PZ Myers. 2004 Aug 02. SDB 2004: The Discovery Institute's disciple. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/sdb_2004_the_discovery_institutes_disciple/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Monday, August 02, 2004
SDB 2004: The Discovery Institute's disciple
I spent a long evening at the SDB meetings with Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute, who was presenting a poster on "Problems with characterizing the protostome-deuterostome ancestor." It's difficult to write about, because Nelson is actually a pleasant, personable fellow, but…
(Yeah, you know it was coming, an immense, insurmountable, horrendous "but".)
…but the poster was just plain bad.
The first gigantic problem is that there was absolutely no data on the poster. I hope everyone who has read my summaries of the SDB meetings would be getting the strong idea that every talk was data-centered. People are making observations and doing experiments and presenting the results, and in the process giving their interpretations, placing it in the context of other people's work, etc. Strolling through the posters is a technicolor experience, with huge photos of in situs and blots and gels and details of embryonic anatomy all around. This particular meeting wasn't big on theory and modeling, but I talked to a few old pals who were doing that sort of thing, and it was all math and charts and simulations.
Nelson's poster was all words and speculation. There was no substance there, no details to grapple with. It was awkward to discuss, because there really was no handle to grasp. My usual strategy when going through a poster with the author is to find the interesting detail that is relevant to my particular research interests, ask questions about it, and let the discussion spiral from there to the author's context. I just couldn't do that here.
What was it about? Well, the gist of it, as near as I can tell (and I would hope Nelson will chime in with comments to correct anything) was the usual creationist argument from personal incredulity. The center of the poster was a drawing, a simple oval. We were supposed to imagine that this was the egg of the hypothetical pre-Cambrian common ancestor of both protostomes and deuterostomes. Next, we were supposed to imagine what the adult of this organism would look like. Then Nelson had a few photos of an adult fly, nematode, and sea squirt. Finally, we were supposed to imagine that modification of the development of modern organisms was impossible, that the modification of the development of the protostome/deuterostome ancestor was similarly impossible, and therefore, evolution was impossible.
That's it.
No data. No experiments. No predictions. Just a request to build up a model of evolution and development in our imaginations. I'm sure it works for creationists, and being liberated from demands for evidence makes it easy to compound one's biases and come up with the answer Nelson wants, but in this mob of good practical naturalists who expect at least a nod towards some data, it fell flat. I'm afraid that when I was free to just imagine the adult protostome/deuterostome ancestor that would arise from his evocative, all-powerful Oval of Infinite Potential, I had no problem scribbling up a cartoon of a crude triploblastic worm, and saw no obstacle to incremental specialization of it's component parts in development and evolution.
Now you could argue that that's just compounding my atheistical, materialistic biases, and is as meaningless as Nelson's assumption of a conclusion. I would make two arguments against that, though. One of the purposes of a scientific presentation is to share the evidence and logic that leads to a particular conclusion in such a way that there isn't much room for argument, and that argument is at least directed towards constructive, alternative hypotheses. An open thought experiment that encourages unfettered guesswork is not science. For another, I wasn't alone in the conversation. Another passing scientist joined in, and she was also baffled by the point of the poster, and saw real power in evolutionary explanations. And, it turns out, she is an evangelical Christian, a regular and active church-goer (yes, such things exist with significant frequency in science; religious sensibilities are not automatically antithetical to good scientific thinking, no matter how desperately the Discovery Institute tries to dichotomize and polarize.) She wasn't rejecting the work out of the prejudice of an atheist, but out of our shared commitment to good scientific thinking.
I do have to commend Nelson for having the guts to expose the hollow vacuum at the heart of anti-evolutionary thinking to the critical eyes of a swarm of practicing scientists, but there is another troubling problem here. This presentation is going to go on a list at the Discovery Institute of Intelligent Design forays into mainstream scientific venues. You know it's going to be presented to some school board or court someday, with the disingenuous claim that "See? We really are doing real science, really!" It isn't. It's non-science. It's bad science. One thing we have to make clear is that placing something under the banner of the Society for Developmental Biology and getting it published in the offical program of an international meeting does not automatically make it scientific—especially since the conference presentations were not peer-reviewed for admissibility, and anyone willing to pay the conference fees could put up a poster for anything they want. And even the imprimatur of the magic words "peer-review" should never be assumed to be a guarantor of quality.
I wouldn't propose changing the open nature of conferences, and would actually encourage more creationists and other wild-eyed weirdos to try and attend scientific meetings. The purpose of these meetings is to throw out new ideas and get input from the scientific community on what to do next, and the real measure of success is not the presentation, but what follows from it.
Nothing will follow from Nelson's presentation. There won't be any research done as a consequence of his poster—there's none that can be done. He may be a nice guy, but niceness doesn't count in science. And the absence of substance is what has to be emphasized to school boards and courtrooms where this kind of work will get cited.
Creationism • Science • SDB • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
-
Did you get a clarification on "ontogenetic depth"?
Inquiring minds want to know...#: Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on 08/02 at 10:49 AM -
Also, did you ask him how he squares his young-Earth creationism with a discussion of Cambrian fauna?
#: Posted by on 08/02 at 11:14 AM
-
Paul was in Lincoln about a year and a half ago. Several things impressed me about him. First of all he was clear that ID wasn't ready for the science classroom. Secondly he was fluent in both molecular phylogeny and creationism. On the former he appears unique among IDers. I pride myself on the ability to hold opposing viewpoints, but he clearly has me beat on that score.
If you're interested in both evolution and the history of creationism, he's a unique resource. -
I think you've nailed it, Dr. Myers. This "presentation" had nothing to do with the meetings at hand and everything to do with collecting a bunch of SDB programs listing the Discovery Institute, to be distributed to unsuspecting school board members across America.
#: Posted by on 08/02 at 11:48 AM
-
No, no explanation of ontogenetic depth.
He was also asked exactly what specific counter-proposal he would make; I'm afraid he didn't come up with anything specific there, either.
It was a rather unsatisfying experience. -
I take it then that you didn't learn how to calculate Ontogenetic Depth.
RBH#: Posted by on 08/02 at 12:23 PM - No, dang it, although OD was mentioned in the poster. It's all going to be explained in the paper that will appear tomorrow. Or last week. Or in Novtebruary.
-
Rats. Note to self: Read prior comments before posting.
RBH#: Posted by on 08/02 at 12:29 PM - Ontogenetic depth - as defined it seems more qualitative concept than "measure". Since it's multidimensional, useful quantitative measure will be tricky. Geologists seem also to have had the pleasure.
-
My wife is a grad student in physics, and I think they (the physicists, that is) have a great way of dealing with the nutcases that invariably come to meetings. They have a special room devoted to nothing but the people who claim UFOs travel faster than light, and that the ether exists, and all the other weird things some people believe. They stick anybody in that room who has a history of wacko work, and let them all give talks to one another. That way, they can feel like they've contributed, and the actual research results can be discussed in peace.
#: Posted by on 08/02 at 09:49 PM
-
I've got to ask, how did the poster get accepted in the first place. I have a sort of inkling, I'm working on a project that is going to go up for a poster for the Protein Society, and there seemed to be a calculated vagueness in the application. Of course, we fully hope to have the data to make it worthwhile (and I'm working feverishly to make it happen) but I'd like to think that there would be some sort of verification when you walk in the door.
Oh well, I suppose it's better than giving him a speaking slot.#: Posted by on 08/02 at 09:49 PM -
Professional conferences are exactly the place for IDers or creation scientists or other "opponents of the status quo" to propose papers and posters. Conferences are where new ideas get brought up, shot down, re-propped up, retooled, run up flagpoles, and in general, placed before colleagues with the intent to persuade them to join you in building new theories. I say good for Paul for coming to the conference and doing so. Other IDers should do the same thing, though obviously more effort is spent organizing their own conferences aimed at the general public than doing research aimed at convincing the scholarly public.
But after presenting the paper or poster, what needs to be done -- if this were REALLY theory-building -- is to take the criticisms of peers back to the lab or library and rework the ideas, do some more tests, think about it some more, and then put forth the revised version of your idea, and see if you gain any more converts. Eventually, if your ideas are any good, others will pick them up and begin applying them, and a group of scholars will begin to form around you. THAT is how new ideas enter the body of science. The IDers seem to take the first step, but avoid the follow-through. And that is why they aren't taken seriously as scholars.
In 1999, Paul and companions presented research of similar quality to that reported here by Paul at a Chinese conference on paleontology (reported on by Nigel Hughes, http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/9866_creationism_
and_the_emergence__12_30_1899.asp_
There doesn't seem to have been much growth in the quality of ID research between 1999 and 2004.#: Posted by on 08/02 at 11:35 PM -
"They have a special room devoted to nothing but the people who claim UFOs travel faster than light, and that the ether exists, and all the other weird things some people believe. They stick anybody in that room who has a history of wacko work, and let them all give talks to one another."
Yeah, they have that for the Cold Fusioners too. Cold Fusion has everything going for it ID does. Maybe the legislators would like to mandate equal time?#: Posted by on 08/02 at 11:47 PM -
Steve-
Cold Fusion and UFOs have more going for them than ID. People have seen cold fusion and been abducted by aliens. Nobody has seen the "designer". -
Posters are accepted pretty much without question. As Genie mentions, poster presentations are opportunities to toss up new ideas and work in progress and let the attendees do the peer-reviewing.
I agree that it was commendable for Nelson to make the effort. I am concerned that the DI hasn't taken the necessary steps to do real science, but they are going to pretend that they have in their press releases...but that isn't grounds to change policy at scientific meetings, and we should still encourage these guys to continue to try and show us the substance behind their claims. - Some light on a DI project
-
Absolutely. Paul's position is the one I have always taken. Keep professional meetings open to new ideas (I have supported accepting [well-written] abstracts of papers or posters on Bigfoot at the AAPA meetings, for example), and encourage holders of new ideas to present them THERE, where they can be analyzed by people who actually know something about the science behind (or not behind) the claims being made.
That said, the other side of the coin is that when ID or creation science proponents try to entice scientists into appearing at their conferences, we should politely decline. There are plenty of opportunities for ID and SC proponents to present their scientific wares among their peers: although they whine about the journals not accepting their submitted papers, most professional meetings are much more lenient when it comes to abstracts for posters or papers. Let them build their movement at the meetings, and eventually they will have something that will pass peer review in the professional journals -- if there is a there, there.
But we really need to call a moratorium on participating in the "conferences" they organize, which are Potemkim conferences (to mix a metaphor) having the structure of a scientific meeting but organized and focused on convincing the general public that there is scientific validity to their views. I can't imagine any of us presenting a scientific paper at the International Conference on Creationism, so why would we want to do the same at an ID conference? Maybe five or six years ago it made sense, but it no longer does. Until the IDers come up with some actual NEW science, rather than repeating the same old ideas which have been analyzed and rejected, we should politely decline invitations to speak at their meetings, and encourage them to attend professional scientific (or philosophy) meetings.#: Posted by on 08/03 at 10:31 AM -
genie writ:
...although they whine about the journals not accepting their submitted papers.....
I would be very interested to learn exactly how many scientific papers that discuss creationism or intelligent design get submitted to journals, and how many of those are rejected. Behe, for example, has written a number of papers on non-creationist topics, but I am unaware of him ever submitting a reseach paper to a journal for review.#: Posted by on 08/03 at 12:36 PM -
Re: Andy's question. This is an old study, but the most complete: Scott, Eugenie C, and Henry P. Cole. 1985. The Elusive Scientific Basis of Creation "Science". Quarterly Review of Biology 60 (1):21-30. I don't know if it is online, but you can get a copy from me () (ask off list). We surveyed journal editors to ask them specifically what topics w/in c.s. had been submitted (i.e., so that if the paper didn't say, "this is creation science", the editor could recognize it as a creationist topic anyway) and found that only the education journals had had papers submitted, and the papers were not prepared by professional scientists.
Behe claims he submitted a paper on ID to a scientific journal and it was rejected -- someone here can probably give you the link to the web site where he has reproduced the correspondence, showing, at least to his satisfaction, that the editor was biased.#: Posted by on 08/03 at 01:28 PM -
Thanks for the clarification guys. It does make sense, you don't want to lock out all voices, even if they're a little bit out there.
I will say I'll feel a little bit better now if we don't get all the data I wanted for our poster in time.#: Posted by on 08/03 at 04:04 PM -
Behe claims he submitted a paper on ID to a scientific journal and it was rejected -- someone here can probably give you the link to the web site where he has reproduced the correspondence, showing, at least to his satisfaction, that the editor was biased.
To my knowledge, that encounter was over a "response to my critics" paper. Details here http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp.
In the end, an article on that subject was published by Behe in Biology and Philosophy. It was the article in which he admitted that his concept of IC was flawed.
I am not aware of any creationist primary research papers - i.e., with actual experiments or data in them - that have been submitted to peer-reviewed journals.#: Posted by on 08/03 at 05:24 PM -
Anyone curious about the poster itself can find it here:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/Ubb-get_topic-f10-t000087.html#: Posted by Paul Nelson on 08/03 at 06:50 PM -
Sorry -- let's try that URL again:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/Ubb-get_topic-f10-t-000087.html#: Posted by Paul Nelson on 08/03 at 06:53 PM - It's still not working for me. Do you need to be logged in to access it?
- Found it. Here's the announcement. Or you can go straight to the pdf.
-
If anti-evolutionists are going to start presenting their ideas at scientific meetings, as opposed to their own Bible camps, I think it is important to know before hand that they are doing it, so people like us can make an effort to see the presentations. This way, if they are bad, underwhelming, or entirely unscientific, we can go on record with our review. That way the anti-evolutionists will not be able to point to craooy presentations as evidence of scientific support of their agenda.
#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 08/03 at 08:14 PM
-
PZ -- thanks for fixing the link (and at the P's Thumb too).
#: Posted by Paul Nelson on 08/04 at 06:31 AM
-
From Nelson:
<blockquote>Here's the problem. If we suppose that the syncitial developmental architecture is primitive for long germ-band insects, as is widely accepted, then how did complete cellularization evolve in some wasps? In particular, if the segmentation cascade requires the diffusion of maternal transcription factors throughout the syncitium, what would happen if a cell membrane suddenly arose in the path of those diffusing morphogens?</blockquote>
What does this have to do with the common ancestor of Protostomes and Deutrostromes? As far as I can tell, little if anything.#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 08/04 at 10:25 AM - It has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the part of the argument where he claims modern organisms cannot acquire innovations in early development, and therefore change is impossible. If we're willing to swallow that one, then we're supposed to imagine that the development of the PDA was equally constrained, and therefore evolution is impossible.
-
So why is he arguing aginst PDA? Why isn't he just arguing against innovations in early development?
#: Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on 08/04 at 11:08 AM
-
Paging Paul Nelson...Paul Nelson, please come to the white comment box.
I suspect that the title "Development Can't Evolve" would be extraordinarily inflammatory at this meeting, where researchers were showing over and over again precisely how development did evolve, and would have encouraged many more people to stop by the poster, observe the lack of evidential support for his claim, and pull out the rhetorical firebombs.
The vague assertion that there are "problems" in evolution is safe, and one everyone can agree with.