PZ Myers. 2004 Sep 21. Q: How many things can a creationist get wrong in a single article?. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/q_how_many_things_can_a_creationist_get_wrong_in_a_single_article/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 01.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Q: How many things can a creationist get wrong in a single article?
A: All of them.
R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a long article on Meyer's publication, titled Panicked Evolutionists. He gets everything wrong, right from the title onwards.
The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship--and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.
It's always a bit discombobulating to find a creationist damning evolution as a "mythology" and "object of veneration and worship", as if those are terms of scorn to a Southern Baptist. That really is no fair. We academics are so finely attuned to irony that it sidetracks us somethin' terrible.
But to force myself to address his point rather than the subtext, he's wrong on all counts: biologists aren't panicking over creationism, nor is the theory of evolution showing any signs of weakness. Rather, we're mostly disgusted at the fact that a strongly supported scientific principle is being attacked by political creatures who are misrepresenting the theory. Mohler gives us an excellent example of using bad logic and bad science to pretend that an ideological cartoon has a legitimate scientific foundation.
The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published after three independent judges deemed it worthy and ready for publication. The use of such judges is standard operating procedure among "peer-reviewed" academic journals, and is considered the gold standard for academic publication.
The readership for such a journal is incredibly small, and the Biological Society of Washington does not commonly come to the attention of the nation's journalists and the general public. Nevertheless, soon after Dr. Meyer's article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy. Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer's article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold.
Yes, if Meyer had argued for a flat earth, there would have been little attention focused on it—because the flat earthers do not have well-monied partisans backing it, who have managed to turn the publication of every geology textbook into a circus, and who have supporters packing school boards to gut the teaching of earth science.
We also knew, from sad experience, exactly what was going to happen. A crop of ignorant religious pundits were going to pop up and piously declare that peer-review was the "gold standard", and therefore Intelligent Design creationism was vindicated (never mind that that thousands of articles supporting evolution are published under peer-review every year). We also know that this article, minor and as weak as it is, is going to be vigorously waved about at the next textbook review meeting in Texas, at the next school board election in Ohio, and by our more reactionary representatives stalking the halls of congress.
Don't be disingenuous, Mr Mohler. Don't even try to pretend that this was a minor article, and that it is surprising that evolutionists responded vigorously. We've been well-trained by the history of political subterfuge from your camp to know that we have to react promptly to creationist tactics, before they fester.
And don't try to pretend our response was "panic" or "apoplexy". We made a measured response to bad science. It's just like a sanctimonious creationist who believes they possess an absolute truth to think that criticism is unjust, and can only possibly be prompted by fear. Scientists criticize science with as much enthusiasm as we do creationism. We just expect scientists to respond with reason and evidence to criticism, unlike creationists.
What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise.
Wrong. The science in Meyer's paper is absent, forgettable, or erroneous. Poor papers get published all the time, and sink without a trace; we don't get upset over them at all. The strength of the disapproval of Meyer's work isn't because it seriously challenges dogma (it doesn't; it's a thoroughly unconvincing work, that's only virtue is that it panders to the creationist mindset), but that it was published solely for political gain.. It represents an abuse of the scientific and peer-review process.
Note how it was snuck in, like a thief in the night. It was published in a relatively obscure journal, with no specialization in the topic of the paper, and with the collusion of a creationist editor. It did not get published on its own merits, but as an ideological prop. That is what has elicited the outspokenly negative reviews.
The scientific content of the paper is negligible, Mr Mohler. It's nothing but the same tired old hash the Discovery Institute has been peddling for years, with no data and no new ideas.
But, alas, the non-scientists are easily swayed by gobbledygook. I laughed aloud at this:
The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
"Scientifically-loaded"? Excuse me while I double over and giggle.
There is no science in that passage, unless you confuse using polysyllabic words and the occasional acronym with science. It's nothing but bald assertions and mangled misperceptions of ideas current in biology, and there's nothing in the rest of Meyer's paper to support any of it.
First, biologists are implicitly non-reductionist. We think biology contains phenomena that are not adequately explained at the purely chemical level—evolutionary biology in particular needs to consider the influence of history on the range of solutions present in a population, for instance. Don't even try to tar the whole field as dependent on the sufficiency of DNA.
Second, developmental biology in particular (via the emerging disciplines of evo-devo or developmental systems theory) is interested in higher-level principles of organization of the body plan, and is well aware that it is a property of more than just coding sequences in the genome. We propose that things like cellular interactions and epigenetic influences and environmental factors are critical; phenomena that we happen to observe going on all the time in developmental processes. We do not invent immaterial magical beings to direct development and evolution. They aren't necessary.
Third, this sentence is just bad logic: "Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan." I suppose we could also argue that since alcohol isn't responsible for every car crash, we should allow people to drink without limits before going out on the road. Relatively few biologists argue that DNA is the sole arbiter of morphology, but none argue that it has absolutely no effect at all. We can trace the emergence of an organism's body plan back to networks of interacting genes, such as the Hox genes; these are natural, material processes, and there is no perceptible influence by any supernatural agents.
Fourthly, his conclusion is nothing but a negative assertion, that novelty can't arise from genetic change. Since we see novel mutations and novel phenotypes every day in labs across the planet, can we just lay that one to rest?
For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.
Go back and read that first paragraph of Mohler's essay again.
The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship…
Now look at his conclusion, where he states that the Bible is "authoritative" and the source of "ultimate truth". Who is peddling mythology and objects of veneration and worship here?
And like so much in Mohler's article, he's got it all wrong. Evolutionists aren't confused at all. We've stated our opinions clearly and forthrightly and consistently. There's no consternation, either—we are undismayed by the poor science in Meyer's article (except, perhaps, in the same sense that we are dismayed at seeing uneducated children parading their foolishness), although we are concerned at the prospects for future political abuse. There has been no real controversy. It's inarguable that it is bad science. And finally, we weren't caught with our pants down: we actually buckled up and got to work refuting the creationist baloney.
Maybe the ones who are really dismayed are the creationists, who encountered a strong and organized response to their tactics. That's something they should worry about—that maybe some scientists are so fed up with the dishonesty of the creationists, the lies that are corrupting the educations of our kids, that we're getting up from the lab bench to hand out a few smackdowns.
-
Great minds think alike.
Has Meyer penned a real response to the critique anywhere? Has anyone other than Joe Carter or Salvador Cordova come to Meyer's defense?#: Posted by Jim Anderson on 09/21 at 10:05 AM -
You would think that Albert Mohler, as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, would hold himself to a higher standard of integrity than the typical anti-evolutionist, and yet he trots out the same half-truths and distortions peddled by the others in the ID camp.
Mohler and his flock should be ashamed of the scathing, snide tone he uses to denigrate the evolutionist community. Even if he honesty disagrees with the theory of evolution there is no need to resort to such base tactics in his attack.
Perhaps Mr Mohler should spend a little more time studying the Bible he his supposed to be such an expert in? Well, at least those parts about loving thy neighbour and the meek inheriting the earth.#: Posted by on 09/21 at 10:33 AM - Albert Mohler's position should be no surprise. A Bible college graduate who is "informed" about biology is the exception. Graduates are more likely to be on the "misinformed" side of ignorance. Are those who value misinformation in one area likely to be reliable sources of information in other areas? Doctrine may get one far in the Southern Baptist Convention, but it won't get one far in science.
-
Who am I quoting here? I remember part of it, and it goes a little like this: Intelligence has finite bounds, but ignorance is infinite. Or perhaps, there is a limited number of facts but an unlimited number of errors. Or this: There are 8 million absurdities in the creationist litany. This has been one of them.
#: Posted by on 09/21 at 11:15 AM
-
<object of veneration and worship”, as if those are terms of scorn to a Southern Baptist. That really is no fair. We academics are so finely attuned to irony that it sidetracks us somethin’ terrible.</i>
Hehehehehehe.#: Posted by on 09/21 at 11:19 AM - The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is not the critical entity that it used to be. Until the mid 80's it was very liberal and engaged in serious examination of the Bible and theology, but after the conservative takeover of the SBC, they forced out the serious thinkers. Unsurprisingly, one of the tactics is very reminicent of the voluntary statements of faith that many creationsits sign, was forcing all teachers to sign the Baptist Faith & Message statement, which has steadily become more and more conservative over the past two decades.
-
It's not just Creationists by any means. Lack of critical thinking skills abound.
I called some folks to let them know what the FOMC did (raised the discount and the Fed Funds rate 25 beeps BTW) and two of them in a row launched into irrational political rants on me!
The first, a nice guy and one of my best friends from high school, had a series of set-up questions starting with the recent beheading ultimately leading to the conclusion that Iraq was now infested with terrorists and since we were in a war with terrorists clearly we were right to go to war in Iraq...at least I think that's how it went.
As misplaced as I felt his logic was, it was dwarfed by the next guy.
That other fellow was one of those Looney tunes’s who believes there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. He's a retired intermittent whacko who I'm sadly worried is fading into dementia and everything seems to be deteriorating-except his conspiracy concerns. His complaint was that Bush was in league with the "Jews" and that 9-11 was all a set up by Bush and his "Jew friends" to make money in the oil market. Somehow the Arabs were also in cahoots...
I got off the phone before he could get into the specifics.#: Posted by on 09/21 at 01:35 PM -
'Mark' wrote:
Who am I quoting here? I remember part of it, and it goes a little like this: Intelligence has finite bounds, but ignorance is infinite.
There are two infinite things: The Universe and Human Stupidity. But the former is not certain.
EINSTEIN'S CALCULUS
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
ELBERT HUBBARD (1856-1915)#: Posted by on 09/21 at 02:34 PM - As you may or may not remember, I told you so. That paper, and the happenings around it, did not backfire on the ID and creationist movements; it simply gave them a concrete recent example of "evolutionist censorship" and "evolutionists" refusing to accept the publication of anything that "confronts their religion". We'll be feeling the effects of that for some time; it's a good piece of propaganda for them, and will be effective propaganda with a lot of people.
- Now I know why Crosswalk blog entries don't provide comment boxes.
-
What perplexes me is how they completely turn things around. Theirs is "a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor." There is nothing but ideology in their dogma.
I'm trying to fathom the psychology of people who are so profoundly self-deluded that they look in a mirror and believe they see their enemy. That a human mind can function as theirs seem to is, to be frank, rather frightening to me. It truly boggles the mind.
- PQ#: Posted by on 09/21 at 09:00 PM -
QrazyQat said:
As you may or may not remember, I told you so.
Feel better? -
People like this have mystified me for a long time too. But rather than throw up my hands like I really want to do, I keep trying to see what's behind what they do and say. What is the MOTIVE hidden under the veneer?
I think I figured something out just today. I wrote on the idea tonight and ended up with a piece too lengthy to post here, so I put it on my own blog, http://www.hankfox.com .
In part, I said: If the grand theory of evolution is a doorway into understanding a LOT of stuff about biology, as it is, a person who believes in ID is not the same as a youngster or layman simply ignorant of the concepts of evolution. A believer in ID is MUCH worse off.
Because in a few hours, you could get an intelligent but ignorant layman up to speed on the basic ideas of evolution. As probably most of us suspect, it might take years of patient effort to re-educate a person who currently accepts ID. It may be that some of them absolutely cannot be reached, ever.
Anyway, let me know what y'all think. -
Quoted from Meyer" "Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans..."
Ooh...another "cannot [evolve] in principle" claim. Remember how Behe and Dembski started off claiming that irreducible complexity "could not possibly" evolve? Then, when their arguments were refuted, they backed off, complaining it was unfair and obviously impossible for them to prove that something could not evolve in principle, so they fell back on the god-of-the-gaps argument. It seems Meyer is now claiming to have done something which Behe and Dembski have admitted is impossible.#: Posted by on 09/22 at 02:40 AM -
"It’s always a bit discombobulating to find a creationist damning evolution as a “mythology” and “object of veneration and worship”, as if those are terms of scorn to a Southern Baptist. That really is no fair. We academics are so finely attuned to irony that it sidetracks us somethin’ terrible."
Actually, to be fair to them, I don't think there's any irony there at all; these are terms of scorn to a Southern Baptist when used to refer to anything other than Christianity. They're quite explicit about that. That is, in fact, the strategy here: label evolution as a religion, and then, since it's obviously not the same thing as Christianity, it's a competing religion and therefore an abomination.
I've heard some fundamentalists (not necessarily Southern Baptist ones) insist that Christianity is not a religion, since the term is properly applied only to false beliefs rather than true ones.#: Posted by Matthew McIrvin on 09/22 at 06:27 AM -
I liked your essay Hank. You made some good observations. I couldn't figure out how to enter a comment directly though.
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 06:45 AM
-
Mohler provided such a cornucopia of targets that our redoubtable PZ Maieueyertz neglected to raise Mohler's constant references to "Dr." Meyer and the inevitable "PhD from Cambridge." In philosophy of science.
Clueless ID credential flaunting is so damn routine. But not having Dembski's 42 degrees, who am I to comment?#: Posted by on 09/22 at 10:46 AM -
Words like 'ideological' and 'mythology' are wonderful polemic tools-- it's no wonder that creationists & the ID crowd are putting them to use. After all, when you've got nothing but polemics on your side, there's no point in being squeamish. What's surprising (at least to an old cynic like me) is that despite the effectiveness of polemic (especially when it's used to reinforce what people want to believe anyway), when people actually encounter evidence and clear arguments, they're often convinced. It's almost enough to make me optimistic.
#: Posted by on 09/22 at 10:49 AM
-
mattH asks:
Feel better?
No, not even a little bit, no more than I felt better when the Iraq business turned out pretty much as I had thought (and said) it would. Who would feel better about those things? The fallout from this particular paper and the banning of similar papers after the fact is going to be felt for a long long time, and I don't see how anyone can feel better about that, whether you foresaw it or not.#: Posted by on 09/22 at 11:42 AM -
"... who encountered a strong and organized response to their tactics.
PZ, I would quibble at "organized" unless you take the NCSE as the organizer, or the Panda's Thumb, or the TalkDesign list, or ...
It is obviously true that there are networks of individuals focused on the threat to science teaching in America, and a fwe other nations, but we are not nearly as organized as the creationists. The power of informal networks was employed here more so than any organization.#: Posted by on 09/22 at 12:43 PM - I'm sure that I came across as snide, but that wasn't my intention, but if it doesn't make you feel better why bother pointing it out. Qrazy, you're quite pessimistic, and this from the person who's considered most pessimistic by his friends. Look at all of the resources available to us in the form of critiques. Everything in The Panda's Thumb sticky, the website Les is creating that details a number of conflicts, and the two critiques (one specific and this one general) so far from PZ. I think all of them knew that it was going to be trumpeted as a fatal blow to the scientific critique of ID, and all have responded with what they have in an attempt to circumvent that claim before it becomes the common wisdom. There is no doubt that it will stick around for a while, but it offers one of the most important opportunites to us, that of education, especially about science. Overall, I think the goal is to make this an argumental equivalent of The Second Law argument; everyone hears it, but even the majority of creationists point out that it's wrong.
-
Uh, Matt. I'm sorry to report that in my experience Creationists *routinely* fall back on the Second Law argument until they are confronted with some knock-down refutations, whereupon they back away with such practiced grace into another pseudo-argument that it is quite clear to me that they know damn well it's a lie, but are happy to use it anyway.
regards, Chris#: Posted by on 11/17 at 06:32 AM - I would agree that just about every individual I have ever debated brings up the Second Law objection, but pretty much all of them have just barely begun arguing, or they have spent little time debating. Not surprisingly, most get their inital info from Dr Dino. If you check most other sites, you'll find a lot of discounting of Hovind amongst "serious" creationists, both YEC and OEC groups. I think much of the popularity of Second Law arguments comes from the fact that Hovind does a lot of speaking, coupled with the networks that many of those churches he speaks at have. Just a personal observation, though.