared of all 13 ethics charges brought against her during her bid for the vice-presidency. Many will never hear this fact. Many who do, because of their news sources, will laugh and say, “See! I knew she was innocent!” But I hear and I’m saddened. I would that she were guilty than that this trend were becoming the norm in my country.
It is obvious that the accusations were made to defame during the election. It’s OK with the accusers that she is vindicated after it no longer affects the outcome desired.
It is also obvious that the charges were made to sway a public that cares about ethics. What an irony! Those who made each of the original accusations must have known, surely they must have at least suspected, that the charges they were bringing were untrue. This is not the same as two parties debating an idea for its truth. That should be encouraged. There is something ironic, however, about a group having the power to attack someone’s ethics in an unethical way. At the very least, they simply didn’t care about the truth more than they cared about their cause. This is not a condemnation of a party. It is a condemnation of a people. Oh, God, what is to become of a people who care more about their cause than about the truth?

Posted in Culture & society, Politics | No Comments »

May 7, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Recently you have probably heard the swine flu described in terms of deaths in Mexico, followed closely by words like “pandemic” and “quarantine.” Last time I heard, those deaths were in two digits. Any deaths are of course tragic, but for years the average lives lost to flu in the United States alone exceed 36,000. The world’s experience with swine flu hardly qualifies as a “pandemic.” As a matter of fact, people do not normally get swine flu. What people do normally get, however, is hype from the media. They got to keep you watching!
The part that amazes me is that it works. We do not get our medical information from science; we get it from popular media. Unfortunately we don’t even get most of what we call science from science. We believe and make our judgments based on a kind of “politically correct” science. By “politically correct,” I mean facts filtered and presented to the masses based on some group’s agenda. It is emotionally charged for some predetermined conclusion or action. I’m not even sure there is such thing as unbiased science, but I am sure we can do better. Does it matter? How about spending billions on finding a cure for a disease that is behaviorally correctable, while the number one killer, heart disease, receives about one eighth the funding?
Is there an agenda behind most of what we hear on global warming? I’ve seen the markers in Alaska where the glaciers once reached. No one doubts that the world is warmer than it was 200 years ago, but that was during what is now known as the “little ice age.” The earth’s temperature has fluctuated warmer and cooler as far as we can tell for all of recorded history–long before industrial pollution was invented. The cause of climate change is, to say the least, controversial. The leap that man is responsible is vanity. That we are thus able to fix it is arrogance. “You really can’t settle the issue by more heated debate…You need experimental data.”
But it sells newspapers, and it justifies research grants. It doesn’t boost either to point out that 95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor, or that CO2 is harmless to animals and essential for plants.
All my ranting so far is really about one thing: Our lives are so filled with other things, and we are so dependent on the digestion of ideas by other people, that we are suckers for someone else’s agenda. Could it be true of other “science”? Are the masses buying evolution because the evidence is so irrefutable, or could it be that the fit with secularism and research grants is not coincidental? After all, we must discover our self-made roots and whether other life has evolved out there. It’s too coincidental not to be questioned.

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, History, Science and faith | 4 Comments »

March 22, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Last week an official letter was sent by the ACLU and others to leaders in the Obama administration protesting the denial of academic freedom for certain persons seeking admission into the United States. The apparent reason for denial of these persons’ visas was outspoken ideological differences with our government. I am not here concerned with whether these people should be allowed into the United States nor do I necessarily take issue with the missions and approaches of all the organizations that signed the letter. I would however, like to recommend that the ACLU read again this letter that they have posted on their website the next time they wish to object to a teacher who simply presents ideological or scientific criticisms to Darwinian evolution theory. To make it easier for them, I have copied the entire text below, highlighting phrases and whole sentences that could as easily fit the
mistreatment of Darwin critics; whom apparently the ACLU finds more threatening to our civil liberties than political dissidents.

March 18, 2009

Dear Attorney General Holder and Secretaries Clinton and Napolitano:

Over the last eight years, the Departments of State and Homeland Security revivedthe practice of “ideological exclusion,” refusing visas to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activistsnot on the basis of their actions but on the basis of their ideas, political views, and associations. As a result of this practice, dozens of prominent intellectuals were barred from assuming teaching posts at U.S. universities, fulfilling

speaking engagements with U.S. audiences, and attending academic conferences. Many of those barred from the United States were vocal critics of U.S. foreign policy.

We are writing to urge you to end this practice. While the government plainly has an interest in excluding
foreign nationals who present a threat to national security,no legitimate interest is served by the exclusion
of foreign nationalson ideological grounds.

To the contrary,ideological exclusion impoverishes academic and political debate inside the United States. It sends the message to the world that our country is more interested in silencing than engaging its critics.It undermines our ability to support political dissidents in other countries. And it deprives Americans of a right protected by the First

Amendment.See Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753 (1972).No legitimate interest is served by the government’s use of the immigrationlaws as instruments of censorship.

In fact, ideological exclusion is a practice that history had discredited long before the Bush administration. During the Cold War, the United States used the ideological exclusion provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act to bar, among others, Colombian novelist Gabriel García Márquez, Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish, Chilean poet Pablo Neruda, Italian playwright Dario Fo, British novelist Doris Lessing, and Canadian

writer and environmentalist Farley Mowat. Those exclusions came to be seen as an embarrassment to the country, and virtually no one proposes now that those exclusions served the national interest. History will judge the ideological exclusions of the last eight years in the same way. Such exclusions are ineffective as a matter of security policy and they are inconsistent with the ideals that make this country worth defending.

The undersigned organizations are eager to see the new administration commit itself to these ideals. Accordingly, we respectfully ask (1)
that you evaluate applicants for admission to the United States on the basis of their actions rather than their political beliefs and associations; (2) that, as to foreign scholars, writers, artists, and activists who are deemed inadmissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act, you exercise your discretion to waive inadmissibility except where articulable national security interests unrelated to the applicant’s political beliefs or associations make waiver inappropriate; and (3) that you immediately revisit the specific cases listed below:

• Iñaki Egaña. Mr. Egaña is a respected historian and writer from the Basque region of Spain. In March 2006, Mr. Egaña traveled to the United States to conduct research for a book about Basque author Mario Salegi, who was a target of McCarthyism during the 1950s. Upon disembarking the plane, however, Mr. Egaña and his children were interrogated, detained for 24 hours, and forced to return to Madrid. The government has provided no explanation for Mr. Egaña’s exclusion.

• Haluk Gerger. Professor Gerger is a Turkish sociologist and journalist. He was jailed by Turkey in the 1990s for his writing about Turkey’s Kurds. Twice during that time, in its 1994 and 1995 Country Reports on Human Rights, the U.S. State Department cited Professor Gerger’s treatment as an example of the misuse of antiterrorism legislation to stifle freedom of expression. In 1999, when Professor Gerger was on trial again for his writings, the U.S. issued Professor Gerger and his wife 10-year, multiple entry visas. In October 2002, however, when Professor

Gerger and his wife arrived at Newark airport, border officials informed them that the State Department had cancelled their visas. The governmenthas provided no explanation for Professor Gerger’s exclusion.

• Adam Habib. Professor Habib, a South African national, is a prominent human rights activist and public intellectual. Although he earned his PhD in the United States, when he attempted to visit the United States in October 2006 for professional meetings, he was interrogated for seven hours at the border and then told that his visa had been revoked. After U.S. organizations filed suit to challenge his exclusion, the government notified Professor Habib that he had been denied entry on terrorism-related grounds. It still has not has not informed him, however, of the specific legal or factual basis for its decision. The evidence strongly suggests that Professor Habib has been excluded not because of any

connection to terrorism but because of his political activism.

• Riyadh Lafta. Dr. Lafta, an Iraqi national, is Professor of Medicine at Baghdad’s Mustansiriyah University. In the fall of 2006, Dr. Lafta applied for a U.S. visa in order to attend a speaking engagement at the University of Washington that was to take place in April 2007. His visa application was denied. Although the government stated that the denial was the result of a “miscommunication,” the circumstances strongly suggest that Dr. Lafta was refused a visa because f conclusions he had drawn in a 2006 article regarding the number of civilian casualties in Iraq.

• Tariq Ramadan. Professor Ramadan, a Swiss national, is a professor at the University of Oxford and, in the words of Time magazine, “the leading Islamic thinker among Europe’s second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants.” In 2004, he was offered a teaching position at the University of Notre Dame; only days before he was to begin teaching, however, he was told that his visa had been revoked under a provision that renders inadmissible anyone who has “endorse[d] or espouse[d]” terrorism. After U.S. groups filed suit, the government abandoned the accusation that Professor Ramadan had endorsed terrorism. It continues to exclude him now, however, under the INA’s “material support” provisions. We believe that the material support provisions do not apply to Professor Ramadan, and the evidence strongly suggests that he has been excluded not because of his donations but because of his vocal criticism of U.S. foreign policy.

• Rafael de Jesus Gallego Romero. Father Gallego is a parish priest from the village of Tiquisio in North-Central Colombia, where he ministers to miners and peasants, facilitates community support initiatives, and runs a local radio station. Father Gallego is also a vocal critic of government-supported paramilitary units acting on behalf of multinational mining corporations. In the fall of 2008, Father Gallego received invitations to travel to the United States to address universities, activist organizations, community radio stations, and churches. The U.S. government simply failed to adjudicate the visa. Father Gallego eventually learned from the Provincial Jesuit, who has ties to the American Embassy, that his visa was going to be denied “for national security reasons,” buthe has never received a formal notification that his visa was adjudicated, let alone an

explanation of the grounds on which it was denied.

• Dora María Téllez. Professor Téllez was a leading figure in Nicaragua’s revolution against the brutal Somoza regime, and has served in her country as a government minister, political activist, and professor. She has also been a vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy. In 2004, she was appointed Robert F. Kennedy visiting professor in Latin American Studies at Harvard’s Divinity School and Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies. When Professor Téllez attempted to enroll at a language class in California in preparation for that post, however,< class="MsoNormal" style="text-autospace: none; margin-top: 0; margin-bottom: 0">her student visa was denied on the ground that she had previously engaged in terrorist acts, despite the fact that she had been granted visas to enter the United States in the past.

Ideological exclusion compromises the vitality of academic and political debate in the United States at a time when that debate is exceptionally important. The practice was misguided during the Cold War and it is misguided now. We strongly urge you to end the practice and to immediately revisit the cases noted above.

Sincerely,

(Among others)

American Civil Liberties Union

American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California

American Federation of Teachers

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Notable Quotes, Science and faith | 2 Comments »

January 29, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Mark,
I have never brought up meanness or rudeness, much less suggested they were evidence for anything. I have used the phrase “God did it” as a comparison with “evolution did it,” not as a summary of my position. And I am sorry if you are insulted by the principles of culture (which equally apply to my own). We can come back to that later. For now, allow me to hit that less directly with comment about evidence and mechanisms:
In the first few sentences of your last email, and throughout, you present all evidence as either for or against evolution. You are not accepting evidence as possibly being for or against any other position. Therefore, if you see evidence supporting evolution, then it is positive evidence; if it does not support evolution, then it is negative evidence. You cannot see positive evidence for design, as long as you look only from the position of Darwinian evolution. My argument to you about design in the Cambrian Explosion was not presented as negative evidence for design. That there are no interim forms in one layer (a negative observation) is only part of the argument. That there is fantastic order in the immediate next (a positive observation) is the other part. Together they are evidence. One without the other is meaningless. Also, notice that in my argument I did not say that the evidence negates or even counters evolutionary theory. I merely argued that design was the better explanation of the two for the evidence. I am not trying to disprove evolution; I am trying to demonstrate that ID has a legitimate (scientific) place in the discussion of origins.
Sometimes evidence may be for one theory AND for another. For example, similarities between body parts in one vertebrate and those in another supports the idea that they may had a common ancestor, because they could have been passed on to both from a common ancestor. On the other hand it is evidence for design, because the parts may have similarities due to a common designer. On the other hand, the human eye is strikingly similar to that of the octopus, but no one argues for their common decent, because of their distinct body plans (something that is there). The conclusion is that similar parts do not necessarily support common origin, but this has no implications against design theory. You can say this is evidence for design, or you can say it is against evolution, depending on your frame of reference. In either case I believe it fits your definition of positive evidence, because it is about what is there, not what is not there.
As for a mechanism: In the equation “chance plus natural selection,” “natural selection” is only an eliminating factor, a filter, a terminator. All generative power must be in “chance.” Your response to my comments on nylonase was to say, actually to my surprise, that you believe change plus natural selection actually is a sufficient mechanism to explain the existence of life in its many forms. This implies to me that you do not see any reason to continue to investigate cause-and-effect for this molecule, that this molecule of thousands of atoms just happened by chance. Worse still, that a DNA pattern happened by chance that happened to work for giving instruction to produce just the right molecule to work in this specified new environment. That is not consistent with the scientific curiosity needed to drive discovery of new knowledge. It is however consistent with the reductionism that divorces one field of knowledge from another. It is consistent with not recognizing mathematics as having any bearing on other forms of science.
Just as a person can mentally disassociate science and philosophy, so evolutionists seem to disassociate chance and probability. A probability of .05 (one in 20) is considered robust among data across the sciences, but never applied to the probability of chance resulting in a desirable molecule. Discovering that organic molecules are produced exclusively by an independent set of molecular instructions has only made the probability more remote. The mathematic improbability of evolution by chance was clearly pointed out at the Wistar Institute conference of1966, and has been ignored by evolutionists ever since.
“Given enough time” is an insufficient answer when probabilities are so low. The ratio of documented useful mutations is so minuscule in comparison with documented harmful mutations in any given organism that any attempt to compute a ratio is purely speculative. The higher chances are that something can go wrong, the lower the probability that something by chance could go right, regardless of time. If I drop a drop of India ink into a tank of still water, how long will it take to spread into letters of a word—any word, any language? There comes a time when it either happens or it will never happen. The laws of thermodynamics tell us that beyond initial contact with the water the molecules continually disperse to less and less order. Adding reproductive power does not help the equation, if you can’t get a word that has enough meaning to warrant reproduction. Add to that that the reproductive power itself has to be reproduced without harm by mutation. Fortunately for us, natural selection works well as a means for terminating mutations. There can be no “unequivocal” evidence for evolution through chance plus natural selection. Chance plus natural selection is an idea to explain what exists, just as design is. It does not trump design as a mechanism.
I hope you have a Merry Christmas,
Don Mc

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 14, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Don

There is a mechanism known for the nylonase gene, and it is not Lamarckian. There is abundant evidence that Lamarck was wrong about his mechanism. And, contrary to your bald-faced assertion, chance + natural selection adequately explains the observations. If you have another explanation that involves deities twiddling with organisms in effluent ponds, what is the evidence for it? If you can’t provide evidence for it, then why should we accept it when a perfectly reasonable natural explanation is already in hand?

Coal in Spirit Lake? More AnswersinGenesis claptrap? Please. The TalkOrigins FAQ is down right now with server difficulties, but in a few days check this link

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

and let me know if an open-eyed look at actual evidence, rather than hopeful squinting at evidence, changes anything for you.

Furthermore, I don’t believe (and I hope that you don’t either) that God is useless in all contexts. But in the context of science, a God who meddles invisibly in daily activities is simply not a testable concept. You may think that your Maker’s “opinion” of you “matters”, but you have no objective evidence for that notion. Other religious viewpoints have other takes on that argument; none of them have objective evidence for any of it. So it is irrelevant. It may matter to you, but it doesn’t change anything about how science has to operate in the material world, without reference to vague notions of your importance to some invisible and untestable deity.

Again, this goes back to EVIDENCE. Science works with objective evidence. No evidence, no science. Provide the evidence, as I have pleaded with you to do every time, and science can be applied. Without new evidence, you provide science with nothing. So it is as if you are standing on the air hose, if air is analogous to evidence. If you truly believe that creationism is useful NOW (not in the past), provide some new air. Please. The “coal in Spirit Lake” example above is not new; it is just the latest incarnation of attempts to justify the BELIEF that the earth is a few thousand years old. Conclusion-first is not the way science operates. Even if this was true, and proved that coal can form rapidly, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence for an old earth would still have to be negated with relevant and objective and massive new evidence. Old-earth is an old argument, and it is both tired and wrong. Give us new evidence that doesn’t resemble old conclusion-first canards, please. Please.

As for why scientists have a strong reaction to creationism, there are plenty of reasons, and they might be different for different scientists. I can think of at least three quite readily.

One is, as noted above, we’re simply tired of beating down the some old dead horses. People who are tired get testy. If it’s science, give us scientific evidence for it. Until then, quit bringing up the same old conclusion-first attempts to justify your religious views.

Another is that the attempts so far to introduce creationism (and its bastard son ID) into scientific curricula are basically attempts to RE-DEFINE science by people who are not scientists. Engineers would get testy if non-engineers re-defined their enterprise. Plumbers would get testy if non-plumbers attempted to re-define plumbing. Sociologists would get testy if non-sociologists attempted to re-define sociology. Etc.

Another is the blatant dishonesty of the creationist/ID proponents. All of the attempts to introduce creationism/ID into science curricula are transparent attempts to introduce religious doctrines into science curricula. These attempts do not come from scientists, they come from folks with a religious agenda who are dishonest about that religious agenda. See “Wedge Strategy” for evidence of this dishonesty, if you really need it. Dishonesty rightfully breeds contempt.

So I don’t accept that the sole motive is that people “don’t want it to matter.” They don’t want it because it’s WRONG (scientifically), because it is coming from a decidely NON-SCIENTIFIC community, and because it is coming from folks who are being DISHONEST about their motives. There are certainly more motives, but let’s start with those three.

Scientific dialog is protected now; it doesn’t need an injection of dishonesty to get better. Science education needs to be focused on the science, not on some conclusion-first notion that aims to protect a particular religious doctrine.

Hope this helps

Mark

“If the cultivation of understanding consists in one thing more than
another, it is surely in learning the grounds of one’s own opinions.”
- J. S. Mill

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 5, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Mark,

You sent me three emails in one
day in reply to my last email to you. I will reply to the first and last, and I
will post them to the blog as one email. The middle one was certainly germane to
our conversation, but it was a post of a friend of yours in response to a
conversation to which I am not privy. I do not feel compelled to reply to
statements of others, nor will I ask you to reply to statements that I might
find somewhere. If you wish to summarize or restate the arguments as your own,
we’ll go from there. (Besides, that conversation seems peppered with a level of
ridicule toward the opposition, which we have so far managed to avoid.)

“God of the Gaps” logic is
pretty common. I see it on both sides of the argument, except in the case of
evolution it’s “Darwin of the Gaps.” I hope you see the parallel between saying,
“There are no fossils, therefore God did it,” and saying, “There is a
difference, therefore evolution did it.” The “objective evidence” for the first
statement is equal to the “objective evidence” for the second. You say I have
provided no mechanism, but to the same degree evolution provides no mechanism.
The mechanism in the argument I presented is an intelligent designer, in that
the designer is the logical explanation for the difference. The mechanism in
your argument is random mutation + natural selection, in that evolution is your
logical explanation for the difference. (Correct me if I’m wrong here about your
definition of evolution, because as yet you have not actually stated your
mechanism.) In either case the mechanism is used to explain the gap, and in both
cases, the mechanism cannot be proven. The designer is not at my beck and call
to do it again, and random mutation has never been demonstrated in a lab to
generate upgrades in life. As far as the “of the Gaps” position, we are both
empty-handed. Remember that I am not trying to disprove evolution, merely argue
that other arguments have an equal right to be on the table.

There is more however: In
Darwin’s day it was legitimate to say that the fossil evidence was so incomplete
that the gap might be leaped by evolution. Today and with every burial site that
yields thousands of fossils, including now fossil bacteria and dinosaur organs,
that position is less tenable. The fact that there are no fossils now IS
evidence.

I must call back now to your
quick dismissal of forensic science: Forensics is not a “strawman” for origins;
it is not even an analogy. Forensics is about history; origins science is about
history. Forensics is therefore about non-repeatable events; origins is about
non-repeatable events. Forensics uses currently known laws of physics,
chemistry, biology, etc. to investigate the probabilities of past events.
Origins science should do the same. Origins science is forensic science, if it
is science at all. Forensic science does not limit the causes of events to
chance; and to the extent that origins science does, it is not the total picture
of science. If there appears to be a leap in logic to this argument, then I
suggest that we are still on “Square One:” You have not allowed me the premise
that there just might be a Creator who has, could, or would intervene in the
affairs of the universe. To disallow this is a religious position. If we need to
take our argument back there, we can.

As for the book you have by now
reviewed: The promoters of the book show the same blinders I was writing about
in one of our earlier communications, and it will inadvertently cut into sales
and widen the gap of decent discussion. Tell me that the book is not religious,
having a cover that takes Michael Angelo’s painting of the human hand reaching
toward God and leaving out the image of God’s hand reaching back. Before I get
to the first page I am confronted with (not that there is no design but with)
there is no God. The image, taken from the
ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and obviously meant to recall it, is not even
a part of Michael Angelo’s creation sequence. It depicts the striving of man and
God to reach each other. I call that religion. Then let’s look at the language
of the web advertisement. Here you have a real straw man: “Is the Teaching of
Evolution to Be Banned in U.S. Public Schools?” Apparently some evolutionists
consider competition equivalent to banning. That would be the case if there is
nothing with which to compete. “Is Science Once More to be Burned on the Cross?”
I don’t recall that ever happening or even being proposed. And has the author
not dug deeply enough to discover the difference between Creationism and
Intelligent Design? And if the book is indeed “a critique of religious dogma,”
as the ad claims, then I have no use for the book. I’m interested in science. I
have enough books on religion. The book is obviously written as (please pardon
the expression) “preaching to the choir,” because no one would read the book who
does not already agree with it. It reminds me of another book,
Moral Darwinism: How we became hedonists. It too, was written for the
choir (the other choir), and it too, begins with Epicurus, except I know it
argues that Epicurus organized his writings by first trying to find a way to
justify his lifestyle and view of life (epistemology in The Canon), and
from there his observations On Nature. This is
easily documented, and is what creationists are condemned for (Canon of
Scripture to nature). The book you mention may well be a response to this one,
not the concepts of scientific creationism or intelligent design. Personally,
I’m more interested in dialog than alienation.

I commented on the books
because you brought that one to my attention. I’m more interested in your reply
to the fossil gap, the forensics argument, and if you wish to draw from your
friend’s comments.

Don Mc

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

January 1, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Don

This is, as I’m sure you understand at some level, a simple God of the Gaps argument. It translates to “Current scientific thinking can’t explain this to my satisfaction, therefore God did it.” That is not logical; there is no logical linkage between those two clauses. There is, as I’m also sure you know, exactly NO objective evidence for this conclusion. There is, as I’m also sure you know, no known way to test it, since you have provided no mechanism. It is unscientific in the extreme.

Surely you can do better than that.

I received this book

http://www.critiqueofintelligentdesign.org/index.php
http://www.critiqueofintelligentdesign.org/index.php

to review. It is a sociological treatment of the argument from design, dating back to Epicurus and Democritus. Since you are a sociologist, you might find it interesting. I haven’t written my review yet, but I will do that today.

If you do read it, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about it.

Happy Thanksgiving

Mark

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

December 28, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

With this post I begin a slightly different format. I have been posting once per week with my comment to Mark, followed by his immediate comment to me. Starting today I’m going to post each comment separately. There will still be one post from each of us per week, so the same pace, but allowing each comment to stand alone for a few days before posting the reply. As you read the close to this one, you will see how far behind the actual communication these posts fall, but be assured they are the actual, unmodified dialog.

Mark,
Re democracy: In general I prefer to ignore the words other people put into my mouth, but since you return to them, I will reply. I hope this is sufficient to dismiss them. I agree that science is not a “democracy.” Perhaps you would not have concluded that I meant “democracy” by “modern society” if I had said “educated” or “enlightened society.” I was attempting to compare the squelching of alternative views with primitive societies. I will stand by that. As for “balance” (the word from which you move to “journalism”), that was not my word choice, and we have only Gastaldo’s text to suggest that it was my friend’s choice. I do not feel compelled to defend the word, for either way, the intent was to place competing views side-by-side for the sake of debate. I don’t find that to be rare in scientific circles.
Re mistreatment: Perhaps I should have used your word for our treatment, “roughly.” Remember that in both examples we were treated “roughly” for our positions, not our evidence. If any rule of science was broken, it was to dismiss positions without hearing evidence. Evidence was never on the table. It wasn’t allowed.
Re minds only allowing one view: I would say anyone who will not hear evidence for an alternative view by definition only allows one view. If you are open to hearing, and truly considering, an alternative view of the data, then it is a non-issue. Let us proceed.
To get off Square One, I must back up from an assumption you have placed on me. You ask me to “please tell [you] what explanation [I] prefer for that period of evolutionary change.” I do not assume evolutionary change. I see differences between the complexity of organisms below and above the Precambrian-Cambrian demarcation. Evolutionary change is your presupposition for the difference. A person committed to evolution as the only possible explanation will only look at data in order to find HOW the data fits the theory, never asking IF the data fits the theory. If the data cannot be made to fit the theory, then the question is HOW can we tweek the theory to fit the data, never is there a more appropriate theory to fit the data.
So my question is, “What is the most rational explanation for the differences observed between the Precambrian and Cambrian deposits?” The question presupposes nothing about evolution, nor does it set limits on what that explanation might be. I have numbered my logic not necessarily because it is complete or sequential, though to the best of my ability it is, but so that you may refer to my statements by number, should you find objections or leaps in logic.
Every (multi-cellular) body plan found to exist today, plus many that do not are found in Cambrian rock. Depending on how one counts, that come to 30 to 40 phyla compared to today’s 20-30.
This Cambrian variety includes many phyla with eyes, including trilobites, anomalocarid and opabinia. Some trilobites had eye types more complex than found in any fauna today.
Precambrian rock contains almost no multi-cellular organisms (three phyla).
The Precambrian fossil record contains many soft-bodied organisms in great detail, including bacteria, suggesting that there were no developmental stages left out that can be blamed on preservation inadequacies.
The Cambrian is generally considered to have begun around 540 million years ago, with about 10 million years as a window for the end of the Precambrian. Precambrian dates cannot be pushed back further without major conflict with earth cooling and other formation issues.
Possible explanations for the findings:
Darwinian evolution posits that there was a gradual development of all organisms from one or a very few original organisms by naturally selected chance mutations. Darwin recognized that the Cambrian-Precambrian differences were problematic, but expected future fossil discoveries to provide transitional forms. They haven’t. The fossil record shows more distinct fauna in the Cambrian than today, not less.
Stephen Jay Gould’s solution was punctuated equilibrium, for which the main supporting evidence is the lack of support for gradual transformation. (Very rapid evolution, even without a mechanism, had to be his conclusion, because his atheism would not allow him to consider an alternative to evolution. But I agree with you that lack of evidence is not evidence.)
I suggest that without the possibility of time or fossil record to explain the vast differences between the two depositions, known laws of physics do not make chance mutation an option. The most logical explanation for the historical event (or advent) of Cambrian complexity is intentional, outside intervention. Translate that “design.”
 
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Don Mc

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

December 21, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

Mark,
Evidence? I suggested we discuss the Cambrian Explosion. I can’t find your reply. You asked for an example of “someone” mistreated for holding a different view of the facts. I gave you two, but two were considered anecdotal. If two were not enough to open the door to possibility, why ask for one? You stated that “it is impossible to get objective scientific evidence for a supernatural phenomenon.” If that is your view, and I don’t doubt you, then there is no evidence that would be acceptable. Do you have any comment on the main point of my last communication, that if a mind only allows one view, then no evidence can be acceptable for another? After that I will be glad to deal with my “straw man.”
Don Mc
 
[Don]
Please tell me exactly what about the “Cambrian Explosion” is problematic for evolutionary theory. Don’t just parrot some creationist website that says it is a problem, tell me specific problems and the evidence for those problems. And please tell me what explanation you prefer for that period of evolutionary change, as well as the evidence in favor of that explanation. Negative evidence doesn’t count; you can’t just tell me that there is a problem with the current explanation so therefore your explanation wins.

Re mistreatment, I don’t accept that someone who was trying to circumvent the rules of science was mistreated. Your and your friend were applying the analogies of democracy and journalism to science, and science doesn’t work that way. If it is mistreatment to have someone point that out to you, then we have a very different definition of mistreatment. Do you think you would get away with an accusation of mistreatment if a police officer pointed out that you were violating the traffic rules? That’s an accurate analogy.

I am pretty sure that there is plenty of support for my view that objective evidence for a supernatural phenomenon has, so far, been impossible to obtain. If you hold the contrary view, and it seems that you do, the easiest way to convince me is to provide that objective evidence. I’m open to being convinced, but I won’t just take your word for it. Show me that evidence, or how to obtain it, and I’ll gladly pursue it.

Re your point that “if a mind allows only one view, then no objective evidence and be acceptable for another” is just plain wrong. Scientists test hypotheses every day. They have one view, their hypothesis, in mind. But if they obtain objective evidence for another view, they readily adopt that other view. As I noted before, it is simply insulting to posit that scientists are close-minded about the evidence.

Mark
 
Mark,
Are you OK with me continuing indefinitely to post our dialog on the blog?
Don Mc

Yep
Mark

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

October 19, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

I recently I found the word "baramin" in
a creationist publication, and looked it up on the web; which led me to a
Wikipedia definition for "baraminology." There I was greatly disappointed to
find, "In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into
groups having no common ancestry, called ‘baramins’." This could have been stated better, but I’m OK
with it. But somehow the author(s) felt compelled to go farther with, "Like all
of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science:
modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.^[1]" I
checked out the reference ( numbered "1" in the previous citation), and found
"Science and Creationism: A View
from the National Academy of Science, Second Edition." I hope you can see a
problem here. (My fear is that you won’t, and thus stop reading. If so, you may
well be part of the problem.)

I will begin by recognizing that Wikipedia, as its name implies,
is only as authoritative as its collegial construction allows. Anybody, and I
mean anybody, can register and contribute to the construction of any article,
and its integrity depends entirely upon peer critique. (As a matter of fact, I
am under no delusion that you are guaranteed the same definition that I read,
should you follow the link a day or two later.) This works amazingly well
overall, until you come to a topic for which there is a strong political bias
such as creationism.

I am not here to argue for or against
creationism, but for an honest and, if I may, scientific discussion of science.
I will first explain what I see as illustration of the problem from this
article, then attempt to offer logical scientific justification for the demined
concept, and end with only a sentence or two on how the problem hurts science.
(I should hope that the hurt to science is obvious enough not to need more.)

The article, and any article claiming to
present facts for a rational public, should be as biases-free as possible. It
would be fair and honest to partially define baraminology as a branch of
creation science. It would be fair to link the reader to an article that states
that creation science is not considered to be true science by the broader
scientific community.  I would not even have a problem with this article
stating this, though it is not directly on the subject. To what I do object is
not offering the reader a chance to make up their own mind by even explaining
the approach that is baraminology.

I’ll start from the back end: "Modern
biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.^[1]"
Citation [1] does not argue that biological facts have shown that all life
descended from a common ancestor. It presents a position on creationism, and
even more honestly, calls it a "view." The link for "common ancestor" defines

the term much broader with no discussion of an ultimate common ancestor; the
link for "biological facts" does address the issue, but presents "evidence" for
the position, not proof as a "biological fact." In other words, the more the
reader investigates the claim, the less credible the statement becomes. Better
to understate than overstate references to create credibility. Unfortunately,
the following corollary is also true: The less a reader thinks (checks
references), the more credible the statement becomes.

The rest of the article goes on to
present some interesting and perhaps useful facts about the Biblical origin of
the word and the historical context for its theological debate. I had to go
elsewhere to find what baraminology really is!

So what is it? It does indeed begin with
the theoretical position that the Bible is an accurate history for which
scientific support is sought. (This could be called a theological position in
that it is based on certain assumptions about the extent of God’s involvement 
in our world and that the position is never doubted by its adherents; but if we
accept that, then we would have to classify the theory of evolution in the same
way, based on the position held by many of its adherents.)

The Biblical concept is that all
organisms do not originate from one single ancestor, but that there exist many
independently created "kinds," each of which is the origin of myriad species
today and in the past. "Kind" is a Biblical term, not a scientific one, so it is
not defined scientifically. "Baramin" is the combination of two Hebrew words
(created kind), and is a focus of creationist research: If God created kinds
without a common ancestor, then systematic research should be able to identify
categories of organisms that have major gaps (boundaries) among their
characteristics such that baramins can be isolated.

The approach is to put forth hypotheses
about what characteristics might constitute those boundaries and then to collect
data to see if clear gaps can be identified. These are testable hypotheses.
That’s scientific follow-up on theory. That’s science.

Is it needed? The current classification
structure of genus (meaning general) and species (meaning specific) is bankrupt.
I don’t think that’s too strong a statement, since after hundreds of years of
use a clear definition of what a "species" is has not emerged. Take for instance
the coyote ( Canis latrans), the gray wolf (Canis lupus), and the black backed jackal (Canis mesomelas). They are classified as three different species in the
genus Canis, yet domesticated dogs of any description are all considered to be
the same species (Canis familiaris). The term virtually has no meaning. So why haven’t
scientists abandoned this antiquated classification system, developed by an 18th century
creationist, in favor of a more precise one? Because fuzzy boundaries serve
evolution theory well. If clear boundaries are discovered between
classifications of organisms, then that lends support to creationism and
undermines evolution. So science is not allowed to advance in that direction! In
order to keep baraminology as pseudoscience, we must live with pseudospecies.

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | 3 Comments »