Debating with Evolution Deniers

In addition to the legitimizing effect, there is the nature of the "debate" itself--scientists may expect an exchange based on evidence and rationial explanation; creationists may expect to employ rhetoric and sophistry as in legal proceedings ("Darwin on Trial"). "Sure, my client murdered his father and mother. But, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, take pity on him--remember, he's an orphan."

I agree. The creationist side says idiotic things. Not just wrong, idiotic. "William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory." The right thing to do is to call it ridiculous.

They need every association they can get with actual scientists, to appear legitimate and scientific. It's a political movement, so appearence is everything. Debating them gives them better field position.

But, watching this blog for six months shows me that the idiots will not stop asserting stupid things, and the smart people will not stop patiently trying to correct them, so who cares what I think.

I have to disagree with Matt Young. ID is not science, and I agree that it should not be debated as science. However, some elements of ID are (very poorly done) philosophy of science. Consequently it is OK to debate ID as philsophy of science. Further, ID is an active political movement. Consequently it is OK to debate it as a political movement. I do think the nature of the debate should be distinguished.

Consistent with this, I am not adverse to ID being discussed in the classroom - just not in the science classroom. Politics classes could, for example, discuss "the wedge strategy" as a recent example of political activism. Of course the text should come with a disclaimer:

"99.8% (or whatever the exact figure is) of practising scientists consider ID to not only be wrong, but to not even be science. Further, they believe the presentation of "facts" by ID theorists can only be distinguished from deliberate deception by a charitable assumption."

I've posted a response to Young's article at Philosophy of Biology. Please feel free to leave comments.

Oops - didn't read about Kwickcode before posting that comment. If a blog administrator would like to correct that for me (and delete this comment) it would be greatly appreciated.

I would give my left nut to debate any one of these bozos. The secret is to not let the subject matter of the debate stray from the only relevant plane: "ID" is an exceptionally transparent and useless argument from ignorance that has no more scientific merit than my claim that a sub-microscopic portion of my pinkie toe created the universe, the giant bat-winged god Suck-tor is the source of gravity on earth, and my farts created el Nino.

There is no reason why any debate with a creationist need ever rise about that level because that is the maximum level of intellectual and philosophical rigor any of them have ever attained.

Discussing genuine scientific questions and their possible answers with creationists is less fruitful than discussing global politics with a nursing infant.

I also suggest that we are doing the cause a disservice in refusing to consider letting students see the arguments pro and con. The creationists say this makes it look like we have something to fear---and in this I think they are right.

Let me make another distinction. I will speak in any forum; I will not debate a creationist in that forum nor share a program with one, for the reasons I stated and also for those given by others. To debunk creationists is not the same as to debate them.

I could not agree more with Great White Wonder. Mr. Wonder fixes on precisely what we have to fear: that creationists will use the very fact of the debate to falsely claim scientific legitimacy. It is true whether they are a fringe or whether half the population is sympathetic.

Debating the issue in school, as Mr. Collier and Mr. Curtis suggest, is likewise a slippery slope inasmuch the fact of the debate gives life to the arguments. Do we debate Lamarck's inheritance of acquired characteristics? No, we teach it as a failed theory, if at all. But there is no danger that Lamarckianism will spring to life as a result of our teaching it. The very opposite is true of intelligent-design creationism.

Those of you who know me and have followed my postings around the web are well aware that I never argue with creationists. I never dispute their belief in the truthfulness of the Bible or their interpretation of their religion. I'm not inclined to regard a person as a fool because I don't understand them or because I don't accept their version of truth.
I do argue with evolutionists because they presume to represent science. They adopt the mantle of science, which I care greatly about, to give themselves legitimacy in their own eyes and (they hope), in the eyes of others.
I hold to the view that we can understand ourselves better by identifying those traits and characteristics in others that most antagonize us. We meet ourselves every day in department stores, at school, in restaurants and in the pages of books (especially history books), magazines and on television. Each stranger that we meet is a reflection of ourselves, a portal to better self-understanding.
Both evolutionists and creationists would be better served by not torturing those with whom they disagree, for certainly it is the tortured who soon enough turn into torturers. How quickly the worm can turn.
Personally, I always defend science, because it informs us about the physical world better than any other method and it increases our store of knowledge more accurately than the use of pure reason alone.
But a view that assumes that scientific understanding is the *only* kind of understanding that there is obscures and dilutes our insight and our harmony with the world. Science is a tool of the western mind, not all of mankind.
Now I certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist, nor can I prove that he does. But I am sure of the fact that the *impression* of God (the archetype?) exists in *every* person. Whether God actually exists is mostly irrelevant. What is important is that large numbers of people believe it.
I also believe that there is a huge advantage available to those who can locate this power, whatever its source, in their own individual self and use it for their benefit. Why should I deprive those who may have found this transforming energy in religion? What purpose does it serve me or them, to ridicule and condemn their beliefs as silly and unscientific as I might think they are?
This doesn't mean, of course, that I will allow others to impose their beliefs on me. The teaching of religion, while acceptable in church schools, is wholly unacceptable in public schools. Likewise, ideologies of any kind, especially those ostensibly validated by the mantle of science, are likewise unacceptable in public education.
However, since religion is obviously an important part of my fellow citizens' lives, I have no fear of sharing with them the joy and pleasure that they get from their mythologies, even though I'm a non-believer. I have no problem with a Christmas tree or a menorah in the town square or Christmas carols in the school concert or a moment of silence in a school day. These things do not threaten me, as they apparently threaten others. There's little enough to feel good about in this uncaring and often cruel world; it seems a bit silly to deny people what comfort we may find, wherever they may find it.

Charlie Wagner
http://enigma.charliewagner.com

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2004/11/is-debating-creationists-good-idea.html

Steve, I disagree -- I think that creationists change their arguments over time as the evidence and good counter arguments accumulate. "Old Earth creationism" is one response to the overwhelming evidence against a young Earth, for example. ID is another response to the legal finding that there is no science in creationism, but that it is instead religious dogma.

And, since this forum so thoroughly analyzed the sundry ways it was stupid for the ID flaks to call the great ID chemist Schaeffer a "five-time Nobel nominee," not the least that it's a fatuous and hubristic claim, that claim has vanished from most ID propaganda. Not all propaganda has stopped making the claim -- BIOLA's recent conference still bills him as a five-time loser -- but then, look at the source. (Remember, BIOLA is an acronym for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.)

One might wonder, however, what the Templeton Foundation is doing lending support to a group trying to drive a wedge between Christians and scientists. That's quite the opposite of the foundation's mission, as they explained it to me.

Hmmmm. Has anyone asked them about it?

By the end of the evening, it was clear that the controversy was not about defending empirical science from biblical fundamentalism. Scientifically, what little evidence was presented challenged Darwinian evolution and favored intelligent design; philosophically, Darwinian evolution was shown to have as many implications for religion as intelligent design; and legally, teaching Darwinism while excluding other views in state-supported schools could not be justified on First Amendment grounds. Ignoring these considerations, a panelist who had the last word concluded that Darwinian evolution deserves its privileged status because it is the consensus of biologists. This struck many people in the audience as odd, because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the evidence does not support Darwin's theory. (The scientist on the pro-Darwin side was a psychologist.) I later learned that Washburn University biologists had been invited to participate, but declined because they didn't want to provide a platform for creationism. They thereby reflected a nationwide tendency among Darwinians to demonize their critics rather than deal with the issues. They also made it clear that a "consensus" exists only because Darwinians refuse to tolerate any dissent. As the Washburn roundtable discussion showed, however, the strategy of sweeping the controversy under the rug is not working. The public clearly saw that there are important unanswered questions here. First, is the biological evidence more consistent with Darwinian evolution or intelligent design? If the latter, is it proper for Darwinians to decide the matter in their favor by redefining "science" to exclude design? Second, does Darwinian evolution have religious implications? If so, are state-supported institutions acting unconstitutionally when they teach Darwinism to the exclusion of other views? These are serious questions for empirical science and constitutional government. Pretending they do not exist will not make them go away. The Washburn University roundtable discussion can serve as an example for all American high schools and colleges. Students should be taught the controversy and encouraged to discuss the issues. No dogma, scientific or religious, belongs in a science classroom. Instead of being indoctrinated in Darwinism, as they are now, students should be provided with the resources to think critically about it. The result will be better scientists and better citizens.

FL,

What is your considered assessment of the Unification Church and Son Myung Moon's identity as God's personification or envoy (or whatever)? This is directly relevant to Well's motivations.

Michael Ruse has posted a brief reply to Young (as quoted by me) on Philosophy of Biology. The proper link is:

http://philbio.typepad.com/philosophy_of_biology/2004/11/michael_ruse_en.html

Ed, I'm not sure what you disagree about.

Charlie - I don't know you, but two comments:
"But a view that assumes that scientific understanding is the *only* kind of understanding that there is obscures and dilutes our insight and our harmony with the world."
People do claim this, sure. They're dumbasses, though. You get those everywhere. None of this is necessary to defend evolution. You will find any people stressing the opposite - that both fields are of great value in understanding the world, just in *different* ways. Defending evolution does *not* mean attacking science. Darwinism isn't anti-religion. There is no need to ridicule religion; those who do so in evolution's name are motivated not by evolution, but by other factors.

"Likewise, ideologies of any kind, especially those ostensibly validated by the mantle of science, are likewise unacceptable in public education."
Evolution may give rise or contain ideologies, but the same can be said about any other part of science. Evolution is currently a major part of science, and therefore science teachers have both the right and the *responsibility* to teach it in any class touching upon relevent topics. C'mon, these are basic ideas! How on earth are we going to remove "ideologies of any kind" from public education? This is leaning over backwards so far that one risks falling down the slippery slope to sectarian religious public-ed, if not chaos.

-Dan S.

"Defending evolution does *not* mean attacking science"
obviously I meant to say "does *not* mean attacking religion"
oops.
Dan S.

I am training to be a high-school biology teacher. I will probably teach in a community that favors creationism. I don't want to have to fight the battle ahead of me alone. The more resources leaders in the feild of evolution (such as the contributors to Panda's Thumb) can provide me with, the better. It is not always easy to dig up all the evidence that creationists continually say they need in order to fill a "gap in the theory of evolution." The more gaps you patient people fill, the more they seek out. It is just such a draining process, but absolutely necessary. Thank you for the time you volunteer and the effort you continue to put forth, please do not stop. The debate must go on and on until the dead horse is deader, unfortunately. Dirty job, but someone has to do it.

Debate is not the only - obviously not the best - way to keep abreast of all the new creationist mumbo-jumbo, but laypeople don't like to read detailed descriptions of biological processes, full of terminology.

The debates make it necessary to put sometimes difficult concepts in more simple and concise terms that would not only reach lay people, but that educators can then use to talk to young people influenced by the widespread creationist propaganda, who pose questions to teachers that they read on creationist websites.

Science is leaps ahead of the various forms of creationism, but science educators are a step behind on knowing how to respond to the clever propaganda tools... especially when they also have to defend their teachings to the community and p-d off parents. They are put under personal attack, asked what they believe, and it becomes quite emotionally charged.

I do argue with evolutionists because they presume to represent science

— CW

Again, I agree with Wells. I think debate is beneficial and helpful to public understanding, and there ARE important questions---including scientific questions---to be debated here.

— FL

"I do argue with evolutionists because they presume to represent science. They adopt the mantle of science, which I care greatly about, to give themselves legitimacy in their own eyes and (they hope), in the eyes of others."

I preferred to adopt the mantle of the bat..

..Creationists are a cowardly, superstitious lot.

How I Got Inclined
Towards Atheism
by Nobel Laureate Prof. Francis Crick

When Prof. Crick was informed about the Golden Jubilee of the Atheist Centre he was immensely happy and presented his latest book What Mad Pursuit an autobiographical account of his life as a scientist, to the Atheist Centre with his best wishes for the Golden Jubilee. This book is published by Basic Books, Inc., New York. Here are a few extracts from that book to acquaint readers with Crick's views on religion.

"At exactly which point I lost my early religious faith I am not clear, but I suspect I was then about twelve years old. It was almost certainly before the actual onset of puberty. Nor can I recall exactly what led me to this radical change of viewpoint. I remember telling my mother that I no longer wished to go to church, and she was visibly upset by this. I imagine that my growing interest in science and the rather lowly intellectual level of the preacher and his congregation motivated me, though I doubt if it would have made much difference if I had known of other more sophisticated Christian beliefs. Whatever the reason, from then on I was a skeptic, an agnostic with a strong inclination toward atheism.

This did not save me from attending Christian services at school, especially at the boarding school I went to later, where a compulsory service was held every morning and two on Sundays. For the first year there, until my voice broke, I sang in the choir. I would listen to the sermons but with detachment and even with some amusement if they were not too boring. Fortunately, as they were addressed to schoolboys, they were often short, though all too frequently based on moral exhortation.

I have no doubt, as will emerge later, that this loss of faith in Christian religion and my growing attachment to science have played a dominant part in my scientific career not so much on a day-to-day basis but in the choice of what I have considered interesting and important. I realized early on that it is detailed scientific knowledge which makes certain religious beliefs untenable. A knowledge of the true age of the earth and of the fossil record makes it impossible for any balanced intellect to believe in the literal truth of every part of the Bible in the way that fundamentalists do. And if some of the Bible is manifestly wrong, why should any of the rest of it be accepted automatically? A belief, at the time it was formulated, may not only have appealed to the imagination but also fit well with all that was than known. It can nevertheless be made to appear ridiculous because of facts uncovered later by science. What could be more foolish than to base one's entire view of life on ideas that, however plausible at that time, now appear to be quite erroneous? And what would be more important then to find our true place in the universe by removing one by one these unfortunate vestiges of earlier beliefs? Yet it is clear that some mysteries have still to be explained scientifically. While these remain unexplained, they can serve as an easy refuge for religious superstition. It seemed to me of the first importance to identify these unexplained areas of knowledge and to work toward their scientific understanding whether such explanations would turn out to confirm existing beliefs or to refute them."

You can read more here http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a01.htm

Pericles

Perhaps a useful strategy might be to engage in such a "debate" but focus--from the outset--on the Wedge strategy and its educational and political implications. Many scientists are unaware of the Wedge, and I'll wager many people who favor teaching creationism in schools are likewise unaware. This could be done without attacking religion per se (that would surely alienate many audiences), but perhaps it might lead some to consider that science might not be so great an evil, after all. It may be helpful to point out examples of non-atheistic evolutionary scientists, as indicating that religious people are not necessarilly ignorant bumpkins, but creationist dogmas reinforce that notion.

Katarina: I am training to be a high-school biology teacher

All the more reason I want to emphasize I didn't mean to seem hostile in my rejection of the notion that "no one is not religious".

Actually, Katarina, if I did subscribe to that notion - or to the extent that I do - you might qualify for sainthood.

Pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, or worse still, pointing out to people that they are being used and duped into promoting someone else's agenda, only makes enemies.

I realize the importance of making the world aware of The Wedge Strategy and how it is a debasement of the scientific process (and the process by which legitimate science makes its way into the classroom), but it must be brought into light in the right way.

In a sharply-divided school board, it can only serve to increase the perception of a wedge already dividing the school region, the county, the state. It will only serve to make those who favor ID or creationism in schools all the more determined to succeed.

FL, What is your considered assessment of the Unification Church and Son Myung Moon's identity as God's personification or envoy (or whatever)? This is directly relevant to Well's motivations.

Russel:

Thanks for saying so. I don't blame you for your initial response. The comments were actually helpful.

Katarina, if you are not already familiar with them, you should look into the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Both organizations are good resources for you in your anticipated teaching context. NABT's recent national conference co-sponsored with the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) a two-day symposium on evolution aimed at an audience made up primarily of biology teachers and college professors. They promise to be putting together published materials from that symposium to come out soon - you may be able to find links to the same on their respective websites.

More generally, I want to praise you for your interest in your chosen field. Teachers are really in the trenches, so to speak, and deserve the honor and support of the professional biological community. The symposium of which I spoke was a good example of professional scientists reaching out to biology educators.

While I think he somewhat misses the point of the thread, I think some of what Charlie Weaver wrote has merit and I appreciate his comments. The evolution vs. creationism/ID problem is not fundamentally about science; it is about the perceived threat to religious beliefs that evolution represents (unnecessarily, of course) to a large segment of the populace who, like it or not, are religious. Disparaging religious belief as "baloney" or "bunk" does absolutely nothing to help the cause.

Sorry, make that Charlie Wagner...sorry Charlie.

How are we defining debate?
I agree that it's too easy for people to play verbal tricks if you're debating face to face--I once had a phone conversation with Kent Hovind which consisted of his basically saying "au contraire" to any points I made (archeopteryx is a completely normal bird! There is no trace of any transition from reptile to mammal! etc.).
If it's in a letter column of the paper, however, you can marshall facts, take everything the other side says and deflate it point by point. People have time to review and reconsider what you both say.
I'll do that any time (and as a reporter, hope to have something in my column on the topic soon).

Since ID Creationists have shown they have no arguments of substance the only place where they need to be debated is in the courts when they try to push their ridiculousness into the textbooks.

I am training to be a high-school biology teacher. I will probably teach in a community that favors creationism. I don't want to have to fight the battle ahead of me alone.

Charlie - Don't you think that maybe the fact that you taught biology for 33 years without teaching evolution is indicative of the problem which is responsible for the tremendous ignorance about evolution among the American public? Katarina is not "over estimating the importance of the topic of evolution in a biology classroom." You are underestimating the importance of the topic of evolution for biology. That millions of American students leave high school with little to no understanding of evolution represents a failure on the part of our school system and our biology teachers.

Thank you Shaggy.

I am familiar with the other websites and organizations and I thought you might refer me to them. I find this website to be the quickest and most thorough in refuting each new creationist argument. Usually I just read it, not post.

Charlie Wagner,

I have considered your advice but I am deeply influenced by evolutionary theory and I see it everywhere. I believe it is central to biology and the best scientific explanation for life. It would be dishonest to avoid it because it is difficult. If some teachers choose to do so, it won't be me.

Charlie, though I am empathetic to you respect for religion's place in society, I couldn't disagree more with your advice to Katarina. Happily, she's seems to have the sense to disregard it. Though I suspect you might dismiss organizations like NABT and AIBS, one of the major themes of the symposium I mentioned was a full-on refutation of your claim that evolution is somehow peripheral to biology. Please give me an example of biology that is not informed and influenced by evolutionary theory?

I think there's room for a mutlipronged approach. ID does have a wide range of veru sincere and well meaning followers in religious circles. Many people are easily initially impressed with ID and have read Darwin's Black Box, for example. I consider these people to be sincere but "casual" ID supporters.

Refusing to debate ID because it's akin to holocaust denial is rightly seen by "casual" supporters as intellectually dishonest.

I do think that Behe, Johnson and Dembski should be accused of fraud, luodly and frequenty and their good faith and integrity challenged loudly because they "know." Thre hsould be no debates for them, until they "repent."

On the other hand, casual ID adherents can be influenced by an honest discussion. I've had several attempt to explain to me moustraps bacterial flagellae and the Krebs cycle. They had only read Behe's book, and really didn't know that these are not irreducibly complex after all. They were surprised to find I *also* had read and considerred Behe's book. Next, I point out Johnson's AIDS denials where his attack on medical science is identical to his anti-evolution ravings. This in particular really causes some people to be disappointed for the first time in his intellectual honesty because the rhetorical tricks are clearer.

Finally, in dealing with religous "casual" ID adherents I point out that ID is better proof of Raelians than God, and do they really want their children taught Raelian philosophy? At this point, many people see some of the dishonesties and shortcomings in ID, and can grasp why ID should be challenged in Cobb County.

For "casual" ID adherents, it's not about the science--it's about the religion. If you can show why ID is bad theology to them, the science will take care of itself.

That's why the addition of Henry Neufeld is so valuable.

The problem with "debating" creationists is that it isn't a debate. Formal debate imposes an obligation of honesty, i.e., one marshalls facts to support one's position.

I appeared last year on a TV talking heads show with the person responsible for Missouri's ID bill (thinly disguised YEC, actually). He deliberately misrepresented every fact that we discussed and tried to give the impression that ours was a "scientific" discussion. It wasn't a scientific discussion, because he had no respect for the data. If I ever do this again, I will bring along a sign that says "False Witness" and demand the I be allowed to wave it at appropriate times, which will be often. You know the creationists are lying about evolution because their lips move.

as evolutionist Michael Ruse pointed out in court, a proposed hypothesis or theory is NOT unscientific merely because of any religious motivation of the people doing the proposing.

The polarity between science and faith indeed needs to be bridged else a relentless charged debate ensues. Would it not make more sense to integrate a dedicated course on critical thinking skills into the school curriculum? What individual, organization or branch of study would not benefit from such teachings of logic and reason? This would not elliminate the extremists, but rather, put him/her further out of the ballpark where there is no game play.

Patricia Nason at the Institute for Creation Research, the world leader in creation science, said her organization and other activist groups are encouraging people who share their conservative religious beliefs to seek positions on local boards.

That millions of American students leave high school with little to no understanding of evolution represents a failure on the part of our school system and our biology teachers.

I have considered your advice but I am deeply influenced by evolutionary theory and I see it everywhere. I believe it is central to biology and the best scientific explanation for life. It would be dishonest to avoid it because it is difficult. If some teachers choose to do so, it won't be me.

Please give me an example of biology that is not informed and influenced by evolutionary theory?

Charlie:

Though I should probably know better than to ask, please tell me why, in your evolution-free biology, it should be any more useful to run drug trials on Rhesus monkeys, than, say, octopi?

Shaggy

"The way I approach it is to stick to the facts."

Without an organizing framework on which to hang those facts, one wonders what, if anything, students learned over those 33 years other than than "biology" is a catalogue of trivial information.

But then, less-than-great journalism is the norm when Big Major Pundits limn the religious. Consider Brooks' discussion of John Stott in this morning's column. "If evangelicals could elect a pope, Stott is the person they would likely choose," Brooks writes. Shouldn't, then, the gentleman's views be subject to normal analysis? We'd like to know more about Stott's views. But Brooks doesn't seem to be up to the task. In paragraph 10, he describes Stott's thinking: --------------- BROOKS (11/30/04): Most important, he does not believe truth is plural. He does not believe in relativizing good and evil or that all faiths are independently valid, or that truth is something humans are working toward. Instead, Truth has been revealed. As he writes: "It is not because we are ultra-conservative, or obscurantist, or reactionary or the other horrid things which we are sometimes said to be. It is rather because we love Jesus Christ, and because we are determined, God helping us, to bear witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ." ------------ Stott "doesn't believe that truth is plural?" We don't really know what that means. Nor do we understand the murky but pleasing phrase, "relativizing good and evil." And Stott doesn't believe "that truth is something humans are working toward?" We especially don't understand that claim. Indeed, we don't understand it because we read paragraph 8, in which Brooks seemed to say something different: ----------------- BROOKS (11/30/04): There's been a lot of twaddle written recently about the supposed opposition between faith and reason. To read Stott is to see someone practicing "thoughtful allegiance" to scripture. For him, Christianity means probing the mysteries of Christ. He is always exploring paradoxes. Jesus teaches humility, so why does he talk about himself so much? What does it mean to gain power through weakness, or freedom through obedience? In many cases the truth is not found in the middle of apparent opposites, but on both extremes simultaneously. ---------------- Say what? If Stott is constantly "probing the mysteries of Christ" and "exploring paradoxes," what does it mean when we're told, two paragraphs later, that he doesn't believe "that truth is something humans are working toward?" Please note: This isn't a criticism of Stott, a man whose views may make perfect sense. It's a criticism of the great journalists who pen pleasing twaddle about public religion. In what way is "God's revelation complete" if Stott has to struggle to figure it out? There are real "oppositions between faith and reason," but well-mannered journalists---scribes like Brooks---seem to know not to point this fact out.

"There are no branches of biology that are informed and influenced by evolutionary theory." Charlie Wagner

"Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution" Theodosius Dobzhansky

It's a tough call, but I think I'll go with Theo on this one.

But there isn't a shred of plausible evidence that these trivial processes can be extrapolated to highly organized structures, processes and systems by any known mechanism that does not require intelligent input.

— Charlie Wagner

But there isn't a shred of plausible evidence that these trivial processes can be extrapolated to highly organized structures, processes and systems by any known mechanism that does not require intelligent input.

— Charlie Wagner

Though I should probably know better than to ask, please tell me why, in your evolution-free biology, it should be any more useful to run drug trials on Rhesus monkeys, than, say, octopi?

Isn't Charlie the gentleman who thought you didn't need equations to deal with the specifics of entropy and thermodynamics? For someone who so misunderstands the basic concepts, a declaration of "dealing only with the facts" is not very reassuring.

Charlie Wagner,

Are you lashing out at me becasue you are under attack for giving me the advice you did?

I do not have an advanced degree. I am an undergraduate student. I have read some ID literature. I liked all the comments you have made, and I have thought about your advice as something you say to me from experience and possibly, wisdom.

I am happy just to sit back and watch you continue the debate, as obviously I am not qualified to speak to you. I am here to learn.

sbstory asked me to post this...

Does someone have reference for the quote about how Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory?

I'm a grad student working on information theory and that was pretty
ridiculous. I wanted to send it to my research group for laughs...

"Does someone have reference for the quote about how Dembski is the Isaac Newton of Information Theory?"

Clear all the hot coffee from your mouth/throat before reading on...

(from http://www.designinference.com/inteldes.htm)

"William Dembski is the Isaac Newton of information theory, and since this is the Age of Information, that makes Dembski one of the most important thinkers of our time. His "law of conservation of information" represents a revolutionary breakthrough. In Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, Dembski explains the meaning and significance of his discoveries with such clarity that the general public can readily grasp them. He convincingly diagnoses our present confusions about the relationship between science and theology and offers a promising alternative."

Rob Koons, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin

By the way, I have done some research in the field of ophthalmology, but it was some while ago. We looked at transgenic mice who had retinitis pigmentosa and analyzed the proteins involved in the disease that leads to blindness. Even with that small amount of experience, all the junk DNA I saw when sequencing was not explainable by anything but evolution.

My initial inspiration came from my own high school biology teachers, who were brave, though cautious not to offend anyone. Still, many students were offended.

Currently I am a little busy with small children to be as deeply involved in this issue as I would like. That is why I said I mostly sit back and only come to this website for quick reference. The reason I blogged was that I wanted to get people's opinion on this word "chance" and how it is unknown to both science and religion. I didn't mean to get so involved. Oh well!

Because Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi. What's your point?

Um, how about: for the proposition "Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi" to have any biological meaning, you must accept common descent.

Katarina,

The contribution of evolution deniers to science is zero. Apart from the unnintended laughter it provokes it isn't good for anything else. You can safely ignore Charlie Wagner's advice and suggestions on developing your teaching career and lesson plans in the life sciences. There are plenty of teachers (most of who can be found in public schools) whose lesson plans are not worth discussing. Pseudoscientists post here on PT quite often. And the evolution of their population as posters here provides us an interesting example of evolution in action. Some have gone extinct - lacking the adaptability to survive in an intensely scientific environment. Others have adapted and are more cautious about what they post. Maybe they are actually learning something here?

Anand Sarwate,
I am not sure if you have so much time to waste. There's a lot of coursework to do. If you want laughs why not rent a DVD rather than waste your time on the drivellous Dembski?

all the junk DNA I saw when sequencing was not explainable by anything but evolution.

....it is creationism that is the dominant and mainstream viewpoint. We are the ones having trouble getting our message out ..... We are past the point where we must worry about adding legitimacy to creationism. It is already viewed as legitimate by a majority of Americans. I suspect if you held a vote asking people if they wanted ID taught alongside evolution as a legitimate scientific theory, evolution would lose in every state in the union.

Ruse even gave an endorsement of No Free Lunch: "I disagree strongly with the position taken by William Dembski. But I do think that he argues strongly and that those of us who do not accept his conclusions should read his book and form our own opinions and counterarguments. He should not be ignored."

Phil is definitely a friend of mine, and that's something you need to understand. We get up here, argue like everything, and then have dinner and a beer together afterwards.

As a veteran of a few debates with the "intelligent design" opposition (I presented at the 1997 Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise conference, paired with William Dembski at the 2001 CTNS Interpreting Evolution conference, and was on a panel at the 4th World Skeptics Conference in 2002),

Dembski writes: As for computational complexity theory, I was introduced to it during the academic year 1987-88, a year devoted to cryptography at the computer science department of the University of Chicago. Jeff Shallit, Adi Shamir, and Claus Schnorr were present that year and helped me gain my footing.

Charlie,

I am vaguely aware of recent advances in understanding -excuse me- previously called "junk DNA." I have not used the terminology for a few years, but I know that this new information about all that non-coding DNA shows evidence for evolution even more strongly! That it may be a remnant of DNA that at some earlier evolutionary stage did code for something, before mutations moved it aside. Am I totally off the mark? Like I said, I am here to learn so, someone please enlighten me.

Shiva wrote to Katarina: And the evolution of their population as posters here provides us an interesting example of evolution in action. Some have gone extinct

Mr. Cordova,

You are so kind to come to my rescue. I am afraid I should have stopped commenting long ago, but people keep writing to me and I feel I have to respond. Most probably want me out of here by now, but this is my last comment, really.

I realise how important it is not to tread on anyone's belief. The belief that God is the creator cannot be proven or disproven, it is just that, a belief.

The tools he used to create, I think are most likely those of evolution. Not that those tools are above him ( I don't know, would he have to obey laws of physics?). Anyway, there are so many possibilities. I am, have always been, respectful of the diversity of beliefs that is out there.

While I will most certainly stick to the theory of evolution as theory and fact, I will not present it in a way that violates tender young minds who believe what they believe. Maybe their belief will just have to become more complex.

By the way, I am not that young, I am raising a family and hence, got a little side-tracked in my college education but I am steadily completing my program part-time.

Thanks for your invitation, I will look at the link. Maybe if ID is willing to disavow Dembski I may re-consider it.

Ken Miller, Elliot Sober, Francisco Ayala, and Robert Pencock

This is interesting because not only does Shallit try to refute an IDist, many years ago, Shallit gave an IDist his ideas:

Mijailo Mijailovic says he had no political motive to kill Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh. He says that he didn't plan to do it beforehand and was commanded by Jesus to murder her. He used a knife that has a 10 centimeter long blade. He says: "It was a coincidence that I happened to see her. It could also have been someone else." He adds that he heard voices in his head which belong to Jesus. Since the murder, he has seen a psychiatrist.

I plead with you not to go out of your way destroy their faith or belief in creationism, but rather respect their beliefs.

Kappos said he "super-hydrates" himself by drinking at least 2 gallons of water, which he says improves "nerve conduction velocity" and lets him have telepathic conversations with Crow. The water, Kappos said, gets him into an "aesthetic state" and he felt he "was successful in bridging a telepathic link with her. I was doing what I felt she had told me to do telepathically."

Just a note of personal experience on the actual subject of this entry:

When I was a senior in high school, (mumble) years ago, I undertook to debate a fellow student in our science class on this subject as our spring semester project. That was the first year our little school had enough students for two sections of Advanced Topics in Science, and we were in different sections, so we danced our dance twice; first for my section, then the next day for his.

The format was fairly simple-we each gave a fifteen-minute talk, then each had five minutes to rebut the other's presentation. It was evidently quite a show, I've been told. Our school had no debate team, but both of us were leading members of the speech team. We'd never competed head-to-head, as we specialized in different events: he in original oratory (delivering a prepared & polished speech on a subject of your choice), I in extemporaneous speaking (delivering a speech on a 'current events' subject chosen randomly fifteen minutes before your presentation). Naturally, each of us gave our talks in our accustomed modes. While my opponent read meticulously a precisely-crafted work, I went in with a general outline of the structure of my presentation and a list of major supporting facts I wanted to be sure to include.

Even more naturally, the evening after our initial debate found me in the library, looking for citations of research that aimed directly at my opponent's major points, and defended mine against his rebuttals. It seemed natural to me-after all, it fit perfectly in my debating style ... I was (perhaps unreasonably) surprised the next day when, in accordance with his presentation style, he read the same speech. Word-for-word, including his rebuttal, which no longer seemed particularly relevant to my side of the presentation.

The consensus of my peers, based on my subsequent surveys, was that the first debate was pretty much a draw, and the second was a singularly one-sided trouncing of my opponent. And I quickly realized that the outcome had little to do with the relative merits of our positions, but was entirely determined by the interaction of our rhetorical methods with the terms of the debate. The lesson I took from it is that this sort of circus has no relevance to or bearing on questions of scientific fact.

Q.E.D.

-Scott Simmons

I am very sorry, but I have deleted Great White Wonder's comment 10968 and will delete any other such intemperate name calling on any thread of which I am the de facto moderator. Comment 10995, also by Mr. Wonder, is likewise unecessarily abusive, but at least it contains some content, so I have let it pass. Can we please be civil, even to people we think are jerks, and keep the discussion on an even plane? Panda's Thumb is a venue for discussing serious issues, and invective is not serious discussion.

Creationist biologists are graduating from respectable schools in larger numbers than before.

Whilst certain people are getting rather overexcited (aint it cute) about the number of creationists there are, I think its worth pointing out that there are currently more geologists (my field) within 50 metres of me than there are YEC geologists. In the entire world.

I love arguments to authority from creationists because they are so pathetically easily refuted. Still what else have they got to go on?

Charlie wrote:

"Rhesus monkeys are more closely related to humans than are octopi"

My point is painfully obvious, Charlie; what exactly does your statement mean apart from evolution?

Charlie:

Now I see that Ginger Yellow has already made the reply I intended, though more precisely.

As I read your reponse to Ginger, I have to ask what is so scary about randomness? If random processes occur in the natural world, does that somehow disenfrachise God from being God? By faith, I regard it as a divine miracle that I am alive and at the same time I fully acknowledge the material origins of my body, random mutations among my ancestors and all. Guess what? God is still God in my life.

I posit that folks who want to insist on "design" and the implied ability to infer that design from nature are effectively blasphemous in their self-appointed agenda. What on earth gives the IDist the notion that she or he is capable of inferring God's (that's who they're really talking about) designs? Did God whisper God's design criteria in their ears so that they have special knowledge of God? Remember that story about the snake and the apple? It was for trying to be like God that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden.

IMO, since ID "theory" is not science, there is little science can do to speak to it one way or another. The strongest condemnations of the ID agenda are theological, since fundamentally ID starts with a theological premise.

Cheers,

Shaggy

I have to agree with Matt Young that Ruse has helped the Wedge enormously.

Access Research Network (a Wedge Auxiliary) for receives $40.00 in donations each time Ruse's book is distributed.

Wedgie Classic by Michael Ruse

Get your copy from ARN today.

Psst, hey Mike Ruse, if you're reading, us Wedgie's really liked your book. Keep up your good work which Matt Young is trying to stop.

Katarina,

Charlie seems to claim that recent advances indicate that all non-coding DNA is functional, but he is incorrect. There have been recent studies showing function in some non-coding DNA, but this is hardly new, we've known of functions for some non-coding DNA for decades (gene promoters, etc.). It is absurd to claim that finding function in some non-coding DNA indicates that all will be functional.

A paper in the 21 October 2004 issue of Nature (Nobrega et al, Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice, p. 933) found that very large gene-free regions of the mouse genome (mega-bases large) could be removed with no appreciable affect on the engineered mice. The authors call this "disposable DNA", a term that doesn't seem too different from "junk DNA" to me. So while the term "junk DNA" is used less these days, we still know that there are large regions of DNA that serve absolutely no purpose in organisms and are evolving neutrally. This fact, along with patterns of shared variation in those regions, is very strong evidence supporting evolution, and against some idea that organisms are somehow optimally designed.

I assure you that you are not "way behind the curve on this" as Charlie claims; your interpretation is entirely correct. Charlie has given you bad advice (suggesting that you not teach evolution because he says it isn't important to biology; it most assuredly is), has questioned your competence in thinking about biology, and is making incorrect claims about recent discoveries. Your recent comments have been an intelligent, well-informed, and insightful addition to the discussion here. Please don't let Charlie badger you into being hesitant about posting.

One more comment to Katarina,

If ID were to disavow Dembski, I'm not sure what they'd have left.

Cheers,

D.

Katarina,

Do yourself a favor and ignore pretty much everything Charlie Wagner has to say. His problem with evolution seems to stem from his dogged inability to comprehend why the fact that dogs reproduce and airplanes don't is relevant to his "argument by analogy" that airplanes require intelligent design ergo dogs do as well. I pointed this flaw out to him, and all he had to say was "as the originator of the argument [which, incidentally, I still doubt], he has the right to decide what to compare." Boyo's either an idiot or a liar.

Or both.

Steve wrote:

"Whilst certain people are getting rather overexcited (aint it cute) about the number of creationists there are, I think its worth pointing out that there are currently more geologists (my field) within 50 metres of me than there are YEC geologists. In the entire world."

I love that! ID cannot last long as authentic in the public eye. Bush will not be in office forever, and even before he leaves, I doubt the politics of anti-evolution that he supports will hold out much longer. Conservative trends come and go, and it would be embarrassing to remain ignorant much longer while the rest of the civilized world continues to do real science.

Many of our scientists were not born here, they come to us from abroad! Our education system is lacking, and our children watch too much TV, making them less likely to have original and creative thoughts. This makes it even more urgent for there to be a stronger emphasis on good science, and to run ID into the ground by revealing it as not only pseudoscience, but anti-science.

Like I said, a dirty job, reading through all that ID crap.

FL,

Concerning Jonathon Wells' motivation (posts 10903 and 10938), he became a biologist at the direction of "Father" Moon, for the stated purpose of destroying evolution.

Ignoring Charlie Wagner will not make him change his mind. He is obviously a thoughtful person and weilds a lot of power on our youth, just by being a potential role model and requiring them to pass his tests in the classroom. If he is curious about this website, that is a start. I have learned a lot, I am sure he can too.

D. Stump,

Thanks for that. I knew they couldn't possibly have found functions for all the noncoding DNA in the brief time I've been making babies.

If Charlie Wagner has more to say on this subject, I'd like to hear.

If Charlie Wagner has more to say on this subject, I'd like to hear.

I love that! ID cannot last long as authentic in the public eye. Bush will not be in office forever, and even before he leaves, I doubt the politics of anti-evolution that he supports will hold out much longer.

You're correct that Bush will not be in office forever. It is sufficient for me, however, that he'll be there for the next four years. A lot can be accomplished in four years.

As for the rest of your paragraph, I am content to wait and see. Certainly the polls and the headlines don't seem to currently bear your predictions out, but again, we'll see.

FL

FL

Sorry about that. First paragraph there is a quotation.

I have to agree with Matt Young that Ruse has helped the Wedge enormously. Access Research Network (a Wedge Auxiliary) for receives $40.00 in donations each time Ruse's book is distributed.

— Salvador

Creationist biologists are graduating from respectable schools in larger numbers than before.

Then do they go directly into the ministry?

PZ writes: Also, while I've been arguing that "theory" has been misinterpreted by creationists, Jason Rosenhouse gets more specific and explains why evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of biology. This is good stuff, and I wish more people could grasp it. Prepare to be amused, too, when a young-earth creationist pops up in the comments and suggests that nobody has studied "hydrologic sorting" seriously enough..... Of course, the laughing has to stop abruptly when you realize that 45% of Americans believe in young-earth creationism. I seem to spend a lot of time alternating between laughing and crying lately.

Psst, hey Mike Ruse, if you're reading, us Wedgie's really liked your book. Keep up your good work which Matt Young is trying to stop

— Salvador T. Cordova

If Charlie Wagner has more to say on this subject, I'd like to hear.

Of course Charlie ignores that this paper supports evolution. It just proposes some new ways natural selection and random mutations may occur.

Charlie get over it. "Junk DNA" is just a term. Before it might have been looked at being useless by some but I don't think many people here would say it serves no purpose. The fact that we are learning more about these non protien codeing DNA is just how science works. It in no way supports your theory that your aliens cause all the genetic changes in life. Heck the article talks about how changes can and do occur on their own and how these changes can be retained by natural selection.

Scientific Myth-Conceptions p6 ALLCHIN The potential danger in habitual simplification is that teachers can convey a false image of the nature of science. In a sense, they condition students to expect simplicity. When students encounter complexity, they may feel betrayed or "simply" lack the requisite interpretive skills. Consider, for example,Wells' recent criticism of the peppered moth case as a "myth," in the sense of "not an account of objective reality" (Wells, 2000, p. 1) and "no better than alchemy" (p. 155). That is, he denies that it provides evidence for evolution. Why? In his arguments, Wells points disparagingly to every uncertainty and discrepancy in the evidence. For Wells, if the evidence does not match the story as told in the textbook, then the scientific conclusions are wrong. Uncertainties, doubts and lack of unambiguous evidence mean, simply, that the evidence is "impeached" (p. 151). Discrepancies count as outright flaws. No qualifications are allowed. No nuances in interpreting the evidence or considering multiple causal factors. This approach seems to take seriously the "discipline" of science (p. 2). There is no room for ambiguity or resolving complex evidence. Science educators may recoil in horror. But in the preface to his creationist tract, Wells admits that even through graduate school he believed almost everything he read in his textbooks as true, plain and simple (p. xi). For Wells, science seems black and white. And the result, in his case, appears to be rejection of evolution, because the real science does not match exactly the textbook ideal. The Kettlewell case may thus alert educators to the potential consequences of casting the process of science as black-and-white---like the peppered moths one sees in the textbooks.

— Allchin

Katarina,

I'm just a lurker here, but being a science teacher myself (7th grade), I wanted to welcome you into the club and offer my praise and thanks for sticking up for real science in the face of the creationist crapmongers.

--TD

But in the preface to his creationist tract, Wells admits that even through graduate school he believed almost everything he read in his textbooks as true, plain and simple (p. xi). For Wells, science seems black and white. And the result, in his case, appears to be rejection of evolution, because the real science does not match exactly the textbook ideal.

Ruse, btw, is still debating creationists, now in Amsterdam next week. Though the official topic is ID, Nelson is, IIRC, a young-earth creationist.

(Speaking of Paul Nelson, I wonder how his calculations of Ontogenetic Depth are coming. It's been 8 months now since a reply was going to be posted "tomorrow." Newcomers are invited to scroll down to comment #398, and then to #1948ff.)

RBH

I think he's been joined by Pasquale, who about a month ago said he'd post a mathematical disproof of darwinism. He's been kind of scarce since then. I'm sure they're in the math library at MIT, putting finishing touches on the paper, and preparing their families for the bright kleig lights of scientific stardom.

The Scientific American article that Charlie refers to provides an overview of new research that is intriguing, but still highly speculative at this point. There are fascinating possibilities here, and only time (and a lot of lab work) will tell if these ideas might pan out.

However, I'd like to reiterate two points.

First, as Wayne points out, everything presented in the article is in an explicitly Darwinian framework. Even if functionality is found for some non-coding DNA, those functions are better explained as the result of evolution than some kind of optimal design.

Second, as I have said before, finding functions for some non-coding DNA hardly demonstrates that all of the vast stretches of non-coding DNA will be functional. The Nature paper referred to earlier shows that very large regions of an organism's genome can be completely disposable.

The ideas in these two papers are not in disagreement, and both point to evolution. Genomes do not look like the result of optimal design, they look like the result of the process of evolution.

I have looked at the article Charles sent, "Program of Complex Organisms," and it is really great to find something that sheds some light on the complexity of eukaryotic cells. It shows how much more we have to learn, and it is indeed thought-transforming.

I was really intrigued by the following paragraph:

"Nonprotein-coding sequences make up only a small fraction of the DNA of prokaryotes. Among eukaryotes, as their complexity increases, generally so too does the proportion of their DNA that does not code for protein. The noncoding sequences have been considered junk, but perhaps it actually helps to explain organisms' complexity.;"

I have a question though, well, a couple of questions. And it's not directed only at Charlie Wagner, but anyone who knows something about it.

1. If all non-coding DNA served an indespensible function, would we expect high homology between introns, either intra- or inter- species? Would we expect the same homology as that of exons?

2. Do we find a difference in homology between exons and introns?

Katarina:
First, your questions:
1. It depends on the presumed function. If the function is dependent on sequence (e.g, binding of a transcription factors), it would be conserved, but on the other hand there are functions that seem to be only minimally constrained by sequence. For instance, DNA segments with very different sequences may be equally able to generate effective mi/siRNAs, provided they maintain some general properties related to secondary structure folding, such as shown in the Mattick article figure on page 66.
2. In general, introns (and intergenic sequences) are much less conserved than exons. (Incidentally, a minor peeve: with minor exceptions, pairs of introns are just as homologous as their flanking exons - i.e. they either are homologous, or they are not. Homology is not a quantitative variable, sequence similarity, or conservation, is.).

Regarding the more general aspects of the subject, as highlighted in Mattick's article (which by the way I have quite a bit to object to):
- there is no doubt that RNA-mediated regulation plays a crucial role in the control of gene expression, development etc.
- there is no doubt that a fraction, possibly significant, of even completely non-genic DNA (that is, excluding coding sequences, introns and gene-specific regulatory elements) has some important function, e.g. by organizing chromatin domains, playing structural roles during cell division, etc.
- there is, not surprisingly, a trend towards more complex regulatory mechanisms in more complex organisms.
- there is also a (very broad!) trend towards larger gemomes in more complex organisms.
- However, any conclusion about the functional significance of the correlation between genome size, regulatory and organismal complexity falls apart because of the notable exceptions: organisms of very similar complexity with very different genome sizes (which are found in many groups: fish, amphibia, insects, plants).

No matter how appealing the concept of a pervasive regulatory role of non-genic DNA seems, it is hard if not impossible to maintain after comparing the relative genome sizes of, say, zebrafish (~1.7x10^9 bp haploid) and pufferfish (~4x10^8 haploid). The inescapable conclusion is that, as far as a perfectly fine-looking, respectably complex critter like zebrafish is concerned, a good 75% or the genome is ultimately dispensable. Why should it be any different for other large-genome organisms, like us?

Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact-which they are very good at. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They [creationists/IDers] are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!

On the National Center for Science Education website there is a transcript of Eugenie Scott debating Jason "AIG" Lisle on cable November 29.

I could spend a great deal of time evaluating the responses. I think Scott did okay but that's partly because Lisle is so awful. Lisle provides so much ammo in his comments it would be difficult to know where to begin reducing his position to rubble. But overall, I think Scott could improve her rhetoric if she simplified things somewhat.

For example, I don't think the average cable viewer who hears the phrase "Science is not a democratic process" is going to understand that to be a favorable comment about science. She could do better to say something along the lines of "Scientific facts don't change because a political group finds them inconvenient."

But it's the stuff Scott says like the following

"Well, hearing a creationist define evolution is a little bit like having Madeline Murray O'Hare define Christianity. You're not really going to get the -- the straight story there."

that is the least helpful. And those were the first words she uttered. But look at the red meat which Lisle offered her:

"if I had the legal right to talk about the Bible [in a science classroom to explain the diversity of life on earth and the fossil record], I would use that."

If I were Scott, I might have continually returned to that comment to illustrate how transparent Lisle's agenda is. The "controversy" has nothing to do with the scientific evidence for evolution at all, and Lisle admits it right off the bat.

Anyway, check out the transcript (or if somebody could post it here, that would be helpful).

P.S. Evidently "brand new" means something different to Fox than it does for me.

I have a question though, well, a couple of questions. And it's not directed only at Charlie Wagner, but anyone who knows something about it. 1. If all non-coding DNA served an indespensible function, would we expect high homology between introns, either intra- or inter- species? Would we expect the same homology as that of exons? 2. Do we find a difference in homology between exons and introns?

- there is also a (very broad!) trend towards larger gemomes in more complex organisms. - However, any conclusion about the functional significance of the correlation between genome size, regulatory and organismal complexity falls apart because of the notable exceptions: organisms of very similar complexity with very different genome sizes (which are found in many groups: fish, amphibia, insects, plants). No matter how appealing the concept of a pervasive regulatory role of non-genic DNA seems, it is hard if not impossible to maintain after comparing the relative genome sizes of, say, zebrafish (~1.7x10^9 bp haploid) and pufferfish (~4x10^8 haploid). The inescapable conclusion is that, as far as a perfectly fine-looking, respectably complex critter like zebrafish is concerned, a good 75% or the genome is ultimately dispensable. Why should it be any different for other large-genome organisms, like us?

Irreducibly Grotesque organisms
http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/

Charlie I'm thinking that by a "pervasive role" Andrea was referring to the concept that every nucleic acid residue in an organisms non-coding DNA has a crucial regulatory role. That seems unlikely given the variability that's observed in non-coding sequences between individuals within a species and the even greater variability in the amounts of non-genic DNA between species, as Andrea noted.

Also, Charlie, you should try to clear. Genes are often defined to include regulatory sequences. DNA which has a role in the production of RNA "regulatory" molecules is arguably "genic", that is, it is part of the regulatory gene which includes the structural gene encoding the RNA molecule, the promoter from which the RNA is transcribed, and any enhancing or suppressing elements that may be present.

Whether something has a necessary or essential "role" is relative, of course, which I know is a term that creationists hate. Thankfully, they only have to live with the absence of easy absolutes for 100 years, if they're lucky. Then life becomes very simple for us all, doesn't it?

Don -- good stuff. I was a bit disappointed by the absence of any images of a giant bolus of ascaris erupting from some poor guy's hind end after an enema, but it's an effective piece of work neverthless.

don t know:
An effective but (snort) rather distrubing (glorp, kaff) argument!
That a cat should play with a mouse, indeed!

Oh, and about charlie's comment that the teaching of evolution is best avoided:

Years ago I was sitting in high school bio class (I think AP, but it might have been freshman bio) when the teacher told us that one of the greatest advances in the history of life was . . . the anus.
(great stuff for high school classes!) He explained (when the laughter died down) that the evolution of a one-way digestive tract allowed the emergence of specialized sequential organs, etc, with the upshot being more effective utilization.

I found this truly wonderous. I had known most of the underlying facts, at least implicitly, not least because the bio curriculum had treated us to a comparison of various familiar sample organisms - I still remember details of earthworm anatomy - but suddenly it was all tied together. It made sense! To get all metaphorical, it was as if the dry bones of scientific facts had suddenly knitted together and began to speak (or possibly donned a top hat, twirled a cane, and began to tap dance while singing about what a wonderful thing an anus was . . . but maybe that's a stretch). Beyond the details, it was a glimpse of a astonishing view of life, a way of thinking.

And here charlie is advocating a approach towards the material that would have denied me that moment - in the name of stress relief (albeit for a new teacher). Now, charlie taught science for 33 years in New York State. Ordinarily I have great respect for teachers, since my parents both taught, my girlfriend's one, and I'm currently training to enter the field. You, sir, are no teacher, however long you've spent in the classroom.

And your "describing in detail the processes by which mutations occur* , while doubting such "trivial" matters could make any important difference -and probably teaching accordingly - sounds deadly dull and possibly fatal to any tenative interest in science - and this from someone who took genetics as a high school elective and would construct enormous multiple-trait Punnett squares because that was so much more fun than using an equation . . .
Although you are right that evolution has (at least in the recent past) been granted a minimal place in most classrooms, largely because of political pressure and educational appeasement. I saw some document - I'll try to dig it up - that seemed to indicate that the ID-"enriched" discussion of evolution in Dover, PA covers about a period.

-Dan S.

Thanks to Andrea for taking the time to explain. I realise that my questions seem very basic to most of you, but I am trying to figure out whether this is a good debating point or not.

I spent the good part of the day trying to decipher Andrea's reply, but I think I've got it. Just need a few more upper-level classes, ya see.

But I will dare to ask one more question, and maybe it's just stemming from my ignorance, but please help me.

3. If introns are less conserved than exons, then would that in any way contribute to the idea that only some introns may serve a function, but some of it is still junk?

4. Is mutation rate the same, and do enzymes fix mutations wherever they may occur, or only for protein-coding regions?

Thanks for your indulgance of these basic questions.

Charlie:
by "complex" I refer to basic biochemical, histological/anatomical and developmental features. Admittedly, a very non-quantitative assessment - because there is no way to actually measure biological complexity in any non-trivial way (and you are right to be skeptical of those who claim they can).

However, to just stick to the point: zebrafish and pufferfish are two teleosts with largely comparable biochemistry, anatomy, tissue diversity and developmental patterns. For that matter, you can compare pufferfish with the vast majority of other bony fish species, and the result doesn't change - pufferfish have very tiny genomes compared to others. So, clearly many species of fish carry genomes in excess of what is really needed for their biochemical, histo-anatomical and developmental "complexity" level, because pufferfish nicely fulfills the same requirements with anything between half to one-tenth the genome size.

Note that pufferfish still retain non-coding DNA: comparably tiny introns, short intergenic regions, minimal repetitive DNA. Does most or all of that DNA play some functional role? Possible. Does the comparably much larger amount of non-genic DNA in zebrafish all play any equally important role? Almost certainly not.

This doesn't mean that studying non-genic DNA is not interesting: it most definitely contains important elements, and will tell us a lot about an organism's evolutionary history. However, there is no compelling biological reason to doubt that a large part of it is, functionally, just excess baggage.

Charlie:
by "complex" I refer to basic biochemical, histological/anatomical and developmental features. Admittedly, a very non-quantitative assessment - because there is no way to actually measure biological complexity in any non-trivial way (and you are right to be skeptical of those who claim they can).

However, to just stick to the point: zebrafish and pufferfish are two teleosts with largely comparable biochemistry, anatomy, tissue diversity and developmental patterns. For that matter, you can compare pufferfish with the vast majority of other bony fish species, and the result doesn't change - pufferfish have very tiny genomes compared to others. So, clearly many species of fish carry genomes in excess of what is really needed for their biochemical, histo-anatomical and developmental "complexity" level, because pufferfish nicely fulfills the same requirements with anything between half to one-tenth the genome size.

Note that pufferfish still retain non-coding DNA: comparably tiny introns, short intergenic regions, minimal repetitive DNA. Does most or all of that DNA play some functional role? Possible. Does the comparably much larger amount of non-genic DNA in zebrafish all play any equally important role? Almost certainly not.

This doesn't mean that studying non-genic DNA is not interesting: it most definitely contains important elements, and will tell us a lot about an organism's evolutionary history. However, there is no compelling biological reason to doubt that a large part of it is, functionally, just excess baggage.

Charles,

The NAS put this website together.

http://www.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

On it I found this under the title "New Evidence from Molecular Biology"

"With functioning genes, one possible explanation for the relative similarity between genes from different organisms is that their ways of life are similar--for example, the genes from a horse and a zebra could be more similar because of their similar habitats and behaviors than the genes from a horse and a tiger. But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be."

What say you?

3. If introns are less conserved than exons, then would that in any way contribute to the idea that only some introns may serve a function, but some of it is still junk?

4. Is mutation rate the same, and do enzymes fix mutations wherever they may occur, or only for protein-coding regions?

You'd be wise to listen to Charlie Wagner - he has a much deeper understanding of humans and human nature than do most of the stuck-up ###holes who contribute regularly to this site. And he's got 30+ years teaching science to boot.

There are many qualities that would define a great teacher and I'd hazard to guess that you could be a great biology teacher without getting bogged down in evolutionary theory. Further to that, if you are teaching specifics relating to evolution, you may be omitting, or speeding though topics that might be more suitable for your students. The curriculum should be geared towards what's best for them - not what interests you the most.

I'm always amazed at the number of science students I encounter at the undergraduate university level who have difficulty with vital concepts such as common proportionality (i.e. cross multiplying), acid/bases (pKas), balancing equations, etc. etc. Maybe their high school teachers neglected these important topics in lieu of more glamorous ones.

If >50% of your students come out of your classes and your school with an ability to think and write clearly, you'll have done your job well. I wouldn't worry so much about the theory of evolution.

MMmm Charlie understands that all life on earth is micromanaged from by aliens. Glancing creationists think he's on their side.

As for 30+ years of teaching...so what. I know plenty of people that have been at their job for 30+ years. It doesn't mean they are good at what they do. There are many qualities that make a good teacher but avoiding teaching what needs to be taught isn't one of them. While some biology can be taught without discussion of evolution you can't teach much properly without it.

What do you think is "more suitable" for students?

"if >50% of your students come out of your classes and you school with an ability to think and write clearly, you'll have done you job well."

Errr aim high aye John. Good schools will obtain much higher results then that. If kids aren't made to learn off the wall crap in science class like ID maybe they can actually be able to articulate what the evidence shows instead of being confused by a competing non theory.

I don't equate the theory of evolution with being "glamorous". I equate it with what mainstream science and the federal government deem necessary to teach.

I don't equate the theory of evolution with being "glamorous". I equate it with what main stream science and the federal government deem nessesary to teach.

If >50% of your students come out of your classes and your school with an ability to think and write clearly, you'll have done your job well.

— John Smith

Thanks again Andrea. It is much clearer now.

Johnsmith, thank you for your comment. I don't appreciate the name calling, as I have nothing but respect and admiration for the contributors to this website, who volunteer their time and effort for a cause that lesser people ignore. I mean, think about it, Dover High school in Kansas now has to teach Intelligent Design!!

However, your point about high school is well taken. I know enough teachers to know that just teaching basics is a tough job.

But I think the reason I decided to teach Biology in the first place, and not Math or Chemistry, is that there is something politically controversial there that can be defended by pure science. You see, the whole debate demonstrates the power of scientific thought. I will go home in the evenings feeling like I've given my students a powerful tool to seeing through and dissolving not just anti-evolutionism, but all propaganda.

My motivation will probably get a little worn down at stressful times, but on principle I cannot give up on it.

So while your advice, and that of Charlie's is exceedingly kind, and practical as well, I have to at least try. Of course the priority will be to equip them with the basics, but I want to pique their curiosity at least, about what science is about.

Dan S,

Somehow I missed your comment earlier. It is very encouraging!

Excuse me, that's Dover, PA.

"But this possible explanation does not work for pseudogenes, since they perform no function. Rather, the degree of similarity between pseudogenes must simply reflect their evolutionary relatedness. The more remote the last common ancestor of two organisms, the more dissimilar their pseudogenes will be."

This doesn't mean that studying non-genic DNA is not interesting: it most definitely contains important elements, and will tell us a lot about an organism's evolutionary history. However, there is no compelling biological reason to doubt that a large part of it is, functionally, just excess baggage.

Charlie,

The Physician assistant I've got an appointment with this afternoon recommended Zecharia Sitchen's "The Twelfth Planet." Something about super intelligent aliens on an elliptically orbiting planet who gentically engineered homo erectus - what do you think? Of course, he (Stichins) evidently swears by the Martian face also.

The Physician assistant I've got an appointment with this afternoon recommended Zecharia Sitchen's "The Twelfth Planet." Something about super intelligent aliens on an elliptically orbiting planet who gentically engineered homo erectus - what do you think? Of course, he (Stichins) evidently swears by the Martian face also.

As we look deeper and deeper into these structures, processes and systems, we uncover increasingly high levels of organization and complexity.

— CW

I asked him if that did not represent an inconsistency. If there is abundant life elsewhere in the universe, how come most of the UFO reports are untrue.

— CW

Most of the stories about space aliens and flying saucers most likely are hogwash, but that really does not speak to the issue of whether or not intelligent input was required for life to evolve.

In my humble opinion, this level of complex organization, in which structures and processes are integrated in such a way that multiple functions support not only each other, but the overall function of the system cannot have been the result of random chance, but required intelligent input.

Charlie,

Thank you for showing those articles. I will look at them.

As a side, people keep bringing up your personal beliefs. Since you really have no way of proving those beliefs, just as I have no way of proving the existance of god, just as atheists have no way of proving his non-existance, why mix them with what CAN be proven?

I am sure there is much more to the universe than our perceptions can tell us. But the only things we can know with a high degree of certainty are things that other people with eyes and hands can also, independently perceive. That is the most reliable method we have to glimpse the truth, at least as it relates to us. That is the reason I value science. Is it not the same reason that you value it?

As a side, people keep bringing up your personal beliefs. Since you really have no way of proving those beliefs, just as I have no way of proving the existance of god, just as atheists have no way of proving his non-existance, why mix them with what CAN be proven?

In a way creationist are better then you. At least they have ideas about their creator.

Charlie,

I am really not sure what else to say, so I will let others speak if they feel the need.

NASA's latest mission on Mars is providing growing indications that Mars once had conditions favorable to live. I guess that is good news for your hypothesis. To hear an interview, go to the npr.org website and look under the latest Science Friday.

I will see you in a week, I am going on vacation.

Have fun!

As we look deeper and deeper into these structures, processes and systems, we uncover increasingly high levels of organization and complexity. There must be some point at which we discard random processes because they are inadequate to explain the phenomena we are observing. For me, this point was reached quite a while ago. In my humble opinion, this level of complex organization, in which structures and processes are integrated in such a way that multiple functions support not only each other, but the overall function of the system cannot have been the result of random chance, but required intelligent input.

Charlie, of course you are well aware that what you call "random causes" are not random, and not considered random by biologists. I'm not sure what you mean by the phrase, but in the context here you use the phrase to substitute for "natural causes." Keep that in mind.

Now according to scientists, mutations are totally random. I don't happen to believe that, but that is the position of scientists.

Natural selection can only act on pre-existing variation. It has no power in itself to organize, design, construct or assemble any structures, processes or systems.

Therefore, the mechanism of mutation and natural selection, as described by evolutionists, is totally random.

So you're saying it's better to make up a story than to say "I don't know"?

— CW

Now according to scientists, mutations are totally random. I don't happen to believe that, but that is the position of scientists.

Wayne, your ignorance of basic science amazes me. Obviously, the aliens intelligently designed themselves. See, what they did was, at some point they invented a time machine, went back before there was life on their planet, and seeded it with life from the present.

I mean, duh.

A baby girl is mysteriously dropped off at an orphanage in Cleveland in 1945. "Jane" grows up lonely and dejected, not knowing who her parents are, until one day in 1963 she is strangely attracted to a drifter. She falls in love with him. But just when things are finally looking up for Jane, a series of disasters strike. First, she becomes pregnant by the drifter, who then disappears. Second, during the complicated delivery, doctors find that Jane has both sets of sex organs, and to save her life, they are forced to surgically convert "her" to a "him." Finally, a mysterious stranger kidnaps her baby from the delivery room. Reeling from these disasters, rejected by society, scorned by fate, "he" becomes a drunkard and drifter. Not only has Jane lost her parents and her lover, but he has lost his only child as well. Years later, in 1970, he stumbles into a lonely bar, called Pop's Place, and spills out his pathetic story to an elderly bartender. The sympathetic bartender offers the drifter the chance to avenge the stranger who left her pregnant and abandoned, on the condition that he join the "time travelers corps." Both of them enter a time machine, and the bartender drops off the drifter in 1963. The drifter is strangely attracted to a young orphan woman, who subsequently becomes pregnant. The bartender then goes forward 9 months, kidnaps the baby girl from the hospital, and drops off the baby in an orphanage back in 1945. Then the bartender drops off the thoroughly confused drifter in 1985, to enlist in the time travelers corps. The drifter eventually gets his life together, becomes a respected and elderly member of the time travelers corps, and then disguises himself as a bartender and has his most difficult mission: a date with destiny, meeting a certain drifter at Pop's Place in 1970. The question is: Who is Jane's mother, father, grandfather, grand mother, son, daughter, granddaughter, and grandson? The girl, the drifter, and the bartender, of course, are all the same person. These paradoxes can made your head spin, especially if you try to untangle Jane's twisted parentage. If we drawJane's family tree, we find that all the branches are curled inward back on themselves, as in a circle. We come to the astonishing conclusion that she is her own mother and father! She is an entire family tree unto herself.

— Robert Heinlein

Obviously, the aliens intelligently designed themselves. See, what they did was, at some point they invented a time machine, went back before there was life on their planet, and seeded it with life from the present.

Okay, this should clear everything up. The whole story's here. Sorry, don't know how to paste an actual link on this site.

http://www.sitchin.com/adam.htm

;^)

Thanks all for the interesting comments. Just to make my position clear, I think we should counter the arguments of evolution deniers publicly and in any venue we can, but not engage in a direct confrontation or otherwise collaborate with them. Nothing I have read has changed my mind.

Interesting as the comments have been, they have gotten way off the original task, so I think it is time to close them. Doing so is also an anti-spam measure; I do not leave any thread open forever.

For further discussion of evolution denial, may I suggest the essay posted by Dr. GH at http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000639.html#more ?