The ID Update

Evan Ratliff's article in Wired Magazine has drawn criticism from the Discovery Institute. With "tongue in cheek" they commented, "Wired has now gone where no pure science magazine has gone before. In an apparent effort to boost the magazine’s sex appeal, the latest issue wades into the imaginative world of science fiction."

In his criticism of ID, Ratliff needs to be much more objective. Dr. Stephen Meyer, of the Discovery Institute stated that "the piece portrays the theory of intelligent design as a religiously motivated political crusade rather than what it actually is, an evidence-based scientific research program. It portrays our scientific research and publications as a nefarious plot to infiltrate the public schools with a virulent new form of creationism. We’re hoping they’ll follow up this yarn with a non-fiction piece about the real attempts to shut down discussion of the weaknesses of neo-Darwinism."

For the full article, please click HERE.

Dr. Jay Richards and Dr.Guillermo Gonzalez, will visit New Zealand, a very secularized country, from October 27th to November 9th. They will be speaking at a number of locations, focusing on their book The Privileged Planet.

For more details on the Privileged Planet seminars, please visit the Focus on the Family, New Zealand web site by clicking HERE.

An article written by Mustafa Akyol on the website IslamOnline encourages Muslims to join in an alliance with those who champion the Intelligent Design movement. Together we can engage the culture and civilly debate the merits of ID.

For the article, please click HERE.

Sorry to visit the Meyer affair yet again, but a recent letter to Nature makes a point that bears highlighting. The letter, by Vladimir Svetlov, a microbiologist at Ohio State University, chides Nature for making such a big deal out of the fact that a pro-ID article was published in a peer-reviewed journal science journal.

“I cannot in all honesty share in the anxiety surrounding publication of a dubious paper on ‘intelligent design’—regarded by most scientists as a version of creationism—in a journal with an impact factor of less than one,” says Svetlov. “Your News story "Peer-reviewed paper defends theory of intelligent design" (Nature 431, 114; 2004) suggests that getting an intelligent-design paper into a peer-reviewed journal is a huge achievement for creationism.”

To the contrary, he argues, the real surprise is that ID proponents didn’t get such a publication earlier.

Why? Because “one can publish just about anything if one goes far enough down the list of impact factors. There are papers all around us containing problems glaring enough to fail their authors in undergraduate midterm exams.”

Svetlov may not understand why the publication of Meyer’s paper was such a big deal. As I pointed out in my first piece on this topic, it’s a big deal because the anti-ID crowd has invested so much in the claim that ID has never published in peer-reviewed publications (which is a canard to begin with; see “Media Backgrounder: Intelligent Design Article Sparks Controversy” on the Discovery Institute’s Web site). It’s also a big deal because ID proponents are consistently denied a level playing field. And getting published despite the unfairness is a significant accomplishment.

But Svetlov’s point about the ease of publishing bad science is an interesting one. For one thing, it exposes the double standard of those who have dedicated their lives (and livelihoods) to defending the public from the allegedly “bad science” of intelligent design while doing nothing about the genuinely bad science that’s published in many journals. (This is eerily reminiscent, by the way, of what happened with biology textbooks. While the anti-ID folks were out guarding the schools from the “bad science” of intelligent design, they serenely accepted even the most egregious errors, as documented in Jonathan Well’s book, Icons of Evolution, in textbooks used by millions of kids.)

More interesting, however, is the conundrum Svetlov’s letter poses for the anti-ID community. There have been signs that the anti-ID folks want to back away from making publication in peer reviewed journals a touchstone of good science. Not a bad idea. But doing so affirms the likelihood that peer-reviewed journals have published some rubbish—maybe a good deal of it, as Svetlov asserts. And if that’s true, it diminishes the cultural authority that the science establishment has relied on to keep ID and criticisms of Darwinism out of public school science classrooms.

Anti-IDists seem to know this and are working both sides of the street. On the one hand, as I’ve noted elsewhere, they seem to be downplaying the importance and validity of peer review—but only to a limited extent. On the other hand, they’re still trying make it look as if Meyer’s paper was published only through chicanery—and therefore doesn’t count as a peer-reviewed article.

Strategically, this is probably the best thing they can do. But if some enterprising team of young scholars decided to document Svetlov’s claims—the way Jonathan Wells did on a smaller scale with biology textbook errors—the whole issue of ID and peer review could be rendered moot in the ensuing controversy.

Of course, this is just my speculation. But what if it really happened?

What if?

Submitted 10/26/2004

The cover story in Wired Magazine is the latest evidence of ID's success. Written by Evan Ratliff, the article shows that the panic attack experienced by evolutionists is only deepening in intensity.

For a commentary on the Ratliff story in the Christian Post, please click HERE.

A recent letter to the editor, entitled, No Equal Billing for Science, Faith, in the York Daily Record shows that the writer, Randy Littlefield, is uninformed about ID. He, like so many others, conflates Biblical Creationism and ID.

When you hear those around you doing the same, call them on it.

For the full letter, click HERE.

A byline, in the Washington Monthly, can only be properly described as anti-ID propaganda. With a wealth of pejorative language, and ad hominem attacks, Chris Mooney chooses not to look at the evidence, but rather, play the emotional strings of the reader.

For another example of the all too common approach that Mooney and those of his kind take, click HERE.

A story in the York Daily Record by Lauri Lebo and Joe Maldonado shows that the Dover Area School Board voted to require the teaching of intelligent design Monday night. This is likely the first district in the United States to do so.

Dover's 6-to-3 vote was in favor of teaching alternative theories to evolution, "including, but not limited to, intelligent design".

Eugenie Scott of NCSE said she believes intelligent design proponents are now looking for a test case to defend the issue in court.

Those at the Discovery Institute, who have also advised a school board member on the issue, said the board member might have overstepped his bounds. "We don't endorse or support what the Dover School District has done," West said. "This is not what we recommend."

Eugenie Scott said, "Intelligent design is just a sham to get creationism into the curriculum. The intelligent design movement is politically motivated and has little standing with the mainstream scientific community."

For the full story, click HERE.

The York Daily Record report by Joe Maldonado states that the Dover Area School Board voted to add “Intelligent Design Theory” to the district’s biology curriculum Monday evening

New wording in the curriculum states: “Students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin’s Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design."

The discussion by the board was heated. Lawsuits were a fear of just about everyone speaking against the curriculum change.

For the full article, click HERE.

A slanted article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer by Anglea D. Chatman, stated that, "Ohio teachers will teach good science despite scientists' fears that a state school board vote earlier this year has opened the door to the study of creationism."

Member of the state board of education, Martha Wise, said she does not expect teachers to use a controversial model lesson plan, entitled "Critical Analysis of Evolution," that some scientists say opens the door to teaching creationism in the state's public schools. Of course, the switching of the word "creationism" for intelligent design is an oft used obfuscation of the issue.

Case Western Reserve University has hosted a weekend-long conference called "Evolution & God: 150 Years of Love and War Between Science and Religion."

One school board member said he was afraid that the teaching of this curriculum would "become mandatory..."

For the full article, click HERE.

The Charles County Board of Education proposed and suggested censoring of reading materials which contain "immorality" or "foul language," and inviting an outside organization to hand out Bibles in schools and to teach the theory of creationism in science classes. The school board did not specifically mention ID.

The sentiment from school parents and others was that "the board should not focus on instilling religious and moral lessons in the public schools."

An interesting comment was that, "As good as my son's teachers are at J.C. Parks [Elementary School] . . . I don't ever want them responsible for the education of my son religiously or spiritually. That's my job."
Taking the view of people who have a supernaturalistic worldview, the same could be said. The naturalistic worldview has been "shoved down the throats" of religious students, with no apparent angst concerning that practice from naturalistic thinking school officials and parents. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander! Let's dump the false dichotomy of science vs religion.

What needs to be done is to take an open minded view of origins science. This involves taking a fair-minded look at the evidence, and if it favors an extranatural designer, so be it. We are looking for the truth about the nature of reality, not for a tale that some group feels comfortable with, right? Let's play fair on both sides.

To view the full article by Joshua Partlow in the Washington Post, you may need to register. Click HERE.

An article by Lucas Grundmeier in The Iowa State Daily stated that two atheist professors at Iowa State University attempted to show that ID is illegitimate as a scientific endeavor.

They claimed that "Design can't be separated from the designer." In a sense, this is true. If you found an SUV in the desert, you intuitively know that it didn't appear from random natural processes, but rather, was designed and manufactured by intelligent agents. You are able to infer certain characteristics of the designers and those for whom the SUV was made. For instance, the designers paid careful attention to details, and in some fashion, valued those for whom the SUV was made. This we can intuitively recognize. ID doesn't even take this legitimately reasoned step in identifying the designer(s).

The professors also claimed that ID fails "to identify anything substantive about that designer...and this failure destroys the scientific validity of those arguments." Well, you don't need to know exactly who the designer is to know that that thing was designed. Once you have established that something is designed, you can go on and ask who designed it. This step may not be a scientific endeavor, but rather knowledge revealed to us by the designing agent.

Dr. Patterson made several bold assertions, none backed up with evidence. My favorite was "Science thrives on unanswered questions, religion, by contrast, thrives on unquestioned answers." Patterson's closeminded view of reality dooms him to be a perpetual seeker and not an eventual finder. He also thinks that "intelligent design theorists have an ulterior motive in their work." And atheists don't????

The two professors haul out the false dichotomy that science and faith are not overlapping magisteria.

The bottom line is that the same old arguments are being paraded out, and people who are not careful thinkers buy into the rhetoric.

We are all seeking out the truth concerning the nature of reality. The atheistic worldview boxes itself in, and is more closeminded, by only accepting naturalistic answers to the origins question. The ID worldview is willing to be more openminded, and entertains the possibility that reality can be explained in both a naturalistic and supernaturalistic sense. Let's just look carefully at the evidence from an openminded worldview, and let the best worldview prevail. What could be more fair-minded than that approach in the academic and public arenas?

For the full article click HERE.

Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria

By: Scott A. Minnich & Stephen C. Meyer
Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece. Comparing Design in Nature with Science and Engineering

September 1, 2004

Abstract

The bacterial flagellum represents one of the best understood molecular machines. Comprised of 40 parts that self-assemble into a true rotary engine, the biochemistry and genetics of these systems has revealed an unanticipated complexity. An essential component to assembly is the subset of parts that function as a protein secretory pump to ensure and discriminate that the correct number of protein subunits and their order of secretion is precisely regulated during assembly. Of further interest is the recognition of late that a number of important plant and animal pathogens use a related protein secretory pump fused to a membrane-spanning needle-like syringe by which a subset of toxins can be injected into target host cells. Together, the flagellar and virulence protein pumps are referred to as Type III Secretion Systems (TTSS). The archetype for TTSS systems has been the pathogenic members of the genus Yersinia which includes the organism responsible for bubonic plague, Y. pestis. Our interest in the Yersinia centers on the coordinate genetic regulation between flagellum biosynthesis and virulence TTSS expression. Y. enterocolitica, for example operates three TTSSs (motility, Ysa, and Yop), but each is expressed under defined mutually exclusive conditions. Y. pestis has lost the ability to assemble flagella (the genes are present on the chromosome) and expresses only the Yop system at 37oC, mammalian temperature. Using a combination of microarray analysis, genetic fusions, and behaviors of specific engineered mutants, we demonstrate how environmental factors influence gene expression of these multigene families, where the influence is exerted within each system, and propose why segregating these systems is critical for the organism. Our model further offers an explanation as to why an important subset of human pathogens has lost motility during their histories.

The Biological Society of Washington (BSW) has come up with a "new and improved" statement about the Stephen Meyer article that it published in its August 4, 2004 issue. The statement is reproduced below:

The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml), which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings .

We have reviewed and revised editorial policies to ensure that the goals of the Society, as reflected in its journal, are clearly understood by all. Through a web presence (http://www.biolsocwash.org) and improvements in the journal, the Society hopes not only to continue but to increase its service to the world community of systematic biologists.

This statement mainly makes explicit what was implicit in the previous statement (though the president and current managing editor had been pretty explicit in their comments to the press). Since I covered the accusations against Sternberg in my previous Wedge Update, I won't rehash that material here.

Most interesting about the statement is the logic it employs. Near the end of the first paragraph it reads: "The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, ... which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings."

In other words, because a resolution by the AAAS board "observes" that there is "no credible scientific evidence" supporting intelligent design, the BSW has determined that Meyer's article "does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings." And that's despite the (apparently irrelevant) fact that three independent reviewers said it did. 1

It's also despite the fact that the AAAS resolution is a politically motivated document, put together by people who know relatively little about ID. Indeed, after the AAAS board initially released its resolution, the Discovery Institute's John West contacted board members by e-mail and found that the resolution was essentially based on a couple of books read by staffers and a few Web documents. The board members who responded indicated that they themselves had read nothing—except for one who said she’d read some stuff on the Web but couldn’t remember what it was. 2

These facts notwithstanding, the Council has announced that it has "reviewed and revised editorial policies," presumably to make sure that no paper like Meyer's is published in the journal again, no matter what its actual relevance or scientific merits.

Ironically, though, by publishing and then repudiating the Meyer paper, the BSW has done the seemingly impossible. Not only has it given ID proponents a publication in a peer-reviewed biology journal, it has also handed a smoking gun to those ID proponents who argue that the peer-review process is unfairly stacked against them.

Quite a feat for a single journal.

There's no telling how the controversy over Meyer's paper will shake out. But whether the anti-design camp wins or loses, the BSW has tarnished its image—not by publishing Meyer's paper, but by the bumbling, disingenuous way it has handled the fallout.

If I were them, I'd have to wonder: Was it really worth it?

###

1. Note: Some may claim that I am taking these last two sentences out of context. However, the previous sentences of the paragraph concern only the alleged "inappropriateness" of Meyer's article. That standard is also cited as the reason the journal will not run any rebuttals to the piece. Yet it's doubtful that the BSW would claim that such a rebuttal would fail to meet the scientific (as opposed to the relevancy) standards of the journal.

2. John West, personal communication.

An article by Lucas Grundmeier in The Iowa State Daily states that the first lecture in the discussion of origins took place on the campus of Iowa State University.

Del Ratzsch claimed that "there are many people who argue that...talk about a supernatural designer is forbidden in science. The risk is putting artificial...arbitrary restrictions on science."

Ratzsch's concluded that "intelligent design deserves attention in the scientific community as it competes with naturalistic evolution as a possible explanation for why things are the way they are."

For the full article, click HERE.

A couple of lectures at Iowa State University discuss origins, including Intelligent Design.

The news story begins with a rather provocative statement that "many
scientists and academics have long since discredited biblical creationism, the belief that God created the world as described in Genesis, replacing it with evolution and the Big Bang." Says who?? Says the journalism major author at ISU.

Tuesday's lecture, by Del Ratzsch, professor of philosophy at the
Calvin College in Michigan, approached the issue from a pro-ID perspective.

In the following lecture, two ISU faculty members who have been long noted for their arguments against the teaching of creationism and against the existence of God will critique a 2004 intelligent design book, The Privileged Planet) by an ISU professor, Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy.

For the full article by Lucas Grundmeier in The Iowa State Daily click HERE

A rather sympathetic review of "Information: The New Language of
Science" by Hans Christian von Baeyer was presented recently in the Natural History Magazine.

Among other things, the reviewer states that, "The genetic code, with its alphabet of four letters grouped into words of three letters each, looks uncannily like some kind of computer file format." In addition, "In the case of information, it's no great surprise that meaning is imposed on a message by the sender and receiver. We are all accustomed to thinking of communication as something that happens between people, and so minds are naturally a part of the process. But it's unsettling when a similar kind of subjectivity is invoked to explain the behavior of atoms or electrons."

For a look at the full article click HERE.