The ID Update

By Kevin Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Today marks the official publication of Dr. Caroline Crocker's book "Free to Think" (now available online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble). As we celebrate our national independence from the the tyrannical rule of King George over the American colonies so many years ago, it's fitting that we be reminded of our need to be free from other forms of injustice that are present with us today. Two of those injustices are, amazingly, freedom of speech and academic freedom. Both of these issues are addressed in Dr. Crocker's autobiographical account of her experience as a professor at George Mason University (GMU).

This long-awaited response to critics of Dr. Crocker puts to rest some of the often unscrupulous hype surrounding her departure from GMU in May 2005 (for example, see my earlier blog post on SKEPTIC Magazine's treatment of her back in October of 2008). Many of her critics have remarked that there was nothing at all unusual about Dr. Crocker's departure, since her contract simply ended and that was that - happens all the time. But Dr. Crocker reveals that the truth of the matter is anything but typical or usual.

Dr. Crocker, who appeared briefly in the 2008 movie Expelled, was an untenured adjunct professor at GMU and had signed a 3-year contract extension, which others also read. In her book, Crocker recounts how her good fortune was short lived, however, as she became the victim of a bait-and-switch scheme in which her original contract was changed to a one-year term shortly after being accused of teaching creationism in her classes - a charge she steadfastly denies. In fact recent evidence has come to light from one of her former students that a student who Dr. Crocker caught cheating retaliated against another student and made allegedly false accusations against Dr. Crocker, which eventually culminated in the loss of her job as a professer at GMU. The appeals process as told by Dr. Crocker was little more than a railroading and a denial of her academic freedom per GMU's own code - and readers are provided with her first-ever complete retelling of what happened in her own words as well as her response to the findings of her grievance committee (all documented in Appendix IV).

Many of Dr. Crocker's critics make the point that she SHOULD have been let go for teaching creationism. However, according to Dr. Crocker, all she did was challenge her students to think outside the box a bit and come to their own conclusions based on ALL of the available evidence, not just the usual consensus views of science. Crocker relates in her book exactly how and what she taught her students, including many in-class interactions. Readers will be left to decide whether they believe her approach was reasonable. I submit most readers will concur that she did nothing to warrant the treatment she received.

The broader question posed by Dr. Crocker (and hence the title of her book) is how far should we go in controlling the freedom we should give educators who desire to stimulate the thinking of their students? And likewise, how much leeway should be given to students who question consensus views of science? Dr. Crocker's story reveals a very disturbing lack of latitude among GMU officials. Unfortunately, the short-leash policy illustrated by GMU is all too common in many academic institutions across America.

But if that was not enough, even more alarming is what occurred afterward as she sought legal redress. According to both Crocker and her attorney Ed Sisson (who also wrote a compelling preface for this book), the law firm representing her interests in the GMU fiasco was being considered for hire by GMU on another unrelated matter with one stipulation - they must first agree to drop Crocker as a client before signing on the dotted line. And the travesty is, the law firm agreed to do so, and soon after dismissed Sisson from the firm after a 14-year career with them.

As Michael Behe, author of the book "Darwin's Black Box" writes in support of Dr. Crocker's account, this story is "guaranteed to make your blood boil."

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research) and is also the founder of Leafcutter Press.

He is the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents.

In addition, he is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's book "Free to Think," which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor from George Mason University.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2010 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links to this blog post are welcomed with attribution.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's an interesting article in New Scientist by Bob Holmes on a new approach to how animals become separate species ("Accidental origins: Where species come from", March 10, 2010):

Everywhere you look in nature, you can see evidence of natural selection at work in the adaptation of species to their environment. Surprisingly though, natural selection may have little role to play in one of the key steps of evolution - the origin of new species. Instead it would appear that speciation is merely an accident of fate.

So, at least, says Mark Pagel, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Reading, UK. If his controversial claim proves correct, then the broad canvas of life - the profusion of beetles and rodents, the dearth of primates, and so on - may have less to do with the guiding hand of natural selection and more to do with evolutionary accident-proneness.

[ ... ]

"When it works, it works remarkably well," he says. "But it only works in about 6 per cent of cases. It doesn't seem to be a general way that groups of species fill out their niches."

Then Darwin's theory just barely makes it to statistical significance, conventionally given as 4 per cent.

The otherwise most informative article is marred by the constant need to claim that Darwin was not wrong - but obviously, if Pagels is right, Darwin was indeed wrong, and so are all the people fronting his cause. Natural selection acting on random mutation was, precisely, Darwin's proposed mechanism.

No one supposes that natural selection doesn’t occur. But is it the main driver of new species, as Darwin thought, and Pagels doubts?

Pagels dances very nervously indeed around that point (presumably from fear of joining the Expelled, given that his genome research has failed to back Darwin up.

So, for a free copy of Expelled, which details what happened to a variety of people who questioned establishment Darwinism, based on its failures of evidence, and provide the best answer to this question: What do you think of Pagels’s evidence? Is it critical? Is he just blowing smoke? Will he be forced to recant?

Here's where you enter, which you do by posting a comment, 400 words or less. If you are new to Uncommon Descent, you will need to sign up.

Here are the contest rules, not many or difficult. The main thing is 400 words or less. Winners receive a certificate verifying their win as well as the prize. Winners must provide me with a valid postal address, though it need not be theirs. A winner's name is never added to a mailing list. There is no mailing list. Have fun!

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's the reason I asked why human evolution should be taught in school:

I just came across this fact: Human evolution: Little is known other than basic outline

Contrary to widely heard huffing, there are huge gaps in our understanding of early humans. In Nature's 2020 Visions (7 January 2010) Scroll down to Leslie C. Aiello, and we learn

Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. ... Go here for more.

Sorry to be so long judging this one, but there were 143 posts and I had several local issues to deal with at the same time. Now, to business: The winner is Collin at 8. His succinct entry appears below. I would also have awarded a prize to EvilSnack at 48, for this entry, but I only received one copy of David Berlinski's The Deniable Darwin. I will see if I can procure another copy, but if not EvilSnack may contact me anyway. I have other prizes on my shelf.

Winners need to be in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca, with a valid postal address. Their names will not be added to a mailing list. There is no mailing list.

Here's Collin:

Human evolution ought to be taught in schools because it is one of the best cases for common descent. This is probably a result of the extra interest among scientists concerning human evolution.

Even creationists and students sympathetic to ID ought to be taught the best argument for Darwinism so that if they want to argue against it they do so against the best scenario the opposition has to offer. Otherwise, those supportive of traditional Darwinism will sense a straw man argument and end up being inoculated against further, more refined and honest arguments.

Some careless creationists in the '80s made this mistake causing further, more compelling arguments to be dismissed before being further evaluated.

Human evolution, being taught, does inform students of a lot of ideas that are not necessarily against ID or even creationism. Presumably even creationists (most of them) will concede that homo erectus did exist as some kind of now-extinct species. Students can be presented with the fact of the bones (or lack thereof) and they can make their own conclusions. My hope is that teachers will present evolution's best arguments but not endeavor to indoctrinate students. Maybe that is a fine line, but it can be done, and is the honest way to go about it.

What swayed me was Collin's emphasis on hearing both sides honestly represented by their own advocates. If schools do not teach students to evaluate on that basis, they are not worth the money we spend on them.

Consider a simple example: Most days, I ride the Toronto Transit System, which features a vast array of busboard ads and subway posters advocating every cell phone offer imaginable. You can be sure that the sales person will not emphasize strongly to the customer, "Our offer is the cheapest - but, of course, we do sign you up for three years, and it costs you $300 to cancel."

The salesperson's competitor does that. The competitor shouts from busboards, subway posters, and billboards, "No contract, no cancellation fee!" That sets the customer thinking about what to ask next time, doesn't it?

Cell phones are a minor matter, of course. But later in life, the student will deal with job offers, marriage proposals, mortgage offers, investment advice, medical plans .... The advocate's offer can only be evaluated by hearing alternatives, clearly spelled out.

One of my major objections to "Darwinism-only" biology education is that - apart from the fact that I don't think it is true - it is not a good way to teach.

Other comments follow:

Read more!

"If you don't think viewpoint discrimination is alive and well in this country when it comes to Darwin's theory, then you must be living on another planet," said Dennis Wagner, announcing this year's Top Ten in Media News in the growing Darwin vs. design controversy. This year, top honors went to Texas and Louisiana for protecting students' and teachers' rights to examine and critique all sides of evolution and other controversial science issues.

"The theory of evolution has been elevated to the status of a sacred dogma in many parts of our modern culture" observed Dennis Wagner, ARN Executive Director. "Students, teachers and science professionals have suffered recrimination for challenging Darwin's theory, and political policies like those recently passed in Texas and Louisiana are now required to maintain academic freedom and freedom of speech. Critical thinking skills are key not only to the learning process, but more importantly to scientific progress," said Wagner.

Kevin Wirth, ARN Director of Media Relations, pointed out that several other stories on the 2009 Top Ten Media list indicate the growing need for this type of legislative protection: "Ben Stein was 'expelled' as the commencement speaker at the University of Vermont, Michael Behe was temporarily 'expelled' from Bloggingheads.tv, and the California Science Center censored the showing of a movie that was critical of Darwin’s theory. We thoroughly documented case after case of this type of viewpoint discrimination in the book Slaughter of the Dissidents and the list just keeps on growing."

An online version of the ARN Top 10 Darwin and Design stories for 2009 with hyperlinks to original news sources can be found at www.arn.org/top10.

Academic Freedom Update: California Science Center Engaged in Illegal Cover-Up

This episode of ID the Future features an academic freedom update on the California Science Center's cancellation last October of a screening of a pro-ID film, Darwin's Dilemma, by a private group. How does a government agency try to evade its obligations to the First Amendment? By suppressing information. Listen in to learn about the evidence that the Discovery Institute has uncovered in its lawsuit against the Science Center.

Go here to listen.

Well, of course they cancelled it. I cannot imagine why anyone would doubt that outcome.

Look, when I first started blogging - the only real news media today - I had to deal with the controversy over the Smithsonian withdrawing support for the screening of Privileged Planet. Go here for more.

But the Smithsonian was the famed institution where Walcott basically did nothing for decades about the critical evidence from the Cambrian evolution that showed that Darwinism is wrong.

If that's the science we want, fine. Our taxes pay for it.

Another podcast:

Rodney LeVake: Expelled Science Teacher, Part 1

On this episode of ID The Future, CSC's Casey Luskin interviews Rodney LeVake, the plaintiff in the Academic Freedom court case LeVake vs. Independent School District #656. LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but merely because he expressed reservations about evolution to a colleague. Listen as he tells his story of clear academic persecution.

Go here to listen.

But what else is new? If LeVake had expressed doubts about the decline of bears* in Canada, he would have run into the same problem. Once a supposed "science" theory has become a big time theory-a-rama, you don't need evidence. You just need to keep inciting the base of people who are either paid or pay to support you. And administration is easily cowed.

So why don't they all seek work in the dairy industry?

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

This contest seemed to have attracted a lot of discussion, with 148 entries, so I spent all yesterday getting through the entries. Its basis was a fawning review by David B. Hart, of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth. We are informed - on the mag’s cover - that Dawkins "gets a gold star" for his book of that name (January 2010 Number 199).

Well, Darwinism is certainly one of the greater shows on Earth, and Dawkins is worthy a life membership in an illusionists' association.

The winner this time is Paul Giem at 111 (minor correction offered at 112), for

To come back to the point of this post, we were asked to critique the comment,

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise - irreducible complexity" - that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism's phylogenic antecedents.

My reply:

There are several problems with this paragraph. For example, there is the idea that ID rests on the premise of irreducible complexity. In fact, the origin of life is a far stronger foundation for ID (see Signature in the Cell), and the Privileged Planet hypothesis does not need irreducible complexity.

Another problem is the difficulty with the last sentence. If the "biological complexity" of an organism is "an irrefutable proof" of the "incalculable complexity" of its progeniters, and their progenitors had it, and so forth, did the incalculable complexity come from an originally "Incalculably complex" organism which arose spontaneously, or was the "irrefutable proof" somehow violated somewhere, or multiple times? Or does the concession constitute a proof of ID, in spite of the author's protestations?

But the part of the argument that stands out as the worst is the assertion that irreducible complexity "may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated." At this point I feel like I'm watching a movie, where the villain has been tracked down by the detectives who have put the clues together, and suddenly switches from pretending innocence to saying, "You can’t prove a thing!" He has now lost the audience (including any remaining doubt in the detectives). All that remains is the power play and the legal maneuvering. We now know the truth of his villainy to a moral certainty.

Science has never been about proof, and those who expect to attack ID because it can't be proved have committed a category error. The fact that they have to resort to this kind of argument suggests a fundamental weakness in their position.

Nor is the appeal to the supposed fallacy of "personal incredulity" helpful. What is the opposite? "Personal credulity?" If the contest is between faith and skepticism, it would seem that the proper scientific attitude would be skepticism.

There are other mistakes, but this belief that ID must be wrong until it can "logically be demonstrated" is obtained is the worst. If that's the "best argument against ID theory", then ID has it made.

I appreciated his point that science is about evidence, not "irrefutable proof". The latter is the domain of pure mathematics. (Why we cannot square a circle or meaningfully divide by zero.) But statistics and information theory are about the balance of evidence, and if the evidence does not support the idea that Darwinism creates much information, then it is not a good theory.

A free copy of Expelled goes to him, on condition of providing me with a working postal address, at oleary@sympatico.ca ]

I also appreciated Jerry's thoughtfulness in 137 through 139.

Further comments:

Just about everything Hart said about intelligent design theory, as quoted by Giem above, is wrong, and that is not an easy feat. It is hard to know where to begin, with stuff like this. For one thing, what is wrong with "purely intuitive level" and "personal incredulity"? If a landlady thinks that her drunken boarder will not pay his rent come Friday, though he swears up and down he will, that is a purely intuitive level of personal incredulity. She cannot predict the future because she is not God Almighty. But she is probably right anyway in her assessment, and should act on it.

And the rest is just bafflegab. For more on "bafflegab" (a term I did NOT invent), see below.

Go here for more.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

As reported in ENV, Dr. Atkins, is a noted critic of intelligent design and author who appeared in Expelled, stating: "Religion, it's just fantasy...and is evil as well." According to a 1992 article by Atkins in New Scientist, "Darwin effectively swept purpose aside in the living world," and "[a]ll reimpositions of purpose are artifices of the religious to feed their faith." He holds little back on religion, claiming that it only offers only "empty gulping and the verbal flatulence that passes for theistic exposition."

More...

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

In a review in First Things by David B. Hart, of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth, we are informed - on the mag's cover - that Dawkins "gets a gold star" for his book of that name (January 2010 Number 199).

Indeed, he does get the gold star from reviewer Hart. Hart is full of praise for Dawkins, though daintily demurs at his hardline atheism. But he is a total, unwavering convert to the greatest scam ever conceived in the history of biology, that Darwinism - a conservative aspect of wild nature that trims out life forms unsuited to an ecology - actually has vast creative powers.

I can't yet seem to find the review on line, but that was not for lack of trying.

Now the contest: Here's what Hart has to say about design in nature:

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise - "irreducible complexity" - that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is - as Francis Collins rightly remarks - an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism's phylogenic antecedents.

For a free copy of Expelled, can you spot the mistakes in the quoted passage above? I mean, actual mistakes, as opposed to "He isn't making any sense." There is enough of the former, but you will find plenty of the latter too, I am afraid.

Here are the contest rules. Most important: No more than 400 words.

Also: If you won a previous contest quite recently and your prize is late, it is most likely because our post office here has four days off at this time of year, and I can't do a thing about that. If you won a long time ago and never got your prize, write me at oleary@sympatico.ca

Go here to enter. You must register to comment, but it is painless WordPress stuff.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

On this episode of ID the Future, acclaimed author and Discovery Institute senior fellow David Klinghoffer takes a look at the academic freedom — or lack thereof — for scientists who support intelligent design, scientists who are forced to don disguises and go underground in order to protect their careers.

This podcast is based on Mr. Klinghoffer's commentary in Townhall Magazine, "Evolution's Glass Ceiling."

Go here to listen.

[From Denyse: Yeah, tell me about it. I hear this stuff all the time. It was hilarious to hear people insisting that the Expelled film was false at the same time as expulsions continue, with their approval I suspect. It is hard for materialists to accept a genuine challenge. They are used to continued tactical retreats, usually from well-meaning tenured theists who hope to be treated nicely. Not a chance, if you go by the "new atheists." But things are slowly changing.]

The other podcasts:

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 2: Rebutting Methodological Materialism: Interview With Angus Menuge, Part Two

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 3: Agents Under Fire: Part One With Angus Menuge

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 4: Hitler's Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 5: Seeking God in Science: An Atheist
Defends Intelligent Design

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy 6: Back to school with real science

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Yesterday an interview between John McWhorter and Michael Behe about Behe's recent book The Edge of Evolution appeared on bloggingheads.tv. Within hours the interview disappeared with this message "from" McWhorter posted by the administator: "John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable."

Fortunately someone archived the interview and it has reappeared in several places on the internet. Take a look for yourself and see if you think this interview represents McWhorter, Behe or Bloggingheads, especially given Bloggingheads' claim of being an open forum below. Just another example of the "Expelled Factor" at work.

Michael Behe reports on the incident himself here.

UPDATE 8-31-09: It appears cooler heads have prevailed at Bloggingheads and the Behe interview has been reposted with an explanation.

From the Bloggingheads web site:

"Bloggingheads is in some ways a classic expression of the Internet: the ever-dropping cost of information-processing allows people to interact in new ways, and a whole new tribe-the Bloggingheads tribe-is formed. But we hope to be in one sense an unusual expression of the Internet. Almost all blogs have a dominant ideology and a fairly homogeneous comments section to match. We pride ourselves on having a diversity of views in our diavlogs and an accordingly diverse comments section, where thoughtful disagreement is expressed in civil terms. (OK, usually thoughtful, and usually civil.) We thank our commenters-and for that matter our less-vocal viewers, and of course all the bloggingheads-for making this website a place where great minds don't think alike."