Recently in Assault on Science Category

John Freshwater was interviewed by Bob Burney on the April 28^th, 2008 on 880 WRFD. I listened to the interview and was amazed by how Freshwater’s friends help undermine his own case

Bob mentions that one of his son’s is in Freshwater’s class

Bob: And from day 1, John, he has been telling me what a wonderful teacher you are and the fact that you present both sides to issues and which is just wonderful and unfortunately kind of rare in the schools today.

So what do you guess, did Freshwater tell about the two sides of homosexuality? Or was this a topic in which John decided to tell only one side of the story?

From CNN we learn that

The report also cites evidence that Mr. Freshwater told his students that “science is wrong because the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin and so anyone who is gay chooses to be gay and is therefore a sinner.”

Listen to the rest for more foolishness.

Couple of interesting stories about the efforts of Turkish Muslim creationist Harun Yahya (nee Adnan Oktar). From the New Humanist:

Oktar is a figure fairly well known to Darwinists and despite his claims to scientific competence is clearly little more than a crank. However what had changed, according to the report, was the scale and ambition of Oktar’s pseudo-scientific message. Since 2006 copies of a substantial, glossy and smartly packaged book called Atlas of Creation, credited to Harun Yahya, had been arriving at schools and universities across Europe. In Spain, France, Switzerland and Denmark clear evidence of the growing resources and confidence of European Muslim creationism was thudding on to the mat. The book is the first of a projected seven-part series, and parts two and three have already begun arriving at educational institutes Europe-wide.

(via NF)

And from Reuters:

Well-illustrated and free of theological jargon, they preach that Islam is the one true faith and Darwinism, by undermining religious belief, has led to the discord, atheism, terrorism and extreme political ideologies plaguing the world.

Reader-friendly, the books appeal to Muslims trying to square modern science with their faith in an inerrant Koran, much like Christian evangelicals who read the Bible literally and support creationism or intelligent design theories.

(via LGF)

Discovery [sic] Institute fellow John West has a long article at National Review praising the recently enacted Louisiana creationism law, which is of course disguised as a “protection” for “dissenting” teachers who are being persecuted by The Man. John Derbyshire, also at National Review, has an excellent response to it here, indicating that at least some prominent conservatives are fed up with the pseudoscience. (LGF, too.) According to West, the law simply gives teachers “a modest measure of protection” when they try to “question[]…the ‘consensus’ view on…scientific issues.” Of course, the law is more than that: it is an attempt to cleverly phrase an invitation to religious propagandists to use government-run, taxpayer-supported schools as a forum to teach religion to other people’s children.

To Derbyshire’s excellent analysis, I would add only the following.

Read the rest at Freespace…

The lawsuit filed by Texas science educator Chris Comer (see Chris Comer Sues Texas Agency: ‘Neutrality’ is Endorsement of Religion) has been posted by the National Center for Science Education.

A juicy tidbit from the lawsuit:

… the Agency’s firing of its Director of Science for not remaining “neutral” on the subject violates the Establishment Clause, because it employs the symbolic and financial support of the State of Texas to achieve a religious purpose, and so has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion. By professing “neutrality,” the Agency credits creationism as a valid scientific theory. Finally, the Agency fired Director Comer without according her due process as required by the 14^th Amendment — a protection especially important here because Director Comer was fired for contravening and unconstitutional policy.

Oh yeah - Watch NCSE’s video about Chris Comer.

NOTE TO COMMENTERS: The topic of this thread is Chris Comer’s lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency. Do not clutter this thread with unrelated topics like evidence of Christ’s resurrection, evidence for the Origin Of Life (OOL), etc. I won’t be as lenient as I was in the last thread on this topic.

Last fall, Texas science educator Christina Comer was fired for simply advising colleagues of an upcoming talk on Intelligent Design Creationism by professor Barbara Forrest. (See Expelled: Texas Education Agency Fires Staffer for Announcing Talk by Barbara Forrest for some of the details.)

Now, Comer is fighting back. USA Today reports on July 3^rd that

A former science curriculum director for the Texas Education Agency has filed a federal lawsuit alleging she was illegally fired for forwarding an e-mail about a speaker who was critical of teaching a controversial alternative to evolution.

Christina Comer, who lost her job at the TEA last year, said in the suit filed Wednesday against the TEA and Education Commissioner Robert Scott that she was terminated for defying an unconstitutional policy that required employees to be neutral on the subject of creationism — the biblical interpretation of the origin of human life.

The e-mail, which was intercepted by a state education leader, was about a speaker coming to Austin who had critical views of creationism and the teaching of intelligent design.

The federal courts have ruled that teaching creationism as science in public schools is illegal under the U.S. Constitution’s provision preventing government establishment or endorsement of religious beliefs. “The agency’s ‘neutrality’ policy has the purpose or effect of endorsing religion, and thus violates the Establishment Clause,” the lawsuit said. … The lawsuit seeks a court order overturning the TEA’s neutrality policy on teaching of creationism and declaring that her dismissal was unconstitutional and her reinstatement to her old job.

Discuss. And, have a safe and happy 4^th of July!

Bill Barrow of the (New Orleans) Times Picayune has the bad news:

Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana Science Education Act.

Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss evolution, cloning and global warming.

The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the power to prohibit materials, though the bill does not spell out how state officials should go about policing local instructional practices. … Critics call it a back-door attempt to replay old battles about including biblical creationism or intelligent design in science curricula, a point defenders reject based on a clause that the law “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine … or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.”

In signing the bill, Jindal issued a brief statement that read in part: “I will continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE to make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children.”

Political observers said Jindal’s signature will please one of his key local constituencies: conservative Protestants in north Louisiana. Jindal’s long-term political challenge, they said, particularly if the Brown University biology graduate ever seeks national office, is not allowing his political image to be defined by such moves.

“It’s good politics if you are a conservative Republican politician,” said Pearson Cross, a political scientist at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. “That being said, not every place is Louisiana. … Certainly this is not going to do anything to endear Bobby Jindal to a majority of voters in places like California and Massachusetts and New York.”

Baton Rouge pollster Bernie Pinsonat said: “The ideal candidate is one who has broad appeal. … To become president today, you can’t become isolated as the candidate of the religious right.”

Yet a cadre of scientists, national groups with a secular agenda, editorial writers and even Jindal’s college genetics professors suggested the bill could push Jindal toward that kind of identity.

Too bad Jindal didn’t heed Prof. Barbara Forrest’s appeak to veto the bill. Now it’s become a political hot potato, with possible implications come November.

The Louisiana Coalition for Science will have more coverage as events unfold, as will NCSE, which notes

… bill supporter David Tate, a member of the Livingston Parish School Board, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune (April 18, 2008), “I believe that both sides – the creationism side and the evolution side – should be presented and let students decide what they believe,” adding that the bill is needed because “teachers are scared to talk about” creationism.

The Columbus Dispatch reports that a much awaited report on the activities of John Freshwater, a Mount Vernon teacher, has finally been released.

The conclusions are straightforward and shocking

A Mount Vernon teacher undermined science instruction in the public school district by discrediting evolution in his classroom and focusing on creationism and intelligent design, a probe has found.

Worse, the teacher “burned crosses onto students’ arms, using an electrostatic device, in December. Freshwater told investigators the marks were Xs, not crosses. But all of the students interviewed in the investigation reported being branded with crosses.”

While his defenders argued that the teacher merely used the device to draw ‘X’, the picture shows otherwise.

To me this clearly looks like a cross, not an ‘X’.

Some years ago Bill Dembski wrote that “Design theorists are no friends of theistic evolution.” The italics were in the original. Thursday Dembski reinforced that assertion while commenting on Ken Miller’s new book Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul. Dembski’s post is titled Theistic Evolutionists Close Ranks: Let the Bloodletting Begin!

It turns out that Dembski also has a new book coming out called Understanding Intelligent Design: Everything You Need to Know in Plain Language. His co-author is Sean McDowell, the head of the Bible Department at Capistrano Valley Christian Schools. (Nope, ain’t no religion here!)

What caught my eye in Dembski’s post was his juxtaposition of blurbs for Miller’s book and his own.

The Louisiana Coalition for Science has released a press release calling for the Senate to reject the creationist bill approved by the Louisiana House

New group stands up for sound science education in Louisiana

LA Coalition for Science decries House support for SB 733, calls for Senate to reject bill

Baton Rouge, LA, June 11, 2008 — In response to numerous attacks on science education in the Bayou State, concerned parents, teachers and scientists are getting organized. The new group — Louisiana Coalition for Science — calls upon the Senate to oppose SB 733, a bill which will open the door to creationism in public schools.

Spread the news.

In Opponents of Evolution Adopting a New Strategy , Laura Beil explores the tactics by Intelligent Design Creationists to undermine the teaching of science. This time, their focus is on Texas where Creationists have a close majority on the State Education Board.

Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became “intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.

Allen MacNeill has yet another interesting contribution (as well as an announcement about a new course). Allen MacNeill:It’s very gratifying to see Lynn Margulis finally getting the recognition that she deserves. As the originator of the serial endosymbiosis theory (SET) for the origin of eukaryotes, Lynn’s work provides an excellent example of how ID should (but currently doesn’t) proceed. During the late 1960s, Lynn published a series of revolutionary papers on the evolution of eukaryotic cells, culminating in her landmark book Symbiosis and Cell Evolution, in which she carefully laid out the empirical evidence supporting the theory that mitochondria, choloroplasts, and undulapodia (eukaryotic cilia and flagella) were once free living bacteria (purple sulfur bacteria, cyanobacteria, and spirochaetes, respectively).

Read the rest at Serial Endosymbiosis and Intelligent Design

Allen makes an excellent case how science progresses and that while science may resist change, the only way to change science is to do hard work, research and show how your ideas form scientifically relevant contributions. This is particularly relevant when it comes to Intelligent Design, whose proponents have chosen it to remain scientifically vacuous, without content. And still they whine about being ‘expelled’ when in fact they are ‘exposed’.

Allen is also organizing Seminar in History of Biology: Evolution and Ethics: Is Morality Natural? at Cornell

COURSE LISTING: BioEE 467/B&Soc 447/Hist 415/S&TS 447 Seminar in History of Biology

SEMESTER: Cornell Six-Week Summer Session, 06/24/08 to 07/31/08

Intelligent Design advocates are fond of using the bacterial flagellum as, in Dembski’s words, a “mascot” of the Intelligent Design movement. In particular, during the recent TV debate between Behe and myself, Behe showed pictures of flagella and triumphantly asserted that they looked exactly like man-made machines, and therefore they must be designed. What ID advocates, including Behe, fail to mention is that the images of flagella they endlessly demonstrate are heavily doctored, and that the real observed flagella do not look like “machines” at all. In fact the structure of flagella is more typical of a bacteriophage virus. Seeing the actual cryogenic electron micrographs of flagella, as well as the images derived from X-rays analysis immediately reveals that showing artificial machine-like images of flagella, without explaining the degree of idealization applied, is sometimes perilously close to committing a fraud.

Read Flagella – Real and Fictional, at Talk Reason.

It seems that the evolution of thorns and plants is seen by some creationists as evidence against evolution and in favour of an Intelligent Designer. While I hate to spend time on debunking creationist foolishness on demand, I found the issue quite fascinating and relatively straightforward to rebut.

Read further at Plants that defy evolution: Datura stramonium (Jimson Weed) where also comments can be left.

PS: Joseph Alden and Gary McGuire are the same person. So any future postings by Joseph should continue under one of the two names as the use of multiple names is in violation of the board’s rules and can be grounds for moderation or removal. Jospeh Alden is Gary McGuire’s uncle and the two were sharing a similar email address and IP connection.

I am posting this as a courtesy to Professor Hector Avalos. I did not add a single word to Avalos’s message, nor made any change in his text.

The Discovery Institute has written a glowing account of the debut of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed in Ames, Iowa, the home of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, the pro-ID astronomer at Iowa State University. Prof. Hector Avalos, also of Iowa State University, tells a different story based on his eyewitnes account, and it does not bode well for Expelled nationwide. Continue reading Expelled pseudo-documentary bombs in Gonzalez’s backyard in TalkReason.

Epsilon Clue puts the Rotten Tomato ratings of Expelled in the context of some real clunkers. A couple of selected entries:

Plan 9 from Outer Space: Ed Wood’s famously-bad movie starring Bela Lugosi, who died after shooting only five minutes of film: 62%. Granted, this is skewed by the camp value of the result.

…

The Dukes of Hazzard: Car chases and short shorts. Not exactly Oscar material. 14%

…

Left Behind: Sappy melodramatic Christian porn: 12%

and

And finally, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the plucky new documentary that blows the lid off the anti-creationism conspiracy: 9%.

Shoot, Ben Stein can’t even beat the Britney Spears epic Crossroads (not the one PZed was interviewed for) which made a stellar 15%. Read the full post at Epsilon Clue.

Although “Expelled” has been receiving mostly negative reviews from the mainstream media and scientists, creationist organizations other than the Discovery Institute, AIG and ICR (both Young Earth Creationists) have remained cautiously silent. For instance, The Reasons To Believe (RTB) Scholars appeared to be suspicious about Expelled but refrained from any recommendations but now that they have seen a pre-release screening they have sent an email which can be found on the Calvin College ASA discussion list.

Dear RTB Chapter members,

With the impending release of “EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” (April 18), the Reasons to Believe scholar team thought it best to prepare a statement of our position, a guide for answering questions from chapters, networks, and apologists. Keep in mind that the mission of RTB centers on reaching out to science-minded people with two purposes:

Michael Le Page at New Scientist discusses Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions.

Shared misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection
Natural selection is the only means of evolution
Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity
Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment
Evolution always promotes the survival of species
It doesn’t matter if people do not understand evolution
“Survival of the fittest” justifies “everyone for themselves”
Evolution is limitlessly creative
Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality
Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution

Read on for the much longer list of Creationist myths

The FoxNews review by Roger Friedman is in, and it reads like one of those Muppets in the theater balcony wrote it. Skip past the top-of-the-page stuff about Mariah Carey. Down. Further down. Next to “Buy a Link Here”, there it is: “Ben Stein: Win His Career”.

After seeing a new non-fiction film starring Comedy Central’s Ben Stein, you may not only be able to win his money, but also his career.

Stein is that whiny little guy with the monotone voice that makes him seem funny and an unlikely “character” for TV appearances. But that career may be over come April 18 when a movie he co-wrote, narrates and appears in, called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” is released.

Directed by one Nathan Frankowski, “Expelled” is a sloppy, all-over-the-place, poorly made (and not just a little boring) “expose” of the scientific community. It’s not very exciting. But it does show that Stein, who’s carved out a career selling eye drops in commercials and amusing us on sitcoms, is either completely nuts or so avaricious that he’s abandoned all good sense to make a buck.

To wit: Stein, Frankowski and pals say in “Expelled” that perfectly good scientists and educators are being stigmatized for wanting to teach their students creationism and “intelligent design” — in other words, junk science — in addition to or instead of conventionally accepted Darwinism. You see, Stein, like some other celebrities, finally has shown his true colors and they aren’t so pretty.

There’s more good stuff. Go read.

Hat tip: Ross Myers.

(Originally posted at the Austringer)

At UcD, a poster named DLH, presents an ‘argument’ which is hard to distinguish from an April Fool’s joke (especially given its publication date).

Having apparently browsed the abstract of a paper, DLH concludes that:

DLH Wrote:

Researchers have discovered two proteins essential for reproductive cells to latch onto each other and then to fuse. Changing at least one of these proteins appears to prevent species from interbreeding. This appears to open up a way to stop malaria. A new species would appear to require at least two changed genes, one for the protein change and the other for the matching protein docking change. What is the probability of these simultaneous changes occurring by random mutation & natural selection - versus - this being a key/lock design with complex specified information? Such simultaneous changes appear to be pushing Behe’s limits of Darwinism.

Let’s explore the obvious answer as well as the findings of the paper in more detail. Although I refuse by principle to link to UcD postings, this one has earned the highly coveted link from PandasThumb.

Given that today really is April 1^st, let me start by saying that although Behe is a fool, this post isn’t a joke. Everything you’re about to read is real. This is the third part of my post on the summary judgment decision in the California Creationist Case. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.

It would seem that Mike Behe has, once again, managed to shoot an own goal in the courtroom. The last time that he was an expert witness, during the Dover case, the judge quoted extensively from Behe’s testimony, but not in a way that he particularly liked. Ultimately, it seems that he scored more points for his opponents than he did for his friends. He’s also an expert witness in the California Creationism Case, and he seems to have once again managed to put the ball right through the wrong goal.

Behe’s contribution to the pro-science side of the case appears on page 40 of the written order:

Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left:

At ‘The Questionable Authority’, Mike Dunford reports on the California Creationist Lawsuit.

Several Christian schools are suing the University of California for unfairly and unconstitutionally refusing to accept a number of courses taught at Christian schools as meeting UC’s admissions criteria.

According to Inside Higher Ed the judge has made his ruling and granted partial summary judgment in favor of the UC system. Mike promises two more postings to discuss particular aspects of the ruling.

One of the posts will focus on Judge Otero’s discovery of various typical Creationist argument techniques (most notably strawmen and quote mining) in the Christian School’s claims. The second will focus on the valuable, but accidental, contribution made by Mike Behe - on behalf of the side of good science.

Part 2 has been added

and Part 3 Summary Judgment in California Creationist Case: Behe Shoots, Scores, We Get Point (Part 3 of 3)

Last week, SUNY Stony Brook neurosurgeon and anti-evolution mouthpiece Michael Egnor decided to keep driving on with his “you don’t need to understand Darwinian evolution to understand antibiotic resistance” crusade. His post is - predictably enough - a mass of loosely connected logical fallacies. One of the most egregious of these is his attempt to assume one of the points that he wanted to argue:

First, two definitions:

Natural selection is selection in nature, presumably arising without intelligent agency. An example of natural selection would be the differential reproduction of organisms in nature, without the evident guidance of an intelligent agent.

Artificial selection is selection caused by intelligent agency. An example of artificial selection would be the intentional breeding of bacteria by a scientist in a research lab.

The distinction between natural selection and artificial selection is at least matter of definition, and perhaps there are empirical differences as well.

His definition of natural selection is poor - if I saw it on a quiz in an introductory course, I’d have a hard time justifying giving him even half credit - but it’s not nearly as troublesome as his definition of artificial selection. If you think back to some of the previous discussion about Egnor’s line of argument, you’ll remember that many of us don’t think that placing bacteria in an environment that contains an antibiotic and allowing them to freely reproduce is actually artificial selection. Egnor’s attempting to beg the question by simply making his conclusion part of the definition that he expects us to accept without further argument. And that’s where my dog comes in.

Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left:

The Albuquerque Journal reported on March 17^th, 2008 that

The superintendent-designate of the Albuquerque Public Schools hails from Kansas, which triggered a national backlash when it opened the door to teaching creationism in its public schools. Winston Brooks, who will move from Wichita to take the helm of APS by July 1, has some thoughts on the evolution/creation debate­ but no plans to push for teaching creation theories here. And it’s doubtful he could do so, even if he wanted, given state control of district curricula, its policies on the subject, and opposition from the APS board. …

The Money Quote comes at the end of the article:

As a Christian, Brooks said he believes God created humans.

On the other hand, I believe there’s something to evolution,

he said.

Whether or not my original ancestor was an ape, I don’t have a clue.

At least, as the article points out in detail, he’ll have a hard time getting any Intelligent Design/Creationism into district science classes, contra the Discovery Institute’s oft-repeated lie that “New Mexico’s Science Standards embrace the Intelligent Design Movement’s ‘Teach the Controversy’ Approach”

The UK based “International Society for Science and Religion”, which “was established in 2002 for the purpose of the promotion of education through the support of inter-disciplinary learning and research in the fields of science and religion conducted where possible in an international and multi-faith context”, has released a statement on Intelligent Design:

The International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR) says that “intelligent design” is neither sound science nor good theology. Intelligent Design theorists do not have proper research programmes to make their points. In fact, what they believe is against science, according to the seven scientists who prepared the statement for the ISSR, a scholarly body devoted to dialogue between science and world faiths.

The whole of the society’s membership, many of whom are Christian, were involved in a consultation about the statement. The ISSR says it “greatly values modern science, while deploring efforts to drive a wedge between science and religion.”

HT: Naitonal Secular Society

The ISSR statement said Darwinian natural history did pre-empt some accounts of creation. “However,” say the scientists, “in most instances biology and religion operate at different and non-competing levels.” Intelligent Design is not science and science should not try to elevate itself into a comprehensive worldview.”

Dr. Michael Egnor, of SUNY Stony Brook and the Discovery Institute, doesn’t think that evolution is relevant to trying to figure out how to combat the spread of antibiotic resistance. The interesting areas of research, he believes, lie in other areas of biology:

The important medical research on antibiotic resistance in bacteria deals with how the mutations that give rise to resistance arise, exactly what those mutations are and how they work, and what can be done to counteract them. The important medical research involves genetics, molecular biology, and pharmacology. Darwin’s theory is of no substantive value to the research because, as Mr. Dunford admits, there is no difference between antibiotic resistant bacteria that emerge through artificial intelligent selection and antibiotic resistant bacteria that emerge through natural selection. Antibiotic resistance is a phenomenon that occurs because there are often a few bacteria in a large population of bacteria that have a mutation that renders them less sensitive to the antibiotic. These bacteria that aren’t killed by the antibiotic eventually outnumber bacteria that are killed by the antibiotic. Survivors survive. Does this mundane observation really help Mr. Dunford understand things he may not have otherwise understood? It certainly doesn’t advance medical research in any meaningful way. New insights into genetics, molecular biology, and pharmacology do advance medical research.

I realize that I’m just begging for Dr. Egnor to take what I say out of context again, but he is not entirely wrong. If I was working on ways to fight antibiotic resistance, I would certainly want to focus more on the molecular mechanisms that are involved in the development of resistance than on the question of how resistance spreads through a population of bacteria after it appears.

Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left.

Intelligent Design Creationists like Bill Dembski have argued that Woese’s work contradicts evolutionary theory or more specifically common descent and Darwinian theory. See for instance “Woese: Life could have started “millions of times”” or this old posting of mine.

Since many creationists have come to misunderstand Woese’s arguments, the impact on Darwinian evolutionary theory, let’s start exploring Woese’s argument

Dembski’s article which references (and fully reproduces) an article by Ronald Kotulak claims that Woese commented in 2002 that life could have started “millions of times”, a statement I have not been able to track back to his scholarly work.

The 2002 paper is likely: Carl Woese On the evolution of cells PNAS June 25, 2002 vol. 99 no. 13 8742-8747

Everybody’s favorite creationist neurosurgeon is back. Today, Michael Egnor brought forth yet another remarkably inept attempt to find a way to justify egnoring the relationship between natural selection and antibiotic resistance. This time, he’s apparently decided that there’s no hope in finding a substantive argument, so he’s resorting to nothing more than a childish rhetorical game. One of the authors of a recently published scientific paper that examined antibiotic resistance left a comment at The Panda’s Thumb noting that his research did in fact rely on Darwinian evolution. In a spectacular display of combined arrogance and ignorance (aka Egnorance), Egnor decided to inform the authors that they are mistaken if they think that natural selection was actually involved in any way:

Dr. Dardel is both candid and mistaken. His comment that the use of Darwin’s theory is “unusual in structural biology” is obviously true, and refreshingly candid. He is, however, mistaken about the application of Darwin’s theory to his recent work. His assertion that “…we selected bacteria…by plating…” is artificial selection, not natural selection. Artificial selection is breeding, in this case microbial breeding. The principles of breeding date back thousands of years, and owe nothing to Darwin. In fact, Darwin claimed that non-teleological processes in nature could produce changes in populations just as teleological processes like breeding could. Even Darwin didn’t claim that his theory explained the outcome of intentional breeding. It’s astonishing that a modern professional scientist like Dr. Dardel doesn’t recognize the difference between artificial selection and natural selection.

Read more at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left.

By now regular readers of The Panda’s Thumb know that “academic Freedom” bills have been filed in the Florida legislature, and you know that the bills are Disco designed. You have also noticed Disco’s complaint that people get it. The complaint reads like disingenuous gibberish, but why that specific gibberish?

A few days ago I asked just how stupid Discovery Institute Fellow Jonathan Wells thought we were, when he posted an article that could be refuted with a few minutes reading Wikipedia. Mr. Wells has “replied” to that article, and the answer is in. He thinks we are really stupid. In that post he claims I hate him.

And links to my post.

Where you can read it from beginning to end and find neither skerrick nor iota of hate. Unless hate has been recently redefined to mean “comprehensively refuted”. Tellingly, he doesn’t address the main issue, that anyone with access to Wikipedia could see that he is writing nonsense. Anyone reading his “response” just has to spend a moment reading my article to see how completely he avoids the issue. Even having the senior author of the study he criticises plainly state that Darwinian evolution guided key aspects of their study doesn’t phase him, he simply tires to redefine “selection” out of evolutionary theory. Finally, he restates his question:

Wells Wrote:

How, exactly, is Darwinian evolution essential to understanding and overcoming antibiotic resistance — as the Darwinists claim it is?

Mr. Wells, rather than making up stories that people hate you, you could re-read my post, this time for comprehension. Or you could just spend a few minutes on Wikipedia.

(PS Mr. Wells, Are you going to admit that Darwinists didn’t suppress Mendel’s work. Also, one mutation to convert a DD-peptidase to a beta-lactamase, in what way doesn’t that refute your claim that we have untestable hypotheses for the origins of antibiotic resistance genes?)

PZ Myers and Larry Moran have their own takes on the issue.

On Uncommon Descent (to which I decline to link) Sal Cordova has resurfaced, once again rewriting history. Cordova claims that

The Darwinists have framed the ID debate as being about what should and should not be taught in the public school science classroom. I speculate that the debate over the public school classroom is another example of Bulverism.

A Bulverism is

… a logical fallacy coined by C. S. Lewis where rather than proving that an argument is wrong, a person instead assumes it is wrong, and then goes on to explain why the other person held that argument. It is essentially a circumstantial ad hominem argument.

Cordova goes on

As I pointed out here, the real issue is whether life is designed. If so, most every other question pales in comparison. And also lost in the Darwinist Bulverism is whether individuals in universities will have the chance to answer the question of design for themselves, and whether these individuals will have the freedom to tell others what they discover.

Cordova claims ID’s efforts are directed at the universities, not public school science classes. Cordova apparently thinks that the assertion that ID proponents are interested in public education is a fallacy on the part of “Darwinists,” who supposedly misrepresent proponents of ID as wanting it taught in public school science classrooms.

Unfortunately (and as usual) the data contradict Cordova. Consider a few data points from Ohio.

A while ago I posted an article on Haldane’s Dilemma, in which I pointed out how Mr. ReMine misrepresented Haldane’s work. Now Mr. ReMine has written a response (which I was unaware of until now), in which he claims I misrepresent him.

Unfortunately for Mr. ReMine, the evidence is against him (more below the fold, this article is modified from a comment to this article on the cost of selection).

Yesterday the Discovery Institute held a press conference at the capitol building in Des Moines, to announce Guillermo Gonzalez’s plans to sue Iowa State University over their decision to deny him tenure. Supposedly the lawsuit will be filed pending the rejection of an appeal to the Board of Regents, which is virtually guaranteed simply for the fact that the Regents typically uphold tenure decisions. Joining Casey Luskin, Rob Crowther, Gonzalez’s attorneys, and a few other DI folk was state Senator David Hartsuch (R-District 41).

The core of the DI’s assertion is that there were “secret tenure deliberations” aka a plan to oust Dr. Gonzalez because of his ID views.

Continue reading at Neurotopia.