#37032: Dan S. — 08/23  at  12:20 AM
Ahhhghgh!
I was just trying to repost that link, not the whole comment!
And it's still messed up.

I give up. Y'all smart people here - you can find it you want. I better go to bed now. : (
well - ok
http://www.admin.ox.ac.uk/po/news/2004-05/aug/09.shtml

bye now.
*staggers off*

#37038: — 08/23  at  03:05 AM
yeah, and how do you like their new "some scientists love Teh Jesus and speak out against the eeeevil atheists" article? mmmm, you can really taste the science.

#37041: — 08/23  at  03:48 AM
Great comment PZ.
Short and sweet and denying NYT any slack for their reputation.
The articles are horrors.
Is it because of the pressure that's generally around now for respected media to provide "balance" in terms of equal time or space - rather than the real balance of careful consideration?

#37043: — 08/23  at  05:12 AM
Well, the NYT has kinda made up for it with the following op-ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/opinion/23tue3.html

Still doesn't excuse the first two in the series though.

#37049: Eva Young — 08/23  at  07:05 AM
I thought the article was horrible when I first looked at it - because I just looked at the first page. Later I thought it got better.

I think they missed the opportunity to debunk Demski (who uses mathmatical symbolism to obscure the message as Mark Perakh showed in Unintelligent Design).

People should write to the New York Times - both to the Public Editor and letters to the editor.

#37050: — 08/23  at  07:30 AM
Couple things I really don't get about this ID crap.

#1 Why is complexity a sign of god? Don't real engineers usually go for the simplest design possible?

#2 Supposing God or Angels or something really DID exist, why couldn't science simply go on and explain how THEY work?

I think it's just a bunch of cynics trying to make an easy political career. I mean look at the money conservatives like the Ahmansons throw at them, it's easy to see why people join their side.

#37055: davidm — 08/23  at  07:51 AM
I don't know why my credibility should be at an all-time low, PZ, given that I had nothing to do with this article, and even criticized it in the "Politicized Scholars" thread. Actually, it's your credibility that worries me. For example, you ask me not to talk about how good Times reporting on science has been, when you yourself, just before making that request, praised Zimmer, who writes about science for the Times. Moreover, you know as well as I do that when the Times writes about biology, it implicitly assumes the truth of evolutionary theory and makes no mention of ID whatsoever.

You only offered two substantive criticisms of the article, one dealing with the inadequate response to the Axe claim. I agree, it was inadequate, and said so in the other thread. Your other criticism, of the blood clotting discussion, strikes me as picking a nit of unimaginably small proportions. The reporter did provide the scientific refutation of Behe (and, by extension, the entire irreducible complexity claim), but you're dissatisfied that it came a few paragraphs after Behe's position was outlined, rather than immediately. Can this really be a serious criticism?

You claim the reporter lets "falsified claims hang there." Well, he certainly didn't let Behe's claim "hang there," he provided the scientific refutation. I'd be interested to know what other claims you think he "let hang there."

In fact, the article provided the scientific refutations of four main lines of ID attack on evolutionary theory: It refuted irreducible complexity, the argument to gaps in the fossil record, the argument to the Cambrian Explosion and information theory. Some of the refutations might not have been as forceful or thorough as you (or I) might have wished, but they were there.

#37059: — 08/23  at  08:03 AM
Ed Darell linked to something very interesting in an earlier comment:
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/lessons/20050823tuesday.html
The Lesson overview is:

In this lesson, students learn about theories of “intelligent design” in evolutionary science. They then research and create dialogues between a Darwinist proponent and an intelligent design proponent.

There is no theory of "intelligent design" in evolutionary science...
The objectives are:

Students will:
1. Discuss differences between “designed” and “natural” elements.
2. Learn about current controversies in evolutionary science by reading and discussing the article “In Explaining Life’s Complexities, Darwinists and Doubters Clash.”
3. In groups, research and write dialogues between proponents of two competing theories on a particular topic of contention.
4. Individually, write opinion pieces about reconciling beliefs in a higher being with explanations in science.

The rest of the lesson plan panders precisely to the DI's objectives by teaching students that there indeed exists a controversy in evolutionary science. The controversy they speak of is social and NOT scientific. As a matter of fact, The NYT actually violates the Academic Content Standards it supposedly adheres to.
From the standards:

Science Standard 16 - Understands the scientific enterprise. Benchmarks: Understands the ethical traditions associated with the scientific enterprise and that scientists who violate those traditions are censored by their peers; Knows that science and technology are essential social enterprises, but alone they can only indicate what can happen, not what should happen; Knows that creativity, imagination, and a good knowledge base are all required in the work of science and engineering.

They present thoroughly refuted claims that have been censored from mainstream science as bona fide science, calling them theories and controversies in evolution science and then propose to teach according to a standard that is actually well-written! Pricilla Chan and Bridget Anderson are either incompetent science teachers, or on the DI's payroll.
I suggest that some of us send feedback on this lesson. The link is available at the bottom of the page.

#37060: Alon Levy — 08/23  at  08:06 AM

Yet another example in the argument for eliminating "journalism" as a college major. Newspapers should hire people who majored in, or have experience in, real subjects.

Absent journalism majors, they'll pick English majors. In that case, expect to see postmodernism ravaging the media.

#37064: davidm — 08/23  at  08:18 AM
An interesting take on evolution/ID can be found in this interview with the philosopher Gonzalo Munévar, a student of Feyerabend, who says this:

Scientists and other reasonable people are quite right in pointing out that there is no worthwhile science in creationism or in intelligent design. So in that sense they are also quite right in keeping those subjects out of the science classroom. Giving equal time to all points of view in the classroom is one of the aspects of Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society that I criticized most strongly (see my paper in Beyond Reason). Nevertheless, I think that, if it were done right, it would be a terrific idea to pit intelligent design against evolutionary biology. It would be quite interesting for the students too: this is the accusation that creationists either of old or of "intelligent design" garb make against the theory of evolution; this is the reply. Done right it would be a rout in favor of evolution. And we would have American students actually understand biology for the first time in the history of the country. Unfortunately, most Americans, even scientists outside of biology, have little understanding of evolution. The fundamentalists should be careful about what they pray for, since if it is done properly it would give them fits. And they would have only themselves to blame. They often have no idea what the theory actually says. All they can think of is that we don't come from monkeys and God already wrote down for us in the Old Testament when the world began. The rest is a bunch of very confused notions about evolution and science.

I am afraid that it would not be done right, though. I have this vision of high school teachers parroting Popperian inanities. Still, they could clear up a lot of misconceptions about the fossil record, the evolution of complex organs, and so on.

#37067: ekzept — 08/23  at  08:26 AM

Supposing God or Angels or something really DID exist, why couldn't science simply go on and explain how THEY work?

yeah, that's a good point, James. what religious and ID explanations are about is defining a limit to scientific inquiry beyond which no questions are possible. otherwise, their program has no purpose because it isn't emotionally satisfying. so, it is the antithesis of knowing, of doing science.

#37073: — 08/23  at  08:45 AM
I see you some of you didn't care for my article. Downright hated it. Which is fine.

I will say, a) I don't see complaints of factual errors or distortions in the actual explanations and b) I think some of you have a mistaken idea of what the news media should be doing.

The main complaints appear to be
* How could I give so much space for these people to lay out their arguments?
and
* Why wasn't there more done in taking them apart?

As for why the Times is writing about intelligent design, as opposed to phrenology, voodoo, and Lysenkoism, it's because the I.D. people have convinced a handful of states to include aspects of it in their curriculum standards. That makes it newsworthy, regardless of the science.

For those of you who are well versed in this debate and know everything that I didn't put in, here is a point I want to make: this article was not for you. That was one of the frustatrating aspects of doing this story. There was a lot that went into the writing and editing of the story, and there was a lot that went out.

Rather, the intended audience is the many, many people who have passingly heard of Kansas, intelligent design, Christian, something or other, but don't know what I.D. is or even care much about science in general. The idea was to provide these readers with an introduction to the subject at a level that they could comfortably follow from beginning to end. For these people, I don't think the impression that they come away with is that I.D. and evolution are on even footing.

There's a sentence up high -- "But mainstream scientists say that the claims of intelligent design run counter to a century of research supporting the explanatory and predictive power of Darwinian evolution, and that the design approach suffers from fundamental problems that place it outside the realm of science." -- and then a 475-word section in the middle that lays out what evolution is, how it works and what it has successfully explained. I suggest that some of you glossed over it while reading, because you know it already and it's nothing new.

As for whether the article succeeds or not, I point to it sitting at #1 on the NYT Web site's "Most E-Mailed Articles" list for most of the past day. That of course just means that people are reading it and telling others about it. Maybe it's you all emailing each other saying, "See a disaster this article is!"

Or maybe, as you fear, it has sowed confusion where there should be clarity. But you're also assuming the worst about how people are reading it. If you hear people saying, "I read that Times article and now intelligent design seems much more reasonable and there are so many problems with evolution," then I agree with all of your criticisms, because that was not the intended take home message. Again, I honestly think that most readers did not walk away with that impression. I have not gotten any feedback from anyone along those lines, just complaints from people who worry that others will read it that way.

On the other hand, maybe a lot of people who haven't been paying much attention now have a better sense of both intelligent design and evolution, and I say that would not be a bad thing.

Feel free to email me and complain in person.

#37075: davidm — 08/23  at  08:53 AM
Excellent response, Kennth. "This article was not for you" is a point I think is being overlooked.

#37086: PZ Myers — 08/23  at  09:55 AM
Check out the DI's blog.

"The New York Times editorial page aside, the coverage of the debate over evolution and intelligent design is improving"

"Despite getting plenty of ink, the Darwinists don't come off looking so well in Kenneth Chang's story about intelligent design in the Science section of today's New York Times."

See? Somebody liked it.

#37087: — 08/23  at  10:03 AM
Kenneth:
Your response is perfectly on-point. Many of the people that post comments on this and other related sites, including myself, have been following the issue for some time. We've seen travesty upon travesty come from an organization that speaks fraudulently and frequently in the name of science. That same organisation wants our children to learn bogus science solely for the advancement of a purely religious agenda. Please understand our frustration at those that do not come down hard on these snake-oil salesmen.

I do have one inaccuracy to report:
You said:

{Darwin} observed that individuals in a given species varied considerably, variations now known to be caused by mutations in their genetic code.

This is not correct. Variations within a species are primarily due to homologous DNA recombination (crossover) that occurs during fertilization. Robin Holliday proposed this elegant mechanism in 1964 and his theory was confirmed later by direct observation through X-Ray Crystallography (The Journal of Biological Chemistry; Vol 278; No. 50, pp. 49663-49666). Homologous recombination explains in molecular terms how one's traits are inherited from both parents and how each individual is genetically unique.
At the rate mutations occur and given the fact that most mutations of the genome aren't manifest in the individual's phenotype (appearance), we'd all look the same if variations were dependant on mutation.

#37089: — 08/23  at  10:20 AM
Right, Kenneth. I think we have to recognize that you're playing your role, no doubt close to how you should, while PZ Myers has to play his role of pointing up the inadequacies of such "balance".

You'd sound like an arrogant person unsympathetic to the characters you're covering if you wrote like PZ does, while PZ would sound like a relativistic fool for granting as much credit to Behe as you must. PZ needs to agitate, while that is the opposite of your own role and purpose.

#37090: Mark Nutter — 08/23  at  10:21 AM
Granted, DI says the Chang article came off favorably for ID. Then again, some of the DI folks and/or their hangers-on have worked hard to give the impression that the Smithsonian and the Niels Bohr Institute have also taken a positive view of ID. Caveat lector.

#37093: Jonathan Dursi — 08/23  at  10:32 AM
``That makes it newsworthy, regardless of the science.''

Well, congratulations, then; you wrote some news, regardless of the science.

#37094: — 08/23  at  10:37 AM
Kenneth: While I think it's obvious that someone who knows the science will understand that intelligent design is a complete non-starter among actual biologists, I'd be surprised if the folks that you count as your intended audience will come away with that conclusion. Look at how you've framed every point in the article: you give a description of some claim by the ID people and then you follow it up with a paragraph saying something along the lines of "but (some) biologists/mathematicians disagree". There's practically no description of why they disagree nor is it clear that it's not just some random subset of biologists/mathematicians who disagree, but damned near all of them who've looked at the evidence.

At best, you've got the scientists saying, "well, we've gotta hypothesis that it works this way instead", with no indication that it's anything more than a wild guess, rather than a model based on real data. The way you've phrased most of the article, both sides end up looking like they're equally out of their depth, which is pretty much exactly what the ID people are after.

#37095: — 08/23  at  10:51 AM
Exactly. So far, I'd rate the Times' work on this as mediocre at best. It really reads like it's trying to assuage readers who might be offended by the idea that the anti-evolutionists are, well, you know, *utterly wrong* about evolution.

The overriding point that readers need to have hammered into them, is that it isn't about science at all, for the Discovery folks. Behe et al. are just window dressing for a religious movement that wants to 'cast out' the demon materialism. *THAT* is the story.

#37096: — 08/23  at  10:55 AM
I think for a newspaper that seems to value 'balance' more than it values truth, Ken Chang's defense is perfectly apropriate. This is the paper that let its journalists claim that to report on imaginary uranium centrifuge tubes and nuclear clouds is fine because it presents the 'view of the administration', whether the administration --or the Discovery Institute-- is full of crap, that is not for the most important newspaper in the world to discuss. Their role, we have to understand, is not to separate the moron from the educated, or the dishonest ideologue from the honest realist to better inform us. Their role is to inform them, Mr. Chang tells us, <i>the idiots and the creeps. Keep up the good work!

#37097: PZ Myers — 08/23  at  11:04 AM
I take the fact of what the DI claims to be the case of the articles with a grain of salt, but they've been consistently silent about criticism; that they willingly cite this article suggests that, at the very least, they are conscious that its interpretation can be skewed in their favor.

There is no excuse for that.

#37098: davidm — 08/23  at  11:06 AM
You see what you have to contend with here, Kenneth. The readership you are trying to inform consists of "idiots and creeps." Why? Well, I guess it's because they're not biologists, or something.

#37099: Reed A. Cartwright — 08/23  at  11:10 AM
Sean,

I'd be careful with such an argument because ultimately the genetic variation that recombiantion mixes up is due to mutation.

#37101: — 08/23  at  11:18 AM
All of following is cut and pasted out of the article. They're pretty straightforward declarative sentences, and if the only meaning the reader draws from them is that I said evolution is nothing more than a "wild guess," then, well, I'm sorry, my writing obviously obfuscated the points I was trying to make. (And a total non sequitir: I really like these biological code words you have to type to post here.)


But mainstream scientists say that the claims of intelligent design run counter to a century of research supporting the explanatory and predictive power of Darwinian evolution, and that the design approach suffers from fundamental problems that place it outside the realm of science.

...

And in that quest, they say, there is no need to resort to otherworldly explanations. So much evidence has been provided by evolutionary studies that biologists are able to explain even the most complex natural phenomena and to fill in whatever blanks remain with solid theories.

...
...a vast majority of scientists accept evolution...
...

Nonetheless, many scientists regard intelligent design as little more than creationism dressed up in pseudoscientific clothing. Despite its use of scientific language and the fact that some design advocates are scientists, they say, the design approach has so far offered only philosophical objections to evolution, not any positive evidence for the intervention of a designer.

...

Darwin's theory, in contrast, has over the last century yielded so many solid findings that no mainstream biologist today doubts its basic tenets, though they may argue about particulars.

The theory has unlocked many of the mysteries of the natural world. For example, by studying the skeletons of whales, evolutionary scientists have been able to trace the history of their descent from small-hoofed land mammals. They made predictions about what the earliest water-dwelling whales might look like. And, in 1994, paleontologists reported discovering two such species, with many of the anatomical features that scientists had predicted.

Nowhere has evolution been more powerful than in its prediction that there must be a means to pass on information from one generation to another. Darwin did not know the biological mechanism of inheritance, but the theory of evolution required one.

The discovery of DNA, the sequencing of the human genome, the pinpointing of genetic diseases and the discovery that a continuum of life from a single cell to a human brain can be detected in DNA are all a result of evolutionary theory.