Deinonychus antirrhopus

Dembski's Dissembling

Well, William Dembski is at it again. Coming up with nonsensical responses to critiques of his work. This one is in response to H. Allen Orr's article in the New Yorker.

First up is this comment,

Orr’s criticisms of Behe’s work are the same ones that he raised in his book review for the Boston Review of Darwin’s Black Box. His review came out out in Dec/Jan 1996/97 (go here) and was followed by a symposium of pro- and anti-ID advocates (go here and scroll down to “Darwin in the Details” — Behe was among the respondents).

What makes this funny is that Dembski makes it seem as if an older criticism is somehow not valid. This is like noting that criticisms of Ptolemy's model of planetary motion is flawed since the planets move about the sun is flawed because it is an old criticism.

The one thing new here is that Orr looks to the type three secretory system (TTSS) as a possible evolutionary precursor for the bacterial flagellum. Our side has pretty well handled this objection (see Behe’s contribution to my coedited collection Debating Design with Cambridge University Press as well as my response to Ken Miller titled “Still Spinning Just Fine“). The problem with looking to the TTSS as an evolutionary precursor of the bacterial flagellum (leaving aside that the best evidence points to the TTSS “devolving” from the flagellum rather than evolving into it) is that it is so much simpler than the flagellum. Thus, in merely pointing to the TTSS as a possible evolutionary precursor, one has not offered anything like a detailed Darwinian pathway to the flagellum.

This is just simply staggering in its sheer audacity. The claim is that there is no way to remove any part of the flagellum so it cannot have evolved via a gradual process; thus it had to be designed. The problem the TTSS poses is that it shows a much simpler version of the flagellum that actually not only works it does something beneficial. This was completely precluded by the notion of irreducible complexity. But of course, since it is simpler it is somehow evidence against evolutionary theory.

This last point about the absence of detailed Darwinian pathways is the Achilles heel of Orr’s criticism of Behe. Orr remarks that “Behe and his followers now emphasize that, while irreducibly complex systems can in principle evolve, biologists can’t reconstruct in convincing detail just how any such system did evolve.” To which Orr immediately adds, “What counts as a sufficiently detailed historical narrative, though, is altogether subjective.” This last point constitutes an damning admission — indeed, it gives away the store.

Once again we see Dembski's tendency to exaggerate even the smallest of "concessions". This is like saying that since William Dembski cannot remember every second of yesterday yesterday did not happen, and not only did it not exist for William Dembski, but it didn't exist for anybody else.

Is Orr saying that evolutionary theory is in the business of telling historical narratives that are purely subjective. If so, how can it constitute a science?

News flash for William Dembski: Science is Subjective. There really is no way around this. The choice of experimental design, the decision on when to stop collecting data, and the decision on what statistical models to use are all subjective. Saying that because there is subjectivity in science it really isn't science is just silly. Oh...wait, I forgot Dembski is against virtually all science in that he wants science to be informed by Christian principles. Sorry, my bad.

Orr tries to get around the force of displacement by remarking that the NFL theorems don’t hold in the case of co-evolution (fitness landscapes that vary over time as organisms/population agents evolve). Actually, I dealt with co-evolution in section 4.10 of my book No Free Lunch, and argued there that co-evolution does not overcome the displacement problem.

This part is one of the bests. The problem, whether it is displacement or whatever else Dembski wants to call it, is really that Dembski misapplied the No Free Lunch (NFL) Theorems. There is nothing in section 4.10 that is relevant to this. If there was it would be something very important that would be quite well known. Extending the basic results of the NFL theorems to cover co-evolutionary processes would be a big deal and would probably make Dembski's book important just for that alone. Further, you wouldn't have David Wolpert calling Dembski's book a pile of jello (by the way, Wolpert is critical with Dembski's work here--also go here for further discussion of Dembski's new paper on the NFL theorems).

The bottom line is that once again Dembski has provided a non-response respones. This is his typical method, and also uses his other tendency which is to make grandiose claims ("final nail in the coffin", "new law of thermodynamics", "fundamental theorem of intelligent design"). Or, shorter Dembski: pompous double talk.

Creationists and Speciation

One of the old and continuously used mantras of the Creationists (of virtually all stripes) is that we have not seen a single event of speciation. Now actually this is quite completely false. Still, this mantra is trotted out as if it is an erudite observation that is somehow damning to evolutionary theory.

Before continuing with the ridicule of this view point lets review a few examples of speciation. The first example is the primrose.

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.--link

In other words, a new species came into existence. Another example with the primrose,

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.--same link

Now some might object and say that polyploidization is not a big deal. Okay, then how about the fruit fly speciation events.

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).

And this event on sympatric speciation,

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.

Also note that there is more than one definition of speciation. For example, there is the concept of morphological speciation. Why is there more than one definition of speciation? Because historically we can't tell if pelycosaurs could mate with early mammels. They problaby couldn't, but we can't say for sure exactly. For example, this picture shows the changes in the jaw and ear structures of pelycosaurs (mammal like reptiles) and early primative reptiles. Clearly reptiles are not mammals and there is a speciation event in there somewhere...maybe even more than one.

So, back to making fun of those who believe that these examples of speciation are not examples of speciation. To these people the only valid instance of speciation apparently is if a cat drops out of the birth canal of a dog or something. An ape giving birth to a human. According to these people this is the only sufficient evidence that the theory of evolution is right.

Why is this so laughably stupid? Because if a cat did actually drop out of a dog's birth canal that would likely be evidence against evolutionary theory, not evidence in support of it. This is like some crackpot saying, "I ain't going to believe no physics theory till I can see an electron with my naked eye while sittin' here in my living room!" If we could see electrons unaided while sitting in our living rooms our current theories on physics would likely be in serious trouble. A physicist would probably consider our crackpot an uneducated backwater rube. He'd say, "You'll never be able to see such a thing." At which point our uneducated backwater rube would nod his head and say, "See, I told ya' that physics stuff was a load of hooey."

A slightly less uneducated backwater rube will sometimes talk about the microevolution vs. macroevolution distinction. The problem here is that there really isn't a distinction between the two. This is like arguing that the difference between a compact car and a sedan is meaningful in terms of the functioning of the engine. The same process that is at work in mircorevolution is at work in macroevolution. That is why, after enough microevolution, can't macroevolution occur? The resposne at this point from our less uneducated backwater rube is usually silence of misdirection. There are two problems for our rube.

1. There are recorded macroevolution events.
2. They don't have a theory as to why enough microevolution can't lead to macroevolution.

Now there are some people who are educated and believe all of the above. They aren't rubes, but they are either completely dishonest or they are people who, on this subject at least, no amount of empirical evidence will suffice in getting them to change their mind. For some reason they believe that evolution is so impossible that even God himself would probably have trouble dislodging these people from their beliefs.

Oh...and a side note. No, I'm not in the latter catagory. You see, initially I found the intelligent design argument quite persuasive when I first ran across it. Then I started looking more and more into the controversy and eventually rejected Intelligent Design in favor of evolutionary theory. In other words, I have been to both camps and tried to give each a shot and in the end I found one severely lacking and the other quite persuasive.

Stop Press! Sofla Defends Alberto Gonzales

In this thread over at Brad DeLong's blog. Sofla writes the following,

As the following citation shows, the GC in this article 38 does charge the power holding the pows to provide space and facilities for outdoor games and sports (probably soccer fields were imagined or something like that).

That may indeed be quaint and outmoded, and if that was what now-AG AG meant, Okrent is right to call out those who use it as a smear against AG AG's positions.

We critics of this administration's horrid human rights abuses with regard to both declared POWs and supposed non-POWs, ought not to engage in the kind of loose and wrong rhetoric this would represent. There is ample to point to as absolute disgraces to this country, our military's reputation, etc., without stretching a comment beyond the limits of reasonable interpretation.

For, if people hearing our side lambast AG AG with this hear of the provisions in the GC he was referring to, it makes the rest of our case weaker. (If they'd misrepresent and distort this, how much should we believe the rest of their outlandish, horrible IF true, charges?)

-----

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Article 38)

While respecting the individual preferences of every prisoner, the Detaining Power shall encourage the practice of intellectual, educational, and recreational pursuits, sports and games amongst prisoners, and shall take the measures necessary to ensure the exercise thereof by providing them with adequate premises and necessary equipment.

Prisoners shall have opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and games, and for being out of doors. Sufficient open spaces shall be provided for this purpose in all camps.

While not exactly a ringing endorsement...or even an endorsement at all, it is good to see that getting to the truth is what matters. Good work Sofla. I also have to hereby retract my claim that Sofla only takes the liberal view.

H. Allen Orr on Intelligent Design

H. Allen Orr has written, overall, a very nice article that summarizes Intelligent Design (ID). He has zeroed in nicely on some of the best weaknesses of ID. He also notes that ID has only two main proponents or intellectual principles: Michael Behe and William Dembski.

Orr’s criticism of Behe is twofold. The first is that irreducibly complex structures found in biomolecular machines could have arisen via co-option. That is, the parts of the biomolecular machine in question exist in other biomolecular machines and are then co-opted for a new function/biomolecular machine. The second problem is that suppose we have a basic form of a given biomolecular machine. Suppose it has parts 1,2 and 3. Part three at this point might simply be beneficial and not essential. However, via evolution part 4 is added on and now part 3 is not only beneficial but also essential in that the removal of part 3 prevents the functioning of the biomolecular machine.

Next Orr tackles William Dembski’s works. Here Orr has two main attacks against Dembski. The first is a very strong one. Dembski’s work hinges on what he calls Specified Complexity. This sounds ominous, but really it isn’t. Specified merely means that whatever you are looking at has some recognizable patter. Orr for example uses the phrase, “jkxvcjudoplvm” and “callmeishmael”. The first is not specified in that it is merely a random sequence of letters. The second however is specified in that it is the opening of Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. Complexity is just Dembski coming up with spiffy sounding jargon that really adds nothing of value to the concept; complexity merely means that the object we are looking at is of low probability. The problem with this is that Dembski is looking at things backwards. Evolution is not trying to come up with a specific design, or as Orr puts it,

The most serious problem in Dembski’s account involves specified complexity. Organisms aren’t trying to match any “independently given pattern”: evolution has no goal, and the history of life isn’t trying to get anywhere. If building a sophisticated structure like an eye increases the number of children produced, evolution may well build an eye. But if destroying a sophisticated structure like the eye increases the number of children produced, evolution will just as happily destroy the eye. Species of fish and crustaceans that have moved into the total darkness of caves, where eyes are both unnecessary and costly, often have degenerate eyes, or eyes that begin to form only to be covered by skin—crazy contraptions that no intelligent agent would design. Despite all the loose talk about design and machines, organisms aren’t striving to realize some engineer’s blueprint; they’re striving (if they can be said to strive at all) only to have more offspring than the next fellow.

The second criticism is rather technical I that it applies Dembski’s use of another mathematical theorem, the No Free Lunch Theorems (NFL Theorems). Here Dembski’s problem is that the NFL Theorems only apply to algorithms that do not change the landscape they are searching over. Once you have two or more organisms evolving then the landscape itself is going to be changing. In other words, the NFL Theorems most likely do not apply to the process of evolution. In short, all of Dembski’s mathematical manipulations mean pretty much nothing.

And the same goes for ID as well. In the 10 years since the publishing of Darwin’s Black Box by Behe ID has produced virtually nothing in terms of experiments, no real insights into biology, and no reason to abandon the current theory of evolution. As Orr says, ID is really a political movement and not a scientific one.

Now, there are a couple of issues with the article and they are rather minor. The first is this quote

First of all, intelligent design is not what people often assume it is. For one thing, I.D. is not Biblical literalism. Unlike earlier generations of creationists—the so-called Young Earthers and scientific creationists—proponents of intelligent design do not believe that the universe was created in six days, that Earth is ten thousand years old, or that the fossil record was deposited during Noah’s flood. (Indeed, they shun the label “creationism” altogether.) Nor does I.D. flatly reject evolution: adherents freely admit that some evolutionary change occurred during the history of life on Earth. Although the movement is loosely allied with, and heavily funded by, various conservative Christian groups—and although I.D. plainly maintains that life was created—it is generally silent about the identity of the creator.

The problem is that we have seen with the recent “court case” in Kansas that virtually all of the ID movement is filled with people who are unwilling to state the age of the earth or actually think it is far younger than current scientific theory suggests. Also, many in the ID movement (e.g. William Dembski) have come extremely close to rejecting evolution flat out, and they use many of the same tired old arguments that scientific creationists and Young Earthers have used.

Further, if we were to poll all the main advocates and cheerleaders for the ID movement we’d find that all of them (at least to the best of my knowledge) believe in a Christian God. They are not shy about this when addressing the faithful, and only demure and become circumspect about the identity of this designer when in the presence of mixed company.

The bottom line is that ID is not science. It is really nothing more than a religious/political movement. For all of these reasons it should be kept out of school curriculums. Allowing this kind of pseudo-scientific claptrap into science curriculums is not only unfair to the students, but will undermine the already weak scientific education in this country.

Why Don't Some People Understand Insurance?

Over at Outside the Beltway I wrote a post on state and federal employees who are smokers paying more for their health insurance (right now the link isn't working which is one reason why I'm replying here). Anyhow, one commenter, Dread Pundit Bluto, wrote the following,

Steve, you ignorant slut. Once the insurance companies have the power that sheep such as yourself are all too anxious to grant them, you won't have to go out and pay for that genetic test yourself - the insurance company will have your pedigree available in its records.

If smokers can be singled out for higher premiums, so can drinkers, and fast food eaters, and people who engage in unprotected promiscuous sex, and people who might be prone to...oh, I don't know...sickle cell anemia.

Steve, you should run to your nearest bookstore and purchase a copy of "The Merchant of Venus" by Frederick Pohl. Then get "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto. Together, they will help you understand the proper function of government in promoting and regulating capitalism.

Frankly, I just don't see much of a problem here.

Lets look at the first paragraph. Would insurance companies like to get my genetic information and use it in determining my premiums or even if I should be insured or not? Absolutely? It might tell them if I have a genetic predisposition for a specific type of disease. As a consumer would this make me worse off? Sure. Without this information the insurance company would face an adverse selection problem and probably couldn't due much about it. With the information they could charge a higher premium for me and people with similar genetic profiles.

I suppose we could argue over whether insurance companies should be allowed to do this or not. One reason for letting them do it is that without this kind of information insurance is likely to be incomplete and those who don't have a genetic predisposition for a type of disease are going to be subsidizing those who do. In short, right now those who don't have such genetic predispositions are the losers, allowing insurance companies to aquire such information would result in those with genetic predispositions to becoming the losers.

The second paragraph is also quite obvious. We already do this with automobile insurance (hey maybe Bluto's a crappy driver and this is why he is pissed off and wants the good drivers to shoulder some of his costs). If you have a bad driving record, are irresponsible, and so forth you'll face higher rates. Think of it this way, suppose you are healthy and you eat right and exercise. Would you want to be forced into an insurance pool with a fat slob who pounds McDonalds Big Macs for lunch and dinner and starts the day with 3 sausage McGriddles, slugs down a case of beer, and engages in unprotected promiscuous sex? If you are thinking, "Uhhhh, is there a way for me to opt out...self-insure...something...anything?" Then you are basically in the camp that thinks Dread Pundit Bluto is full of crapola.

As for the last suggestion....where did I say there is no role for the government in regulating markets? I've actually argued exactly the opposite and that one role can be to help provide information cheaply so that people and firms can make more informed decisions. But, perhaps making decisions in ignorance is better as Dread Pundit Bluto is quite strongly suggesting.

More on Inequality & Politics

In looking at the problem of income inequality (to the extent that there is one), I was wondering what some of the causes are. So I downloaded two series of data. First was the manufacturing employment number (at the end of the year--series number CES3000000001) and the second was the number of female headed households (thanks to the Census Bureau). The table below summarizes the results.

The explanatory variables provide a pretty good fit to the data.

Note that manufacturing employment has a negative coefficient. This means that for each increase in 1,000 individuals employed in the manufacturing sector the reduces income inequality by -0.0000042 (hence a million new individuals in the manufacturing labor market would reduce income inequality by -0.0042). Female headed households was associated with increasing income inquality. For each new 1,000 female headed households income inequality rises 0.0000060.

The test statistic for manufacturing unemployment however, indicates that this variable is not statistically significant. However, there may be some multi-collinearity between manufacturing employment and female headed households. Still if we remove the manufacturing employment data from the regression and rely simply on female headed households here are the results.

Now, this is a pretty simply statistical analysis. I haven't looked for auto-correlation, nor have I looked at other variables that could have an impact. However, it does look like the number of female headed households is a pretty substantial factor in the rise of income inequality. So my query to guys like Kevin Drum is what policies of the Republicans exactly have given rise to the increase in the number of female headed households? The Republicans in hte 1980's favored reducing the size of (non-defense) government and taxes. Under President Bush there have been increases in government spending (defense and non-defense) and with tax cuts. Exactly how does this work? How do the Repubican policies discourage not only marriage, but also divorce and single motherhood?

Now female headed households isn't the only thing at work here. Despite the insignificance of manufacturing employment, I still thinke there might be something there. Further, there are undoubtedly more variables the could have an impact as well. After all, a tax cut will disproportionately increase the after tax income of well off vs. those at the lower end of the income distribution. Still, for those who are wringing their hands over income inequality, they are going to have to explain what to do about the increasing number of female headed housholds.

Update: Kevin has a post on income mobility. Gee, I wonder if divorce is a factory? So far, I haven't seen any research in the links Kevin has posted that looks at this. Not that I'd expect Kevin to consider something like this when he can blame the Republicans.

Update II: Brad DeLong hints that consumption is the new opiate of the masses.

In the middle of the Great Depression in Britain, Orwell expected that the economic catastrophe would bring dismay, discontent, protest, and revolt. Yet it did not do so. Why? Orwell thought that even though "whole sections of the working class... have been plundered of all they really need" by high unemployment, they had also been "compensated... by cheap luxuries which mitigate the surface of life": fish and chips, artificial-silk stockings, tinned salmon, cut-price chocolates, movies, radio, tea.

Note the words: "palliative," "mitigate," "surface."

Of course, he isn't totally sure about this,

On the other hand, it may not be a very big mistake to think that human happiness consists in expanding our powers and capabilities to accomplish things (not the least of which are maintaining our comfort and satisfying our curiosity), and that wealth is a powerful tool to those ends. There is a standard American response to the claim that money doesn't buy happiness: "Your money doesn't buy you happiness? Then send it all to me. It will help buy me mine."

Federal Judge Strikes down Nebraska Marriage Amendment

The Volokh Conspiracy has a good analysis of the ruling yesterday by a federal court.

I found the judge's rationales to be laughable, particularly his "First Amendment" rationale. "The knowledge that any such proposed legislation violates the Nebraska Constitution chills or inhibits advocacy of that legislation, as well as impinging on freedom to join together in pursuit of those ends."

The absurdity of this argument can be demonstrated thusly: I don't know about Nebraska, but there are several states that have constitutional term limits on governors. What if a group of former governors wanted to organize to petition their state's legislature to allow someone to run for a third term. "The knowledge that any such proposed legislation violates the Nebraska Constitution chills or inhibits advocacy of that legislation, as well as impinging on freedom to join together in pursuit of those ends.." So I guess that any constitutional provisions for term limits of state officials are void, right?

I find it interesting that the judge found so many reasons to strike down the amendment. It's almost as if he's throwing a large clod of mud against the wall, hoping that some of it will stick. "Give the appeals court a bunch of reasons, and maybe they'll let at least one of them stand."

My conclusion -- file this one under "Right result, bad method, horrible reasoning." I'd be happy if all the state constitutional amendments preventing gay marriage went away, but I want them to go away through the democratic process, not by judicial fiat. This'll only provide more impetus to the FMA advocates.

I have to admit, I got a nice "Nyah nyah" feeling when I first read the headline. One of the arguments used by the KS marriage amendment advocates was "we must protect marriage from activist judges". Didn't help the Cornhuskers much, did it?

More on the Political Business Cycle

Over at Outside the Beltway I noted some problems with a recent paper on political business cycles. One of the problems I had was that the author, Larry Bartels, relied on the standard view that it is inflation that Republicans care about. I noted that anti-inflation policy is set more by the Federal Reserve than it is by the President and in fact, President's probably have an incentive to be less hawkish on inflation than the Federal Reserve. Basically, previous analysis has assumed that Republicans have some sort of preference for low or zero inflation rates.

Another thing I noticed was that the Republicans seemed to have a great many more years of recession during their terms in office than the Democrats. While we could reconcile this with the inflation viewpoint (Republican policies induce a recession to reign in inflation) it strikes me as a singularly bad electoral strategy, especially given that Presidents have poor control over the economy. Still we could argue that the main finding that Republicans do well electorally because income grows faster for all income quintiles during election years under Republicans than under Democrats with the myopia people seem to have when evaluating various issues. However, this doesn't address the problem that inflation is not something Presidents have good or even weak control over.

Now, in reading a working paper, by S. Brock Blomberg and Gregory D. Hess, at the Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank, I find this:

The most compelling argument for an inflationary partisan effect can be found in Alesina, Roubini and Cohen[1997].

In other words, even the best evidence is weak evidence. Blomberg and Hess never-the-less continue to explore this notion, but instead look at government spending and taxes. I find this a much more plausible story and I'll try to post some more on this topic once I've had a chance to read it more thoroughly.

A No Win Situation

This article suggests that the boycott of the Kansas Kangaroo Court is due to weakness.

Another witness, Charles Thaxton, who lives near Atlanta but is a visiting assistant professor of chemistry at the Charles University in the Czech Republic, said the boycott is a sign of weakness.

"They've lost so many debates over the years, even their own supporters say, 'Don't do it,'" he said.

Science is determined by who wins a debate. Mr. Thaxton should be ashamed of himself for even suggesting something like that. Science depends on the evidence and the evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is overwhelming.

Creationists like to claim there are no transistional fossils. This is flalse. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. Archaeopteryx has features found on both dinosaurs and reptiles. Then there are the jaws of early mamal-like reptiles (Pelycosaurs) up through primative mamals (Morganucodon) in the jurassic (Talk Origins has a nifty picture showing the progression here). Does the picture show every single step? No. Why not? Well because fossil formation is a rare event not a common one. Also, these fossils have to be found. So, is the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record shocking? No, not at all. We should expect it. So this claim by Creationists is just outright deception. They are relying on the ignorance of people to score a debate point.

The problem for the biologists/scientist that wants to argue in favor of the ToE is that it is a complicated thing. Putting such a debate into a court room style setting is not a good move for the proponents of science. Court rooms have not been very good venues for arriving at good scientific conclusions.

The most fantastic verdict recorded so far was worthy of a tabloid: With the backing of "expert" testimony from a doctor and police department officials, a soothsayer who decided she had lost her psychic powers following a CAT scan persuaded a Philadelphia jury to award her $1 million. The trial judge threw out that verdict. But scientific frauds of similar character if lesser audacity are attempted almost daily in our courts, and many succeed. The traumatic cancer cases are decades old, but the others are recent.

On top of this, all three of the Board of Education members on this "court" are either anti-evolution or have introduced creationists standards. So even participating wouldn't have helped. At least this way when the "jury" comes in with a verdict in favor of intelligent design, it will be a somewhat hollow victory.

Update: This article underscores the bias inherent in this "court".

Three board members, including Morris, presided at the hearings. Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, said she had d looked over the entire evolution-friendly document but not read it "word for word."

Indeed, she wouldn't read it word for word. She already knows that evolution is wrong.

Also, this post at Red State Rabble is interesting. Particularly this part:

As the Kansas science hearings progress last week in Topeka, Science Coalition attorney Pedro Irigonegaray had an increasingly had time getting intelligent design witnesses to express an opinion about the age of the earth.

But of course. You see, many of the neo-Creationists (intelligent design proponents) are either young earth creationists (the earth is only 6,000 or so years old and definitely not billions) or they don't want to risk losing support of those in the public who are young earth creationists.

Also, note one other implication of that post. Intelligent Design and neo-Creationism calls into question not only evolutionary theory, but physics and chemistry as well.

All rocks and minerals contain minute amounts of radioactive material. These radioactive elements are unstable, over time they spontaneously decay into more stable stable atoms. This decay occurs at a constant rate specific to each isotope -- isotopes are different forms of a single element that have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei. The rate of decay is usually described in terms of a half-life

Uranium 238, for example, has a half life of 4.5 billion years. It decays into a stable daughter product, lead 206. Uranium 235, with a half life of 708 million years, decays into lead 207. By looking at the ratio of parent to daughter isotope, geologist can determine the age of the rock. By looking at the ratio between both Uranium 238 and Uranium 235 and their respective daughter isotopes, geologists get a check on the date of the rock they are testing.

There are only two ways out of this problem.:

1. Disregard this evidence and say it is simply wrong.
2. Believe in a trickster God who is not above lying to his flock.

Neither is particularly palatable, but most will go with number 1. This is why Intelligent Design and Creationism in general is anti-science. It is "science" that must conform with religious dogma.

The Sky is Falling...We Are Running Out of Oil

Well okay not really. My contention is that we will never actually run out of oil. But I am always amused by the doom-n-gloom crowd and Kevin Drum has periodically posted doom-n-gloom about oil. His latest is no exception. Kevin has gotten a review copy of Matt Simmons book Twilight in the Desert. According to the Sunday Harold of Glasgow,

At the same time, Matt Simmons, one of Bush’s energy advisers, was at a conference in Edinburgh, spelling out harsh facts on Saudi oil production which, if proved true, would have severe repercussions for the global economy.

Okay. Sure, technically if there is no technological advancement at all then yes, things would be bad when we start to use up the last of the oil supply. But how likely is that? How likely is it that there will not continue to be advances for things like hybrid cars, improvements to solar, wind, and other forms of alternative energy. Not very likely, in my view.

However, there is a problem. The problem is that busybodies such as environmentalists and politicians get involved in the market for energy and just muck things up. Gasoline prices are too high, so naturally the politician wants to find some way of getting the prices back down. Of course, low gasoline prices don't do much for inducing research and development into alternative fuels, hybrid technology and what not. If gasoline is cheap, why not drive a monster SUV?

We see the political aspects of the above problem from both sides. We have the conservatives who are blabbering on about drilling in ANWR as if that oil will be sold at rock bottom prices and not at the prices prevailing on the world market. We see the similar mouthings from some on the Left with releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Then there is the obligatory hot air from the D.C windbags about the price gouging of oil companies. Or pressuring OPEC to up its production. Keep the price low, keep the voters happy.

Environmentalists, the hard core loony ones, I have always felt want a return to some sort of pre-industrial society. Nuclear is bad. Oil is bad. Coal...really, really bad. They gives up empty chatter about renewables, but when we get right down to it...those don't work either. After all, we can't cover the Mojave with solar panels. So...really you'll just have to go without. Learn to make your own organic wax, on your own sustainable farm while wearing hemp clothing and sandals made of corn husks.

So what happens? We end up in precisely the situation where the oil is running low, prices are going high and because of the busybodies the alternatives are still not on the horizon. Things could get really ugly and painful. My reaction to the higher gasoline prices is: Do Nothing. Let the prices rise and let people and firms react accordingly. Sure it'll be painful, but so are lots of things.

For example, if we had the government we do now back when mechanization was first moving into the farming industry the politicians and activists would be wringing their hands. We see books with titles like Twilight on the Farm and people worrying about the massive dislocation of farmers and the resulting unemployment. There would be bread lines, generations born with no hope, cats living with dogs and we'd all have a third class ticket on a handbasket to Hell. Fortunately we didn't have a government like we do today. Nobody worried about mechanization, at least not on a grand scale that resulted in a National Strategic Farm Policy. Instead the mechanization occured, family farms basically disappeared and people went out and found other income generating means.

Another example: whale oil. As whales became more and more extensively hunted the price rose. If we had a Bureau of Whale Oil Accountability there would be dreadful predictions with charts showing global economic collapse. Policies would be implemented to make sure that whale oil would be around for our children and grandchildren. In the end, there probably wouldn't be a whale left in the ocean. Instead what happened? Someguy figured out how to use kerosene in lamps and in 1859 in Titusville PA the first oil well hits strikes it rich.

But in each of these instances if a person was asked what was going to replace whale oil (prior to Titusville) or what were the erstwhile farmers going to do for a living (prior to mechanization) the answer probably would have been a shrug or "I dunno". What is going to replace oil and gasoline? I dunno. Is civilization going to destroy itself in a blaze of nuclear glory over oil? Maybe, but I doubt it. For one thing, there has not been a single instance where a resrouce has gone through a complete Hubbert cycle.

A complete Hubbert cycle is where first production is low and flat. Then it ramps up to a peak (or in some cases peaks) and then it ramps down back to low and flat. Why haven't we seen a complete cycle? How about this hypothesis. As production ramps up, prices fall, but then as production peaks and starts to decline then prices rise. As prices rise people look around for substitutes. Could oil and gasoline be the first complete Hubbert cycle? Sure, but history is against it (hence my bet we wont run out oil). However, if I had to bet as to why oil and gasoline could be the first case of a complete Hubbert cycle it would be due to the busybodies.

Dembski Sees the Light: ID Isn't Science!

In a stunning turn of events, William Dembski seems to have had a huge change of heart:

Bottom line: ID still isn’t science and is dead wrong....

Okay, not really. Just thought it'd be fun to engage in a little quote mining Dembski style.

A New Low For William Dembski?

Neo-Creationist William Dembski seems to have sunk to a new low. After being taken to task for quoting Peter Ward out of context Dembski puts the blame for his intellectual dishonesty on...Peter Ward.

Word of advice: if you are an evolutionist and don’t want to be quoted by evolution critics for being critical of evolution, resist the urge — don’t criticize it. If tempted, even if the reality of evolution’s gaping holes is staring you in the face, close your eyes and repeat the phrase “overwhelming evidence” or “nothing in biology makes sense apart from evolution.”

This must be extremely galling for Ward and is it any wonder that Baylor decided to kick Dembski to the curb?