<i>Deinonychus antirrhopus</i>: The Fine Art of Quote-Mining

February 18, 2006

The Fine Art of Quote-Mining

Paul Nelson is a Discovery Institute Fellow and is a proponent of Intelligent Design (ID). He also has a reputation for being one of the more forthright of the ID proponents out there. However, I read his recent post at ID the Future about an article by Professors Eric Davidson and Douglas Erwin that shows the same dishonest quote mining we have seen from other IDers. Nelson provides some lengthy quotes from the article,

Classic evolutionary theory, based on selection of small incremental changes, has sought explanations by extrapolation from observed patterns of adaptation. Macroevolutionary theories have largely invoked multi-level selection, among species and among clades. But neither class of explanation provides an explanation of evolution in terms of mechanistic changes in the genetic regulatory program for development of the body plan, where it must lie. (p. 796)

And

Current microevolutionary thinking assumes that observed types of genetic change (from single base substitutions to gene duplications) are sufficient to explain all evolutionary events, past and present....But attempting to explain an aspect of animal evolution that depends on one kind of network alteration [deep changes] by adducing evidence from an aspect that depends on another [shallow changes] can be fundamentally misleading. (p. 800)

What does this say? Well Davidson and Erwin are looking at the stability of body plans at the phyla level. They note that such body plans are remarkably stable and they also note that interference with the expression of any one of the “kernel” genes will destroy kernel function. What is the “kernel”? From my reading of the article in Science, a kernel is a highly conserved developmentally important subcircuit of a larger whole complex gene regulatory network that controls for body parts and plan. Davidson and Erwin note that the kernel is inflexible and hence are not going to change via classic neo-Darwinian mechanisms.

Now, one could look at these quotes and my additional explanation and conclude that the kernel is irreducibly complex (IC), that is removal of any single part (or preventing the expression of any of the kernel genes) destroys the function of the structure we are examining. There are two problems with this view. The first is described in this post by PZ Myers about how IC structures can evolve via your standard neo-Darwinian mechanisms. The second highlights the dishonesty of Paul Nelson. While Davidson and Erwin argue that classic neo-Darwinian mechanisms are not sufficient for the evolution of new body plans, they don’t argue that the body plans evolved via non-neo-Darwinian mechanisms. In fact, they argue precisely the opposite in the very same article that Nelson is pointing too.

It would follow that these kernels must have been assembled during the initial diversification of the Bilateria and have retained their internal character since. Critically, these kernels would have formed through the same processes of evolution as affect the other components, but once formed and operating to specify particular body parts, they would have become refractory to subsequent change.--emphasis added

What this means is that the kernels initially arose via the same mechanisms that created all other biological components. Only a dishonest or superficial reading the paper would lead one to believe that ID played any role in the process. Further, the claim that neo-Darwinism doesn’t work for the pre-Cambrian is also suspect. Maybe it is correct, but that wasn’t the focus of Davidson and Erwin’s article. Further, while the process that Davidson and Erwin had in mind for the development of the kernels and other biological components may not be neo-Darwinian it certainly isn’t some supernatural designer.

As for Davidson’s comment about neo-Darwinism being dead, that quote is also quite suspicious in that it is completely stripped of its context. The bottom line is that when you read anything by an IDer one should look at what is quoted and what was not quoted. This also highlights another level of dishonesty among the IDers in general. The new refrain from the ID camp is to “teach the controversy” and that there is this dogmatism amongst scientists in regards to neo-Darwinism. But right here we see what might become the beginnings of a controversy. Davidson and Erwin are suggesting a rather controversial hypothesis (at least it appears controversial to this layperson). Of course, this isn’t the kind of controversy they are talking about. I wonder why? Probably because it doesn’t invoke the supernatural. Bottom line, you can’t trust these guys to give you an accurate picture of whatever they are talking about.

Update: See also PZ Myer's post for a more detailed look at the science.

Posted by Steve at February 18, 2006 12:09 PM | TrackBack

Comments

On Pharyngula PZ Myers looks at the science (and quickly comments on the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design)

Posted by: PvM on February 18, 2006 07:27 PM

Krauze:
Steve Verdon teaches us about qoute-mining

This Friday, ID supporter Paul Nelson quoted some snippets from a recent article by developmental biologist Eric Davidson and paleontologist Douglas Erwin about the origin of body plans. On his blog, Deinonychus antirrhopus, Steve Verdon was quick to accuse him of quote-mining, concluding, “Bottom line, you can’t trust these guys to give you an accurate picture of whatever they are talking about.”

...

Here’s a little challenge for the reader: Use your browser’s search function to search for the phrase “supernatural designer” in Paul Nelson’s post. You’ll probably find, as I did, that the phrase is nowhere to be found: Nelson did not claim that Davidson and Eric were proposing a supernatural designer to account for the origin of body plans.

So, considering that Steve Verdon has just been caught misrepresenting someone else’s words, does that mean that he shouldn’t be trusted to give an accurate picture of whatever else he is talking about?

Posted by: analyysi on February 19, 2006 04:11 AM

Well although the words "supernatural designer" don't appear in the article by Paul Nelson, neither does Verdon quote him as saying that. He is just implying that Davidson and Erwin's paper lends no support to the principle ID tenant of a "supernatural designer".

Posted by: Scott Little on February 19, 2006 04:56 AM

analyysi,

Actually the problem is that Nelson is claiming that Davidson and Erwin argue that neo-Darwinism doesn't work for the Cambrian Explosion (Hell it is in the title of the post). However, reading Davidson and Erwin it becomes quickly apparent that no such argument was made by Davidson and Erwin. Nelson was being misleading on that.

As for the ID and supernatural designer, that is part and parcel of ID...and this post did appear on an ID blog written by and ID proponent. Seems like only a small jump from the title and the author and the site to conlude the intent was to provide some cover for ID. The article quite clearly does not do this.

Posted by: Steve on February 19, 2006 09:51 AM

Steve wrote:

"Seems like only a small jump from the title and the author and the site to conlude the intent was to provide some cover for ID."

Oh come on. A "small jump," like, well, across the Grand Canyon.

Nothing I wrote in my post could be construed as either misrepresenting Eric Davidson or as arguing for intelligent design. Given Mr. Verdon's charges, however, I welcome the opportunity of going into depth in a new post at IDtheFuture (www.idthefuture.com) to show why.

Posted by: Paul A. Nelson on February 19, 2006 12:04 PM

Oh please Paul, show me where Davidson and Erwin said that neo-Darwinism can't explain the Cambrian? You know that was a gross distortion. Go ahead and write your post, I'd love to see how you defend your dubious behavior.

As for the "Grand Canyon" again spare us the indignation mantle it looks ridiculous on you.

Posted by: Steve on February 19, 2006 01:20 PM

Quote mining? You have Nelson making claims he NEVER made in the post! He didn't claim these guys were pushing ID (despite your claim that he somehow did!), so he had no reason to include the quote you posted.

You claim some "supernatural designer" tho ID makes no such claim. That's not quote mining, it's just outright dishonesty. Nelson never made any claim about a "supernatural designer" himself.

Nor did Nelson claim that these men showed support for ID with this paper.

These weren't dishonest claims from Nelson, since he never made any such claims to begin with!

The desperation from your crowd is getting tired.

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman on February 19, 2006 01:50 PM

Let's see...

1) It's the ID people arguing the either-ID-or-evolution model, where ID and evolution exhaust all possible explanations of biological origins. So, when an IDer argues against evolution, he's no longer making an argument for ID? Logical consistency has never been a strong suit of ID proponents.

2) Nelson is a known liar. Just ask him to tell you when his book On Common Descent is coming out.

Posted by: wad of id on February 19, 2006 02:01 PM

Let's see...

2) Nelson is a known liar. Just ask him to tell you when his book On Common Descent is coming out.

Posted by: wad of id on February 19, 2006 02:01 PM

We have unguided and unplanned evolution or guided and planned evolution/semi-guided and planned evolution (to put it in simple terms). Clearly, there's no 3rd possibility there. Either certain aspects of biology show evidence of design or they don't- there's, again, no other option. In general, something is either designed or it isn't. Period, end of sentence. (Plus- you say 'ID or evolution'- as if they're two different things, when it's clear they're not. Behe, as one example, accepts common descent- so he's clearly not against "evolution.")

I thought NDE didn't make any claims on 'origins'?? Talk about consistency! Funny as well- ID doesn't, in general, speak of life's origin. So, your claim doesn't stand even that test- since ID makes no claim on origins, how could it claim it's either ID's (nonexistant) claim or NDE (which most proponents also claim the theory makes no mention of origins of life.)??

I see that the anti-ID crowd...well, what is there to say- you have your name as "wad of ID" and ID clown as your email address. Shows true signs of a mature discussion...all the while bashing someone else's character!

Posted by: Joshua Taj Bozeman on February 19, 2006 02:16 PM

Biology shows plenty of evidence of design -- it's natural design, just like the many other nonbiological, complex systems that are in existence. The real question for the IDist is whether there is intelligence or intentionality or teleos behind the design. Designs do not require intelligences. So, spare me. Stop lying about ID, Joshua Taj Bozeman.

BTW... NDE didn't make any claims on 'origins'? That's new. Darwin's treatise was titled... ah well, I guess telling you would just be too much fun.

And ID makes no claims on origins? That's new, too. Why just the other day, Krauze and Mike Gene explicitly tied ID to origins. Go ahead, read it for yourself: http://telicthoughts.com/?p=518

So back to the main point. Nelson clearly understands neo-Darwinism as 'unplanned and unguided evolution'. If he thinks neo-Darwinism is dead, then logically he is arguing for ID. As you make my point, there is no other possibility. So why quibble?

BTW, I love your pseudo-category of 'semi-guided' evolution. You mean that God doesn't necessarily have a Hand in everything? LOL.

Posted by: wad of id on February 19, 2006 05:19 PM

Joshua,

Quote mining? You have Nelson making claims he NEVER made in the post! He didn't claim these guys were pushing ID (despite your claim that he somehow did!), so he had no reason to include the quote you posted.

I never claimed Nelson made those claims. I quite clearly wrote, "Now, one could look at these quotes and my additional explanation and conclude that the kernel is irreducibly complex (IC), that is removal of any single part (or preventing the expression of any of the kernel genes) destroys the function of the structure we are examining." What I have done it take apart the potential ID claims. I do think that Nelson has tried to hijack this research for ID purposes. Did he come out and say the research explicitly supports ID? No. Did he point to irreducible complexity? Again, no. However, he clearly thinks this is a big deal, that it shows the inadequacies of neo-Darwinism. The last one is positively false to anyone reading the actual article.

And lets look at what we find on Joshua's website,

The Darwinists who want to constantly talk about how NDE (neo-darwinian evolutionary) theory doesn’t necessarily mean God doesn’t exist- many of them make me laugh.
[snip]

Problem is- if they call anyone who believes God created the first life a “creationist” and then say that ID is creationism- and then attack ID as bogus…what they’re really doing is saying that, in fact, God doea NOT exist.

Of course, he glosses right over the part that the real problem is that it is teaching ID/Creationism as science. It isn't the beliefs people hold, it is what they want to call science. For example, Kenneth Miller is a biologist, believer in neo-Darwinism and also happens to be a creationist and intelligent design proponent. For the latter two, he doesn't even pretend to think they are scientific. They are his views, but he realizes that they are outside the purview of science and hence calling them science is inappropriate.

I myself hold a similar view. Even that arch-fiend and athiest PZ Myers has noted that he'd be happy if religious people switched to/held views like Prof. Miller's. So here we have Joshua casting aspersions on a large group of people for views they don't even hold. I tell ya, you can't make up irony like this. Please, while up there on you high horse Joshua, tell me what the weather is going to be like tomorrow.

Posted by: Steve on February 19, 2006 05:31 PM

Posted by: bnhpJRQLaY on February 25, 2006 12:23 PM

Posted by: BtlLYjcnAE on February 25, 2006 04:01 PM