Nancy Pearcey: The Creationists’ Miss Information

| 78 Comments

I don’t know about you, but whenever I want to learn about information theory, I naturally turn to the creationists. Why, they know so much about geology, biology, and paleontology, it only seems reasonable that their expertise would extend to mathematics and computer science.

Take Nancy Pearcey, for example. Here, for example, we learn that Ms. Pearcey has studied philosophy, German, and and music at Iowa State; that she has a master’s degree in biblical studies; that she is a senior fellow at that temple of truth, the Discovery Institute; and that for nine years she worked with former Watergate conspirator and convicted criminal Charles Colson on his radio show, “Breakpoint”. Why, those seem exactly the sort of credentials one would want in an instructor of information theory…

Read more at Recursivity.

78 Comments

she has a master’s degree in biblical studies

But ID has nothing to do with religion or the Bible. No sirree Bob. Not a thing. It’s only them lying atheist darwinists who think so.

(snicker) (giggle)

And that’s merely the tiniest fraction of the ridiculous claims in her ideologically driven book, The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy. A professional historian could have a fisking field day.

OT: where does the verb “to fisk” actually come from? It sounds like a co-opted proper name or something.

I heard it came from Robert Fisk, the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, whose articles were often “fisked”.

How the hell do you receive a masters degree in biblical studies? I suppose in depends on the time it take to figure out all them begets. One quote worth noting from her book: “The law is not merely a set of procedures or an argumentative technique.It is God’s means of confronting wrong, defending the weak, and PROMOTING THE PUBLIC GOOD” I’m sure Judge Jones would agree with her statement

OT: where does the verb “to fisk” actually come from? It sounds like a co-opted proper name or something.

The first thing that comes to my mind is Fiskars, a brand of scissors. But it says here that it derives from Robert Fisk.

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 5, column 10, byte 657 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Only slightly off-topic, I just finished reading

E.D. Schneider & D. Sagan Into The Cool: energy flow, thermodynamics, and life, Univ. Chicago Press, 2005.

Now entropy has some close connection to information, but it is Chapter 20, entitled “Purpose in Life” that might bring forth some informed comment here. Of course the authors slam Behe and Dembski, but also take Dawkins to task in one paragraph.

it’s interesting to note that the classic evidence of how wildly improbably life is supposed to be is a case of a specific outcome versus any outcome. where as her definition of information content is almost that backwards

I guess I’ll have to re-read “Information Theory and the Living System” by Lila Gatlin (1972), which I bought years ago because it sounded like it might give an interesting angle to evolution. One quote: The second law of thermodynamics is indeed an order-degrading principle in itself and without constraint; but when we place it under the control of the higher laws of information theory, it becomes directly responsible for the production of order of a very important type. This is why life has arisen.

Mark – Try “Into The Cool”. The authors argue that thermodynamics explains life, as a gradient reducing system. This is NET, non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I found the account both novel and informative, but then I’m neither a biologist nor a physicist.

M. Perakh does a nice summery of where creationists fall off the information theory wagon (and the 2nd Law of Therm.) in “Unintelligent Design.”

I don’t know about you, but whenever I want to learn about information theory, I naturally turn to the creationists.

I don’t know why, but this just killed me. I could barely read the rest of it I was laughing so hard.

I haven’t read “Into the Cool” yet, but I think PT readers might find the Physics Today review of it interesting.

It requires a login, so I cut and pasted it in. I’m not sure of copyright issues, but I think that this is fair use

[Begin book review] In a universe obedient to the second law of thermodynamics, how is it that life was able to arise, replicate itself faithfully, and ultimately produce organisms of ever greater complexity? That paradox, discussed by Erwin Schrödinger in his 1943 lecture series “What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell,” appears in the first chapter of Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life by Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan. From that starting point the authors launch into a well-researched and often fascinating discussion that covers an impressive range of subjects, including Maxwell’s demon (the gnome in James Clerk Maxwell’s thought experiment), weather patterns, natural selection, the maturity of ecosystems, and the purposefulness of life.

The disparate topics are linked by the book’s central thesis—that complex structures arise spontaneously to eliminate or reduce thermodynamic gradients because “nature abhors a gradient.” For instance, chapter 10 describes hurricane formation. What begins as a modest low-pressure system over the ocean, with vertical air currents, is amplified by positive feedback into a monster storm. Although potentially devastating, a hurricane serves a basic thermodynamic purpose: The massive movement of moist air to higher altitudes where condensation occurs greatly accelerates the transfer of heat from the warm waters of the ocean to the cool reaches of the atmosphere. In that way, the storm acts to reduce a temperature gradient and thus increases the entropy of its surroundings. A hurricane provides just one example in which a complex structure arises to counteract a thermodynamic gradient. Other instances discussed in the book include the hexagonal patterns of Bénard convection and counter-rotating Taylor vortices.

With such examples under their belts, Schneider, formerly a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and director of the National Marine Water Quality Laboratory of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and Sagan, an accomplished science writer, move on to “the scientific meat” in the book’s third section, “The Living.” They argue that life itself, far from conflicting with the second law of thermodynamics, is the quintessential example of complexity reducing a gradient, specifically “the immense gradient between a 5,800 K sun and the 2.7 K temperature of outer space.” Toward the end of chapter 15, on plants, the authors note that some two-thirds of the radiation impinging on a tree is ultimately spent pumping water into the surrounding air (evapotranspiration) and conclude, unpoetically, that “a tree is best understood as a giant degrader of [solar] energy.”

It is well known, of course, that most organisms feed directly or indirectly off the stream of energy that arrives as photons from the Sun. Only by cycling energy and matter through its metabolic network is an organism able to stave off the decay toward thermal equilibrium—that is, death. Schneider and Sagan, however, contend that a “thermodynamic imperative” to efficiently reduce gradients provides the key to understanding such processes as the evolution of species (“Genetics … is not enough,” they write) and the development of ecosystems. At times the authors give the second law of thermodynamics a Darwinian status, as in chapter 17, where one reads that it “ ‘selects’… those systems best able to reduce gradients under given constraints.” In the book’s final chapter, Schneider and Sagan suggest that tapping into thermal gradients is not just a necessary condition for life but ultimately the explanation of life’s purposeful behavior. These ideas are neat, but does the evidence really support them? Although it is true that life, to persist in its state of low entropy, must continually degrade the free energy of its surroundings, it is not clear that a dictate to do so with maximum efficiency is really what drives the biosphere’s evolving complexity.

Physicists might also quibble with the authors’ promotion of the slogan “nature abhors a gradient” as a kind of distillation of the second law. “The world changes when you view it through the lens of irreversible gradient reduction, rather than mere entropy increases and decreases,” they write. The authors envisage “a thermodynamics in which the spontaneous degradation of gradients is paramount.” Even if we leave aside gravity, which the authors acknowledge does not quite fit their paradigm, it should be clear that nature does not always abhor a gradient. Entropy is ultimately a more useful concept than gradient reduction for explaining why an oil droplet placed in water does not diffuse while an ink droplet does.

Into the Cool shows that there is much more to thermodynamics than Carnot cycles and phase diagrams. The book delivers an engaging, nontechnical introduction to a variety of topics, with some interesting speculations along the way, and an excellent bibliography for those interested in learning more. Although I have not been converted to Schneider and Sagan’s point of view, the book left me thinking long after I had closed its pages. Christopher Jarzynski Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico

[End book review]

Why, those seem exactly the sort of credentials one would want in an instructor of information theory…

To be sure. Those whose expertise is in information theory itself can tell you in great detail how it works, but are not necessarily qualified to tell us what lessons we should draw from it. Pearcey’s background, on the other hand, makes her such a thorough expert on the proper conclusions we should draw as to make the subject matter on which these conclusions are “based” quite superfluous.

Information theory, German, music, geology, biology, Colson, does it really matter? They all point to the One True Faith because there only IS One True Faith. When you start with the answer, meaningful errors become impossible no matter what the topic being used to illustrate it.

Dammit, why is it that every time Iowa State comes up on here it’s because of some dumbfuck. First that goofy Guillermo Gonzalez, and now it’s this nutjob. And, shit, she was a music major (I got my BA in music at Iowa State). It’s really, actually, a pretty good school, and it doesn’t just spew IDCers out into the world…there are even some of us who studied music who get this shit. Grrrrrrr, it’s getting hard to be a proud alum.

“Why, those seem exactly the sort of credentials one would want in an instructor of information theory”

Hey, fellas – is this the best argument you have – attacking “credentials”?

I’ll bet each of you (myself included) has opinions on subjects in which you do not have advanced formal training. The validity of your opinions and conclusions is judged by logic and reason, or perhaps by results in practice, not by sheepskin and whether you have been admitted to some designated club.

Deal with the merits, fellas.

JustAsking1 said: “Deal with the merits, fellas.”

If you read the actual post over at Recursivity you would see that the merits of her statements on information theory are addressed.

Deal with the merits, fellas.

First, there must be some merits. By the way, did you read the full article?

I’ll bet each of you (myself included) has opinions on subjects in which you do not have advanced formal training.

That’s correct - I do. However, mostly these views are in accord with those of the scientific establishment (not a coincidence).

In cases where they differ, if I want to claim that these views are in any way scientific/mathematical, I feel that I have a responsibility to do some serious reading up on the subject first to ensure that this is in fact the case. Passing off personal views as scientific or mathematical fact without actually checking is, IMO, seriously unethical.

It does not appear that Ms. Pearcey agrees with me on this, as otherwise she would know that the basic principles of a;gorithmic information theory directly contradict what she’s saying. In particular, information, as defined by Kolmogorov (which appears from context to be the definition she’s using), is vastly higher for a random string than for an ordered string.

Laser – Thank you for the review of “Into The Cool”.

I’ll bet each of you (myself included) has opinions on subjects in which you do not have advanced formal training. The validity of your opinions and conclusions is judged by logic and reason, or perhaps by results in practice, not by sheepskin and whether you have been admitted to some designated club.

i do have opinions on things i’m not trained, however i also don’t publish books purporting to be true on those opinions

Deal with the merits

Already done. ID had the opportunity to present all its merits. In as much detail as they wanted to. Under oath. In a little town in Pennsylvania called “Dover”.

The judge considered those merits, and concluded that IDers were deceptive evasive dishonest liars.

i do have opinions on things i’m not trained, however i also don’t publish books purporting to be true on those opinions

Me neither. Nor do I go around trying to get my personal opinions taught in science classess of public schools.

Laser, Re “Entropy is ultimately a more useful concept than gradient reduction for explaining why an oil droplet placed in water does not diffuse while an ink droplet does.”

Would a physicist really use entropy to explain that? I’d have expected the explanation to involve the relative attraction and/or repulsion between the various types of molecules, rather than something referring to the entropy of the system.

Henry

FYI, a little bit of the oil does diffuse into the water, and it’s because of the entropy.

Regarding the post about Richard Dawkins getting sandbagged with a set-up question during an interview (Comment #87642)

There’s a simple response to these kinds of questions. It goes…

“OK, I’ll play. There’s a simple answer, but before I give it to you I want you to explain exactly what your question asks and what the answer’s going to tell you. I ask this because I find that this question is often a set-up; people are prodded to ask a complicated, technical question that they don’t really understand, and when they get a technical answer back it sounds like evasion”.

“So go ahead, explain your question, and I’ll give you the answer”.

Often, I just use the short form…

“Could you elaborate on your question?”

It works pretty well for questions on information theory, the second law, micro vs macro evolution, that sort of thing. I live in the Baptist Belt of Texas, and I’ve never had someone sucessfully quote the second law of thermodynamics to me.

It won’t work with True Believers, but once you defuse the “gotcha!”, most honest people who are goaded into “ask this of the next Evolutionist you see” are reasonable enough to have an “Um, yeah, what *does* this mean?” moment.

steve s, Re “FYI, a little bit of the oil does diffuse into the water, and it’s because of the entropy.”

Is it because of entropy, or is increased entropy simply an effect? I tend to blame it on the ways in which the molecules react to each other (with entropy increase simply being a net result).

Henry

Those are the kind of questions which cause physics people to make weird faces while they think. Entropy is not really a force per se…it actually costs energy to get the water molecules into the oil region and the oil into the water…i think…but that’s made possible by statistical fluctuations…

uh I mean, “yeah, it’s the entropy.”

David B. Benson,

You’re welcome.

HenryJ,

steve s got it mostly right. I’ll elaborate a little bit. A physicist (I’m not one, I’m a chemist, so I’m extrapolating) could use either molecular forces or entropy to describe the diffusion (or dissolution) of ink into water. From start (ink drop dangling from eyedropper over water) to finish (ink evenly distrubted throughout the water), the entropy of the system (ink and water) increases. This process is also thermoneutral (it involves essentially no energy change), so there is no entropy change because of exchange of energy between the system and surrounding. Thus, the entropy of the universe (system plus surroundings) increases for this process. Scientists have observed that every spontaneous process in this universe involves an increase in entropy of the universe. That, in layman’s terms, is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, an increase of entropy is an accurate way of explaining the diffusion of ink in water.

Using molecular forces is also a valid way to explain the process. On a molecular level, if the ink is soluble in water, water molecules surround the ink molecules, forming a little “solvation cage” because of the attractive forces between the water molecules and ink molecules. Entropy can be defined on a molecular level, as done by Boltzmann. The entropy is proportional to the number of states accessible to the system. This number of states is determined by, you guessed it, the forces between the molecules. The process of determining the number of states accessible to the system and calculating the entropy from that is called statistical thermodynamics. It turns out that if you determine the entropy change macroscopically and compare it to the value you get using statistical thermodynamics, they agree very well. That is one of the triumphs of modern physics.

I have somewhat oversimplified for the sake of clarity, but the main points are all there. Really, macroscopic entropy and molecular forces are linked, and each is a valid way of describing the process. I hope that you find it useful.

No, I was genuinely puzzled, and I am still genuinely puzzled.

that’s our Larry alrighty.

Is there any time you haven’t been genuinely puzzled?

Is there any time you actually correctly chose to ask questions before launching into others “errors”, that ALWAYS turn out to be your own?

Damn, man, you must have been the worst engineer on the face of the planet.

On behalf of the lurkers around here, I’d like to say that folks needn’t worry about Larry’s ideas infecting us lay people. Even to someone who is completely unfamiliar to a topic, Larry usually makes it clear that he knows absolutely nothing after a couple posts. Just looking at his post #87917, he mixes in boasting and snide defensive remarks (usually signs of a charlatan). If that’s not enough to tip someone off, he also combines authoritarian statements with admission that he just looked the thing up on wikipedia. Since this is his standard practice, I don’t how any reasonable lay person could fall for his act (Not to say it couldn’t happen).

Larry, if you honestly think that anyone, anywhere believes that you know what you’re talking about, or even sides with you on any of the issues, then why haven’t any of the other pro-id people who comment on this website come to your defense, or really anyone at all, for that matter? You get skewered on a regular basis, and I have never seen anyone say,”hey, I think Larry’s right.” Not a one. I think it’s time to face the fact that you are utterly, hopelessly alone.

BTW, Larry, I think you’ve mentioned that you live in L.A. You wouldn’t happen to frequent any libraries in the west San Fernando Valley, would you? Cause I was at one the other day and saw a guy that really fit my image of you. It would be cool to have an actual Larry sighting.

back to lurking…

MP Why was it Elvis popped into my head when you mentioned “the Larry sighting” The other places I thought one might see a “Larry” is in any public intitution -law courts etc. mercessly badgering public servants with their own pet peave.

He seems to be the sort of guy that would cause those workers to ring for the security guy as soon as he enters the door.

There was a classic John Cleese/Marty Feldman sketch a few years before Monty Python where a guy goes into a book store and asks for “‘Olsen’s Standard Book of British Birds’”. Customer The expurgated version. Assistant The expurgated version of ‘Olsen’s Standard Book of British Birds’? Customer Yes. The one without the gannet.

Comment #88078 posted by MP on March 20, 2006 10:58 PM

On behalf of the lurkers around here

Who are you to presume to speak for others here ?

he also combines authoritarian statements

“Authoritarian“? LOL No, the authoritarian statements are made by those who believe that we lay people should all blindly accept the opinions of the “experts.“ I think that you mean “authoritative,“ but I don‘t try to look authoritative except when I am citing references.

– with admission that he just looked the thing up on wikipedia.

I have been using Wikipedia for a long time and I have found that it is not often wrong. It also has good lists of references. I try to check other references too, particularly when something in Wikipedia appears questionable or is challenged by others. People who condemn Wikipedia have failed to provide references which contradict it.

if you honestly think that anyone, anywhere believes that you know what you’re talking about, or even sides with you on any of the issues, then why haven’t any of the other pro-id people who comment on this website come to your defense, or really anyone at all, for that matter?

I presume that a lot of sensible people leave this blog in disgust because – like me – they are incessantly heckled with nothing but insults and ad hominem attacks if they try to comment here. It is obvious that there are very few anti-Darwinist commenters on this blog.

OK, I propose the following. I will go to some neutral message board – e.g., the AOL message board on evolution – and ask for comments about some of the incredible things I have seen in this thread, e.g. –

(1) – saying that the words information, randomness, and complexity are used interchangeably in information theory.

(2) – comparing the definitions of “Chaitin-Kolmogorov randomness“ and “Kolmogorov complexity“ and saying that these terms mean the same thing.

(3) – saying that using “random instructions“ in the description of a string is not just a violation of the principle that the description must uniquely identify a string, but is something different.

I will go to some neutral message board

You do that, Larry.

Then don’t come back.

Larry Wrote:

I presume that a lot of sensible people leave this blog in disgust because — like me — they are incessantly heckled with nothing but insults and ad hominem attacks if they try to comment here. It is obvious that there are very few anti-Darwinist commenters on this blog

Let’s be quite clear and candid, Larry.

You are heckled on this blog because you are scientifically illiterate, dishonest, completely lacking in both intellectual integrity and reasoning ability.

In other words, you are an ignorant liar who refuses to abide by the rules of the site you’re posting on.

No one cares what your opinion is on any subject whatever.

*Sigh* Another episode of “As The Wingnut Turns”

But what is going on is a socio-political fight, as anti-science forces (the ones who use political processes to alter the definition of science, among other things) seek to get what they want, but can’t establish via the mechanisms of science. As such, yeah, character is definitely something that deserves examination.

I know Wesley made this comment a while back in the thread, before the attempted derail by the usual suspect, but I thought I’d go back and address this.

When someone makes a character assertion about another individual in the course of a rhetorical discussion, there are generally two possible outcomes.

1) It is an ad hominem attack, which is used to distract from the actual argument. You can pick these out quickly because the level upon which someone is being attacked is irrelevant to the argument. A good, though somewhat exemplified, example would be:

Professor Al has developed a potential cure for cancer and would like it to be tested. However, he’s an admitted adulterer, so he can’t possibly be right.

Even if he was an adulterer, it would have no bearing on the merits of his scientific argument.

However…

2) It is relevant to establishing the credibility/ability or lack thereof of the person in question. For instance:

Professor Al has developed a potential cure for cancer and would like it to be tested. However, he’s lied about developing cold fusion, cloning, and the internet already.

In this case, the character assertion is directly relevant to the discussion because it is connected to the decision being made.

Thus, my point: Examining the scientific credentials and past work of speakers in the field of evolution, along with their history of academic and/or judicial honesty is not only fair, it is also quite possibly necessary. If someone has a past history of peddling lies and erroneous statements, then this person deserves to have the burden of proof placed upon them whenever they speak. Thus, the fact that creationists/IDiots were shown to be liars and/or scientifically vacuous in Dover is highly relevant to any additional discussion on the topic, especially when others are directly connected to the same movement and groups involved.

So Wesley is dead on to attack their credentials and behavior about this exact topic we are discussing. It is highly relevant.

Bottom line, hasn’t Larry been banned?

And the banned played on…

I apologize for continuing to derail this, but … Larry said,

Who are you to presume to speak for others here?

In a group that doesn’t speak for itself, the spokesman is just someone who chooses to speak. As a lurker, I chose to speak for lurkers. Unless other lurkers speak up and disagree with me, I will assume that I spoke on their behalf.

Larry also said,

Authoritarian? LOL No, the authoritarian statements are made by those who believe that we lay people should all blindly accept the opinions of the “experts.” I think that you mean “authoritative,” but I don’t try to look authoritative except when I am citing references.

No, you are incorrect. I meant authoritarian. An authoritative statement requires that it be based on some competent authority to be legitimate. An authoritarian statement merely invokes an authority and expects you to accept it; no legitimacy required. You set yourself up as an authority without any legitimate basis:

…now I am arguing the “experts” into the ground about [evolooshun] (sic)

and then expect us to accept your arguments. I realize the difference is nuanced and requires reading comprehension (dictionaries don’t just tell you these things), so I’ll forgive your error, but I’ll thank you for not correcting me when I’m right.

Btw, I’m not refuting the quality of Wikipedia, just your ability to understand anything you’re reading from it.

Also, as an engineer ashamed that Larry could ever have shared my profession, I gotta say:

Larry claimed: As a mechanical engineer, I am well aware that many terms have different common and engineering meanings … the misnamed auto parts called “radiators”…

Dude, an engine’s radiator radiates internal heat from coolant fluid into the outside environment. It does exactly what the name implies! WTF did you think it did, and what cereal box did you mail in to get your degree? Cause I could use a Master’s degree, and that would save a lot of time.

Dude, an engine’s radiator radiates internal heat from coolant fluid into the outside environment. It does exactly what the name implies! WTF did you think it did, and what cereal box did you mail in to get your degree? Cause I could use a Master’s degree, and that would save a lot of time.

While a car radiator does radiate some heat to the cooler environment, I think that you will find that the primary mode of heat exchange is convection in that case, not radiation. One can note that heat transfer works better for a moving car, yet that would not change radiative heat transfer. But it does change the amount of air passing over/through the system, which makes a big difference for convective cooling. I’m willing to hear arguments contrary to this, but I think this holds up.

Anyway, Jeffrey Shallit appeared to care about what I thought, because he replied to me with a clarification of his comments.

This is Larry/Andy/J.Early/J.Nameless/Whatever in all his senile incontinent glory: his only reason for posting here is to get people to respond to him, and no matter now negative the attention is, it’s still better for him than the miserable stagnation and irrelevance that passes for his life off-line.

There are sadder people than this, but they generally can’t afford Internet access and wouldn’t know what to do with it anyway.

PS: What does the “J” stand for – “jackass” or “jerkoff?”

I presume that a lot of sensible people leave this blog in disgust because — like me — they are incessantly heckled with nothing but insults and ad hominem attacks if they try to comment here. It is obvious that there are very few anti-Darwinist commenters on this blog…

Actually, they show up making a lot of insulting remarks (as Larry did about Judge Jones) and incoherent, indefensible statements; then they quietly vanish when those statements are painstakingly refuted by people who know what they’re talking about.

It seems to me that the only places where “anti-Darwinist commenters” feel at all safe, are places like UD whose owners dilligently filter out people who question their brittle faith.

Wes:

While a car radiator does radiate some heat to the cooler environment, I think that you will find that the primary mode of heat exchange is convection in that case, not radiation. One can note that heat transfer works better for a moving car, yet that would not change radiative heat transfer. But it does change the amount of air passing over/through the system, which makes a big difference for convective cooling. I’m willing to hear arguments contrary to this, but I think this holds up.

Point taken. I am aware of how the heat transfer works, therefore I should have been more clear (but I was tired and annoyed..). Still, the radiator works as its name implies, which is what bothered me, by radiating the heat from the coolant fluid over the large surface area of the radiator, so that convection may occur. You are quite correct in your statement, and a car engine’s radiator wouldn’t do much cooling without an air current. However, air currents moving over an engine with no radiator would be ineffective as well. It’s a system (intelligently designed, no less), and I was not clear on that. My apologies.

Perhaps you should read The Biotic Message if your complaint is the credentials of authorship or maybe Dembski’s numerous publications.

Assuming your complaint’s are justified it merely points out your preference for amplifying Red Herrings and Strawman fallacies frequenttly committed by the proponents of Scientific Mysticism (evolution).

Can you demonstrate in scientific terms and methods anything you know to be proven true about S.M.?

Please refrain from tautologies, special exceptions, “lame” arguments, etc… in other words the stock and trade of S.M.

Keith:

Check your reading comprehension. The point of the post was to show that Nancy Pearcey was wrong in her claims about information. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If so, present it.

If you want to know what we know about evolution, I’d suggest picking up a textbook. Futuyma is a good choice. Of course, it’s easier to simply rant.

Now, a question for you: why do anti-evolution crackpots so often use bizarre capitalization and terminology of their own invention? Is it mere incompetence or some more sinister psychological disturbance?

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jeffrey Shallit published on March 18, 2006 7:36 AM.

Same ol’, same ol’ was the previous entry in this blog.

Evolution for Kids is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter