Stephen Meyer needs your help

| 159 Comments

It has been announced that Stephen Meyer is working on a new book, Darwin’s Doubt, to be published in June by HarperOne, the religion imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. The indefatigable Evolution News and Views describes the purpose of the book as “game-changing”, and says that “a revolution is on the horizon”. The book is to start with the mystery of the Cambrian explosion.

Evolutionary biologists and paleontologists since then have struggled to explain this epic event. Dr. Meyer takes his readers on a journey through scientific history, starting with the discovery of the Burgess Shale by Charles Walcott in 1909. He shows how failed attempts to give a satisfying Darwinian explanation of the Cambrian explosion have opened the door to increasingly profound questions, posed by evolutionary biologists themselves, leading to a far greater mystery: the origin of the biological information necessary to build the animals of the Cambrian and all the living creatures that have existed on Earth.

(Yes, there are days when I too feel as if I have been struggling for 530 million years).

I suggest we help Meyer with his book. These days a book can be revised up until perhaps a month before publication, so there is still time for Meyer to take our advice. What issues should be carefully discussed? We wouldn’t want him to overlook important questions if

Dr. Meyer stands on the verge of turning the evolution debate in an entirely new direction, compelling critics of the theory of intelligent design, at last, to respond substantively and [in] detail. The book will be a game-changer, for science and culture alike.

Let me start with my suggestion (but you will have others to add). Dr. Meyer should explain the notion of Complex Specified Information (CSI) and deal carefully with the criticisms of it. Many critics of Intelligent Design argued that it is meaningless. But even those who did not consider it meaningless (and I was one) found fatal flaws in the way Meyer’s friend William Dembski used it to argue for ID. Dembski’s Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was invoked to argue that when we observe adaptation that is much better than could be achieved by pure mutation (monkeys-with-genomic-typewriters), that this must imply that Design is present. But alas, Elsberry and Shallit in 2003 found that when Dembski proved his theorem, he violated a condition that he himself had laid down, and I (2007) found another fatal flaw – the scale on which the adaptation is measured (the Specification) is not kept the same throughout Dembski’s argument. Keeping it the same destroys this supposed Law. Meyer should explain all this to the reader, and clarify to ID advocates that the LCCSI does not rule out natural selection as the reason why there is nonrandomly good adaptation in nature.

But enough of my obsessions: what do you suggest? Now is our chance to ensure that Dr. Meyer does not inadvertently forget some major issue, so that his game-changing book truly deals clearly and honestly with the major issues surrounding “the theory of intelligent design”.

159 Comments

Well my suggestion would be that he explain why the “explosion” happened hundreds of millions of years ago and why it took millions of years to happen. That should make the YECs very happy. I would also suggest that he explain why there were no vertebrates of any kind produced by the “explosion” until millions of years later. No fish, no amphibians, no reptiles, no birds, no mammals, such some basal chordates. Why is that?

I’m not sure why they are speaking so triumphantly. So little of the internal anatomy of the Ediacaran macrofossils (not to speak of cellular and subcellular structure) is preserved that much of the interpretation must rest on assumptions. Is this the kind of evidence they want to rest their faith in God on?

What is the alternate view of the origin of the Cambrian animals? Does Meyer say that God came down and made all the critters in one fell swoop?

See the thing is that once you start using the fossil record to argue from, which is the only evidence for the so called cambrian explosion, then you are forced into admitting that the record is exactly what one would expect if evolution were true. It is exactly what one would not expect if creationism of any sort were true. So the only way you can make it work is to lie and misrepresent and that isn’t gong to fool anyone who knows anything. And you don’t need to look at the fossil record at all to fool people who know nothing, so what’s the point? Is he that desperate to try to appear scientific?

So, is Stephen Meyer going to explain how Intelligent Design is relevant, I mean vital to understanding the origins and morphologies of Late Precambrian and Early Paleozoic organisms? A magic trick never successfully produced by any anti-evolutionist ever?

I think we ought to mention the recent research that shows the Cambrian “explosion” really wasn’t any more significant than any other period of Earth’s history.

I would also REALLY like to see an explanation of where the “intelligence” requirement is in all the Intelligent Design work. Is human level intelligence enough? Is termite level intelligence enough (Hi JoeG!)? Is only supernatural deity level intelligence enough?

Since termites can create highly complex structures are they equivalent to god… I mean, the Designer?

Finally, I’d like a brief description of the last few dozen “game-changing”, “Darwin killing”, “paradigm altering” books and papers… and why they actually didn’t change the game, kill Darwin, or alter the paradigm of science.

But I guess an honest discussion of the topic would be too much. The point is to make money off the rubes, not actually do anything useful.

Let’s see, Dembski actually wrote a book named The Design Revolution which was published in 2004.

Yet “a revolution is on the horizon.”

Yep, it’s happened, it’s happening, and it is yet to happen. Typical IDiot logic.

Glen Davidson

DS: The Cambrian explosion did produce vertebrates, or so it appears. Haikouichthys, for example. What you mean is that none of the vertebrate taxa more familiar to us – sharks, bony fish, tetrapods, etc. – arose then. Not to mention plants, which all came later.

Ogremk5: What recent research, exactly?

I’d like to see Meyer’s theory about what the explosion was, rather than what it wasn’t. And then I’d like to see a proposed test for that theory. Is he claiming fiat creation, or is the unnamed designer supposed to have done a few tweaks then?

DS said:

Well my suggestion would be that he explain why the “explosion” happened hundreds of millions of years ago and why it took millions of years to happen. That should make the YECs very happy. I would also suggest that he explain why there were no vertebrates of any kind produced by the “explosion” until millions of years later. No fish, no amphibians, no reptiles, no birds, no mammals, such some basal chordates. Why is that?

Because it is not Intelligent Design proponents’ responsibility to provide some tedious any explanation like the way Evolution(ary Biology) can, duh.

Karen S. said:

What is the alternate view of the origin of the Cambrian animals? Does Meyer say that God came down and made all the critters in one fell swoop?

In not so many words, that’s precisely what Meyer is saying, though if he explicitly states that he exposes his creationist ties and the game is over.

I think all of their books borrow and rehash arguments from one another, e.g., Dembski’s “The Design Revolution.”

But throughout this whole mess again as someone pointed out they never have to explain their position, only to attack the biological premise and evidence.

I think it would help for Meyer to tell us why life appears in, say, such an evolutionary manner, with prokaryotes evident first, then eukaryotes, and “coincidentally,” the “Cambrian Explosion” occurring after titanically great geologic changes. You know, as adaptive radiations often do.

Oh yeah, I’d like the design explanation for the “Ediacaran Explosion” that came prior to the “Cambrian Explosion.” I’m sure that it makes design perfect sense to come up with a whole set of organisms, then to wipe them out with few or no descendants. I’m also eager to hear why a number of Cambrian phyla also appeared, only to go extinct shortly thereafter. Designer lost the blueprints? Why don’t we see, for instance, pterosaurs being remade, same problem with record-keeping?

May as well explain the appearance of later phyla as well, Steve. You know, because intelligent design has endless resources for explanation, like “God did it,” “Jesus did it,” and, “the Designer did it.”

And tell us why all of life–including phyla that appeared in the Cambrian–is so extremely derivative, as it must be with known evolutionary mechanisms, and which makes no sense at all from a design standpoint.

You know, if he answers all of those explanations meaningfully, that is, with reference to known design possibilities existing at that time, it will be revolutionary. Otherwise, well, it’ll be the same old dreck.

Glen Davidson

Why does extinction happen? Is it related to the Fall…?

John Harshman said:

DS: The Cambrian explosion did produce vertebrates, or so it appears. Haikouichthys, for example. What you mean is that none of the vertebrate taxa more familiar to us – sharks, bony fish, tetrapods, etc. – arose then. Not to mention plants, which all came later.

The Cambrian vertebrates/craniates would have resembled lancetfish with large eyes. “Fish” as we’d (sort of) recognize them appeared during the Ordovician. True/higher plants had not yet differentiated from the green algae until the Silurian.

I’d like to see Meyer’s theory about what the explosion was, rather than what it wasn’t. And then I’d like to see a proposed test for that theory. Is he claiming fiat creation, or is the unnamed designer supposed to have done a few tweaks then?

The cynical realist in me suggests that Meyer will be too busy ooing and aweing over how marvelous Intelligent Design is, and or how incompetent Evolution(ary Biology and Science) is to even get around to presenting anything that could be called/mistaken for a theory.

Dr. Meyer stands on the verge of turning the evolution debate in an entirely new direction, compelling critics of the theory of intelligent design, at last, to respond substantively and [in] detail. The book will be a game-changer, for science and culture alike.

Since it is the Dishonesty Institute, you can assume it is false.

William Dembski:

At the Fourth World Skeptics Conference, held on June 20–23, 2002 in Burbank, California, he told the audience that “over the next twenty-five years ID will provide the greatest challenge to skepticism”. He asserted that “ID is threatening to be mainstream”,

The ID creationists say things like that a lot, make claims of imminent victory.

Dembski said in 2002 that ID was going to become mainstream. Since that time, 11 years ago, around 26 million people have left US xianity. Which is slowly dying.

They don’t pay any attention to reality or facts.

Matt G said:

Why does extinction happen? Is it related to the Fall…?

Possibly: This one creationist tried to poopoo the significance and discovery of the “pregnant placoderm,” Materpiscis by dismissing the fossil through claiming that her species was deliberately obliterated by God during the Flood as a part of the “just” punishment of human sin.

raven said:

(The ID creationists) don’t pay any attention to reality or facts.

With the sole exception when reality and facts collude together to result in jail time and or career-destroying bankruptcy for ID creationists.

Of course ID isn’t religious (nudge, nudge, wink, wink), so where does CSI go in an extinction event? Why is it created, and then allowed to be lost?

apokryltaros said:

Matt G said:

Why does extinction happen? Is it related to the Fall…?

Possibly: This one creationist tried to poopoo the significance and discovery of the “pregnant placoderm,” Materpiscis by dismissing the fossil through claiming that her species was deliberately obliterated by God during the Flood as a part of the “just” punishment of human sin.

John, Here’s the stuff I’m basing my thoughts on.

http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/[…]ield2007.pdf MACROEVOLUTION AND MACROECOLOGY THROUGH DEEP TIME

Butterfield looks at the ecosystem stability and the morphological disparity of the last 1.6 billion years. Disparity is determined from variety of cell types. According to this, the actual ‘explosion’ was in the Ediacaran (including the Tommotian of the Cambrian). The actual Cambrian time period wasn’t that different from the rest of the Phanerozoic.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/[…].00611.x/pdf AUTECOLOGY AND THE FILLING OF ECOSPACE: KEY METAZOAN RADIATIONS

This paper is basing diversity on modes of life, rather than cell types. From this point of view, the Ediacaran has the lowest rate of appearance of unique modes. The Cambrian is a little better, but the post Cambrian eras seem to have greater development of various modes of life.

I’ll freely admit I am probably wrong about this and a lot of depends on how you define diversity. While the Cambrian is, paleontologically, obviously explosive, I think that missing a lot of the soft-bodied Ediacaran stuff may be over-reporting the diversity explosion in the Cambrian.

Hope that helps. Useful criticism appreciated.

DavidK said:

Karen S. said:

What is the alternate view of the origin of the Cambrian animals? Does Meyer say that God came down and made all the critters in one fell swoop?

In not so many words, that’s precisely what Meyer is saying, though if he explicitly states that he exposes his creationist ties and the game is over.

I think all of their books borrow and rehash arguments from one another, e.g., Dembski’s “The Design Revolution.”

But throughout this whole mess again as someone pointed out they never have to explain their position, only to attack the biological premise and evidence.

This is my point. If you expose people to the real fossil record, they will see, if they are intellectually honest, that it is exactly what is predicted by descent with modification. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that god poofed all species into existence, but left out major groups and only added them millions of years later as an afterthought, just after other major groups went extinct. You might get away with that crap if no one actually knew what the fossil record showed, but the minute you trying to explain it from a creationist perspective, it all falls apart. And until you come up with an alternative explanation that has more explanatory and predictive power than the theory of evolution, you are just spitting into the wind. In order to overthrow evolution, or even to “become mainstream”, you have to actually, you know, explain something. Until then, you will be relegated to the backwater of unsubstantiated ideas, even if you are right!

So Stephen, you got some splainin to do. We know god can do anything she wants, but why did she did it this way? Maybe she really wants us all to believe in evolution. If so, you better play along. You wouldn’t want to get her angry.

apokryltaros said:

raven said:

(The ID creationists) don’t pay any attention to reality or facts.

With the sole exception when reality and facts collude together to result in jail time and or career-destroying bankruptcy for ID creationists.

Which IDiot(s) got jail time? (The CLM, no argument there. I just didn’t remember about any IDiots getting a spell in the big house.)

Honestly-have the book fact-checked by scientific professionals in the field(s) the book will cover. The validity of his arguments aside, Meyer’s earlier book Signature in the Cell was riddled with errors. Steve Matheson pointed out many in his review, and as someone who works on RNA world research, I found Meyer’s treatment of that subject particularly bad. These errors range from the trivial but embarrassing-many of Meyer’s literature citations are incorrect, he routinely confuses nucleotides, nucleosides, and the nitrogenous bases- to significantly questioning his understanding of the subject matter- Meyer claims the peptidyl transferase center of the ribosome is a protein, that the ribosome itself is mostly protein, that proteins can fold into more complex shapes than RNA because amino acids can be hydrophobic or hydrophilic while RNA bases are only hydrophilic, etc. It seems like most of these could have been avoided by having a scientist review his manuscript, though admittedly, correcting some of these errors (like those regarding junk DNA or the ribosome) would weaken his main arguments. Still avoiding the blatent misstatement of facts would probably get a few more scientists to respond as “substantively” as he desires rather than as dismissively as SitC deserved.

I’d like to see a serious explanation of what was so “explosive” about the Cambrian explosion. It lasted about 50 million years. That’s a long time for purposes of evolutionary change.

If the typical creature living during the Cambrian required a full year between generations, they had time for 50 million generations. In all likelihood, reproduction for the simple creatures then alive took much less than a day, possibly only an hour, so there were literally billions of generations during that “explosion.”

That’s plenty of time for a whole lot of “micro” evolution to occur, and the cumulative effect of billions of generations was sufficient for all that “micro” evolution to become “macro” evolution.

ogremk5 said:

John, Here’s the stuff I’m basing my thoughts on.

http://rogov.zwz.ru/Macroevolution/[…]ield2007.pdf MACROEVOLUTION AND MACROECOLOGY THROUGH DEEP TIME

Butterfield looks at the ecosystem stability and the morphological disparity of the last 1.6 billion years. Disparity is determined from variety of cell types. According to this, the actual ‘explosion’ was in the Ediacaran (including the Tommotian of the Cambrian). The actual Cambrian time period wasn’t that different from the rest of the Phanerozoic.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/[…].00611.x/pdf AUTECOLOGY AND THE FILLING OF ECOSPACE: KEY METAZOAN RADIATIONS

This paper is basing diversity on modes of life, rather than cell types. From this point of view, the Ediacaran has the lowest rate of appearance of unique modes. The Cambrian is a little better, but the post Cambrian eras seem to have greater development of various modes of life.

I’ll freely admit I am probably wrong about this and a lot of depends on how you define diversity. While the Cambrian is, paleontologically, obviously explosive, I think that missing a lot of the soft-bodied Ediacaran stuff may be over-reporting the diversity explosion in the Cambrian.

Hope that helps. Useful criticism appreciated.

Sure. Butterfield makes an interesting case for something important happening in the Ediacaran based on acritarchs and other microorganisms. But the case for Eumetazoa is weaker, as most Ediacaran fossils are still problematic. Even the Doushantuo embryos have recently been doubted, recast as clustered protist spores. So it’s all very tenuous. Anyone who can get the number of cell types out of all that is being highly speculative.

I also wonder what the Tommotian pelagic eumetazoans are. Do you know?

For Bambach et al. it seems to me that the Cambrian explosion is still an explosion, i.e. a major change in a short time. Almost that Cambrian diversity (or what is more usually called disparity) appears within the relatively short period of the explosion, say 10 million years or so. (We can argue whether that appearance is a taphonomic artifact, but that’s another question). The comparisons are to the entire Ordovician and to all subsequent time. Clearly a 50% increase is pretty big, but not as big per unit time as that short Cambrian increase. And doubling through all subsequent time, even more so.

I wonder where they got Burgess Shale pictures from. When they asked Callen Bentley he gave the appropriate reply:

Hello Andrew,

Thanks for your interest.

I hold the Discovery Institute in the lowest regard, and it sounds like the new book will be a further perversion of reason in the name of pseudoscience. As a science educator, I could never support such an effort! I will not grant reproduction rights to any of my photos or drawings to any creationist effort such as the one you describe here.

Best wishes for your good health, and the speedy demise of the sham institution that employs you.

Callan Bentley

I can’t think of better advice than what we learned in our high-school lessons on descriptive writing, the six W’s. Describe the who, what, where, when, why and how of intelligent design.

It would be nice if there were a description of what happened during the design of (for example) the vertebrate eye, when and where that happened, something about the designer(s) who did that design (how many of them, what traits they have that influenced their design motivations and methods), how they used (or went beyond) the laws of nature and the materials they were given to work with, and something about why they resorted to design (rather than natural processes) at that time (rather than making the animals the right way from scratch).

First thing he should do is change the title, it’s Meyer’s doubt, not Darwin’s.

Second, if he really wants to “explain” the cambrian “explosion”, the correct explanation is to be found in evolutionary development and the evolution of hox genes, CREs and GRNs. I will not hold my breath waiting for a detailed discussion of these topics. It is obvious that he isn’t qualified to address them.

SensuousCurmudgeon said:

I’d like to see a serious explanation of what was so “explosive” about the Cambrian explosion. It lasted about 50 million years. That’s a long time for purposes of evolutionary change.

That depends on what you count as the explosion. You’re counting the entire Cambrian, apparently. But most of the early Cambrian (everything before the Atdabanian first appearance of trilobites) is usually not counted, and it’s generally considered all over by the start of the middle Cambrian. Though it isn’t clear how much time that is, it’s probably around 5-10 million years, which seems a short time, and a busy one when compared to what has happened over comparable lengths of time elsewhere in the Phanerozoic. (Caveat: I still don’t know what actually happened, particularly how much is just a taphonomic artifact.)

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall – it is “Atheistoclast” again. All replies to AC are also going there. JF

Complex Specified Information - Phlogiston Compare and Contrast.

This comment has been moved to The Bathroom Wall.

Robert, I have tried talking to you before but you are stone deaf.

Even if true there still is not presented any evidence for connections by descent.

Please take a look at DNA here and tell us it is all nonsense, that’s why no criminal court views DNA as evidence?

Brace yourselves for a flood of comments. PZ Myers just discussed Meyer’s forthcoming book and mentioned this thread.

Joe Felsenstein said:

Some flood! ;-)

They are obviously terrified of your urbane erudition.

It would be nice if there were a description of what happened during the design of (for example) the vertebrate eye, when and where that happened, something about the designer(s) who did that design (how many of them, what traits they have that influenced their design motivations and methods), how they used (or went beyond) the laws of nature and the materials they were given to work with, and something about why they resorted to design (rather than natural processes) at that time (rather than making the animals the right way from scratch).

Why would you have to be able to describe when and where the design of the vertebrate eys happened in order to know that it was designed? ID doesnt care who did the designing the only thing that it is picking up are the clues that the eye was designed. It may very well have been some naturalistic process that did the designing. ID is simply trying to detect if the thing was designed. This is not creation science which all the prior metaphysical baggage of trying to prove God exists. ID is perfectly comfortable simply showing that something was designed because it exhibits the hallmarks of design and it could care less about “who” or “what did the designing. Do you need to know who designed your car to know that it was designed? It seems that you are creating a scenario where the ID position is simply defined out of the picture rather than really discussed and shown with proper science why it is faulty. If evolutionists wanted to end the conversation they would just have to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems (many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity) apart from teleology or design. If you could do that then the ID project falls apart. Instead of worrying about who or what did the designing why wouldn’t you just focus on showing that it isn’t designed?

Aaron Marshall, let me ask you this. Are you a Christian?

(I’m an atheist.)

Aaron Marshall said:

It would be nice if there were a description of what happened during the design of (for example) the vertebrate eye, when and where that happened, something about the designer(s) who did that design (how many of them, what traits they have that influenced their design motivations and methods), how they used (or went beyond) the laws of nature and the materials they were given to work with, and something about why they resorted to design (rather than natural processes) at that time (rather than making the animals the right way from scratch).

Why would you have to be able to describe when and where the design of the vertebrate eys happened in order to know that it was designed? ID doesnt care who did the designing the only thing that it is picking up are the clues that the eye was designed. It may very well have been some naturalistic process that did the designing. ID is simply trying to detect if the thing was designed. This is not creation science which all the prior metaphysical baggage of trying to prove God exists. ID is perfectly comfortable simply showing that something was designed because it exhibits the hallmarks of design and it could care less about “who” or “what did the designing. Do you need to know who designed your car to know that it was designed? It seems that you are creating a scenario where the ID position is simply defined out of the picture rather than really discussed and shown with proper science why it is faulty. If evolutionists wanted to end the conversation they would just have to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems (many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity) apart from teleology or design. If you could do that then the ID project falls apart. Instead of worrying about who or what did the designing why wouldn’t you just focus on showing that it isn’t designed?

Aaron Marshall said:

ID doesnt care who did the designing the only thing that it is picking up are the clues that the eye was designed.

As far as I know, there are no such clues.

ID is perfectly comfortable simply showing that something was designed because it exhibits the hallmarks of design and it could care less about “who” or “what did the designing.

But nobody can do that, and it’s been years and years and years.

If evolutionists wanted to end the conversation they would just have to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems (many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity) apart from teleology or design.

It is ignorant, presumptuous statements like that which piss off this anti-designist.

…why wouldn’t you just focus on showing that it isn’t designed?

How? Nobody can tell whether a thing is designed or not.

If evolutionists wanted to end the conversation they would just have to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems (many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity) apart from teleology or design. If you could do that then the ID project falls apart. Instead of worrying about who or what did the designing why wouldn’t you just focus on showing that it isn’t designed?

Here’s a thought: The IDiots could provide some evidence for design, which failed as a meaningful hypothesis prior to Darwin. No wild-type organism has any evident purpose, nor is there any rational choosing of options across the taxa of organisms where vertical transmission of genetic information greatly predominates, rather organisms follow the extremely inheritance-derivative pattern of adaptation that is expected from non-teleological evolution.

Not that you care, I suspect (if you did you’d study evolution with an open mind, rather than just referring to BS “science”), as you seem to be one of the obnoxious trolls who constantly returns, whining that we treat him like the filth he is. The answer above is really for possible lurkers, rather than what you likely are.

Glen Davidson

Aaron Marshall said:

Do you need to know who designed your car to know that it was designed?

If you want your car repaired in a competent fashion, then yes, you do need to know who designed it. Especially since many cars will only function correctly with parts made by their original manufacturer.

It seems that you are creating a scenario where the ID position is simply defined out of the picture rather than really discussed and shown with proper science why it is faulty.

It would help if the Intelligent Design proponents were to define and demonstrate how to detect “designed” in the first place.

If evolutionists wanted to end the conversation they would just have to account for the emergence of multipart, tightly integrated complex biological systems

If you had taken the time to look, even on Wikipedia, scientists are already doing that by studying Cambrian and Precambrian fossils. Intelligent Design proponents, on the other hand, simply scavenge through scientific findings in order to make up more false prophecies about how Evolution is allegedly doomed because scientists make new discoveries.

(many of which display irreducible and minimal complexity)

“Irreducible Complexity” is nothing more than Michael Behe’s appeal to incredulity, where he claims that “I can’t be bothered to understand how said biological structure evolved, therefore DESIGNERDIDIT.”

apart from teleology or design.

It is the Intelligent Design proponents’ responsibility to support their own claims and to demonstrate how Intelligent Design is supposed to be an explanation.

If you could do that then the ID project falls apart. Instead of worrying about who or what did the designing why wouldn’t you just focus on showing that it isn’t designed?

Scientists are already doing science, in addition to demonstrating that Intelligent Design is not science, and that Intelligent Design proponents are full of shit.

If Intelligent Design proponents wanted to demonstrate how or why Intelligent Design is supposed to be a science magically superior to Evolutionary Biology, they are free to do so.

Unfortunately, none have ever done so, as all appear to be too busy regurgitating politically and religiously motivated anti-science propaganda.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Joe Felsenstein published on March 26, 2013 4:45 AM.

Pile-of-plates cloud was the previous entry in this blog.

To Distinguish Creationism from ID, Try Evolution as the Outgroup 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 4.38

Site Meter