IA and ID in the WSJ; update on CfS

As the goober said, "Checking up and doing research on journalism subjects is haard work!" so why bother. Who's going to win the World Series next year? Just ask George Steinbrenner.

When we see the same errors passed on again and again, it's time to alert the media that those who repeat these misconceptions are not merely mistaken, they are deliberately lying. The WSJ shouldn't think Thomas Ingebritsen is just a little behind in his reading, they should state that he really should know better, and is probably lying to his students.

Ingebritsen's faculty bio is at
http://www.gdcb.iastate.edu/faculty/facultyDetail.php?id=120

The only publications listed there deal with distance learning; none deal with evolution.

I recall a comment in passing that someone made a video demonstrating how parts could be removed from a mousetrap leaving in every case a device with some other useful function, concluding that the mousetrap is far from irreducible. Anyone have further details on this?

The only other thing I'd add is that assuming the design for the mousetrap came from a human inventor and not you're favorite omniscient "designer" then evidence of any genuine "irreducibility" would be a mystery indeed. While the mousetrap is simple enough that it's not impossible some inventor awoke from an opium-induced stupor, thought "Behold! The mousetrap!" and started putting springy bits of metal on a wood slat, I suspect there is a more likely explanation:

Namely, the inventor of the mousetrap probably knew of other machines with springs, others with mechanical trips, understood the basic concept of baiting a trap, and combined these ideas into a hybrid mechanism. There was probably some trial and error. Ideas that sounded good were not the best and slight modifications improved matters. Much of this tinkering had random elements, but the inventor kept at it until the trap was effective and inexpensive to manufacture. It might not have happened that way, but this is how I would characterize a typical human invention process.

There are indeed some differences between the fumbling way in which we humans invent machines and the way in which evolution produces complex features. But both appear to be a combination of search (random or exhaustive) and incremental refinement. There is nothing in ID formalism capable of making a distinction between the creative power of evolution and the creative power of mere human (not omniscient) intelligence.

"This is the closest to a science class on campus where anybody's going to talk about intelligent design," the fatherly looking associate professor told his class. "At least for now."

With a magician's flourish

"In the beginning, we talked about our religious philosophy."

If you're interested in Macosko, look here:

http://www.cems.umn.edu/research/macosko/relatedinterests.htm
http://www.cems.umn.edu/research/macosko/ool.html

You can even download his slides. I'm sure PZ Myers would have a ball with him.

And I'd just like to point out (yet again) that not all of us with chemical engineering or chemistry degrees have huge blinders when it comes to every other field of science. *sign*

AMES, Iowa --- With a magician's flourish, Thomas Ingebritsen pulled six mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in his "God and Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one component --- either the spring, hammer or holding bar --- from each mousetrap. They then tested the traps, which all failed to snap. "Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University molecular biologist asked the class. "Yes, definitely," said Jason Mueller, a junior biochemistry major wearing a cross around his neck.

Actually, it's pretty easy to imagine a snap mousetrap "evolving" from mousetraps with fewer parts--see examples here and here and here, for example.

The easiest way to demonstrate that a snap mousetrap is not irreducibly complex is to remove the catch and hook the hold-down bar under the end of the hammer. I've done this modification, and while it doesn't snap as easily as a regular mousetrap, a little pressure by an unlucky mouse in the wrong place would definitely trigger it.

The story is of course downright scary: a Creationist professor inquiring about the religious beliefs of his students and browbeating non-Christians (can you imagine if the opposite had happened?); another, utterly unqualified in biology, gloating about how many students leave his course with new confusion and doubts about evolution (as opposed as having learned positive evidence for anything), and an evolution-friendly professor that is cowed into misrepresenting the status of evolutionary theory by student harassment. That's a shocking picture, indeed.

There is one interesting nugget though. If the article is correct, it would seem that Iowa State, whose faculty have been publicly and repeatedly accused of Mccarthysm by ID advocates for publishing a statement opposing Intelligent Design, has been offering a full-fledged course in Creationism for several years. So much for ideological censorship, I guess. Is there any of ther repeated claims of persecution by ID supporters that has turned out to be real? So far, they all seem to have been just skillful PR, exploiting the media's taste for a good underdog story.

If the article is correct, it would seem that Iowa State, whose faculty have been publicly and repeatedly accused of Mccarthysm by ID advocates for publishing a statement opposing Intelligent Design, has been offering a full-fledged course in Creationism for several years.

First, I really liked the faculty response at ISU. Adding a seminar or course explaining what evolution really is and why ID is not good science is an excellent move. Trying to prevent Ingebritsen from teaching ID allows ID to claim "persecution", but setting up a new course to counter him could really get the facts out in the open. We could even use the noise about ID as a "hook" to get people interested in learning real science! It would be a lovely irony.

Second, a couple of years ago it occurred to me that an antidote to Behe's mousetrap argument might be a computer program that allows a mousetrap to evolve by RM and NS. I imagined a fairly realistic physics environment with some modest but nice graphics, a "mouse" with simple cheese-seeking behavior, and a variety of household objects (strings, rubber bands, forks, pencils, a coffee mug, etc.) that could be randomly attached to one another in a variety of ways. The program starts out with a couple of randomly-chosen implements and a piece of virtual cheese, and anything that manages to take a swipe at the mouse scares it off for a while. The devices that protect the cheese reliably, for the longest time, tend to survive and reproduce.

I don't have the programming skills to put together such a program. But it might be an amusing project for somebody out there. I'm confident that a reliable mouse-killing contraption would rapidly evolve. And it would probably often be irreducibly complex.

Probably a lot of people here at PT have seen the SETI screen-saver, which allows your computer to sift through SETI data while it's idle. It would be fantastic if someone could write a program which allowed a central hub somewhere to link to idle computers when they're idle and use them to evolve a better mousetrap. As a screen saver, it could display the current best devices being employed against the little virtual mice.

A pipe dream, I know, but if anyone out there has the programming know-how, it would be fun. In general, I think it would be great if there were a screen-saver like the SETI program which could take advantage of computer idle time to help run evolutionary algorithms. The processing power in idle academic computers is such a rich untapped resource.

You're all missing the point here: it has finally been proven that mousetraps were intelligently designed. No more of this mucking about with "are flagella IC" or not. This changes everything. One of the traditional problems with the theory of Intelligent Design is that it as of yet has made no predictions about the nature of the Designer; however, now that we have a solid example of an intelligently designed object, we can analyze it to infer conclusions about the Designer's nature and motives.

And-- holy smokes, I think I've found the Intelligent Designer! The Intelligent Designer, located at long last! Apparently his name is "Victor" and he lives in Pennslyvania.

Do you think maybe the Discovery Institute would give me a grant?

I love it, on the one hand 100 years of accumulated evidence and research into evolution, on the other hand a mouse trap analogy. Truly, 21st century America is becoming the finest civilization of the 18th century.

Actually, James Henry Atkinson would be the "designer" in this case.

"That doesn't explain this system," Mr. Ingebritsen answered. "You're a scientist. How did the flagellum evolve? Do you have a compelling argument for how it came into being?"

The easiest way to demonstrate that a snap mousetrap is not irreducibly complex is to remove the catch and hook the hold-down bar under the end of the hammer. I've done this modification, and while it doesn't snap as easily as a regular mousetrap, a little pressure by an unlucky mouse in the wrong place would definitely trigger it.

Today the WSJ ran a front page story mentioning the John Templeton Foundation in a way suggesting that the Foundation has been a concerted patron and sponsor of the so-called Intelligent Design ("ID") position (such as is associated with the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and the writers Philip Johnson, William Dembski, Michael Behe and others). This is false information. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The John Templeton Foundation has provided tens of millions of dollars in support to research academics who are critical of the anti-evolution ID position. Any careful and factual analysis of actual events will find that the John Templeton Foundation has been in fact the chief sponsor of university courses, lectures and academic research which variously have argued against the anti-evolution "ID" position. It is scandalous for a distinguished paper to misinform the public in this way.

The article goes on to discuss the Foundation's funding of Guillermo Gonzalez, and makes it clear that the support was given before Gonzalez attached himself to the DI's program.

I thought the WSJ article did a reasonable job of identifying the ID proponents and their funders as religiously motivated. I doubt that all readers will get the same thing from the article, though.

Please tell me he is not tenure track. Those publications of his listed on his bio are good examples of what sience ed. types publish vs. actual science researchers, and then to turn around and act like a scientist...pathetic.

Please tell me he is not tenure track

Here is some hopeful news. Unfortunately the "teach the controversy" plan of the Discovery Institute fellows does not include a history or criticism of the "controversy". They would like to see the information presented in the form of dueling campaign ads rather risk having anything they tell kids about mousetraps responded to and rebutted.

Do science textbooks make any effort to address the history and tactics of the anti-evolution movement? I would like to see information about how they have denied the existence of Christian evolutionists while claiming that they are not religiously motivated made available to students. Can the fact that Intelligent Design advocates can not agree on the age of the earth, the theory of common origin or even understand what a theory is be included in textbooks? This is all factual information and many science textbooks include historical and social contextual information. Can the these books mention that Intelligent Design Advocates recycle old discredited arguments to new audiences be mentioned, or can they point to instances where anti-evolutionists have given dubious or contradictory testimony under oath? (Can Behe's testimony be reproduced word for word?) While there is no scientific controversy there is a raging social controversy that is directly relevant to the science education of students. That is the controversy that needs to be taught.

Rather than go around legally mopping up after every local school board who demands that "criticisms" of evolution be taught, why not teach these criticisms first in a context where they can be addressed?

The story is of course downright scary: a Creationist professor inquiring about the religious beliefs of his students and browbeating non-Christians (can you imagine if the opposite had happened?); another, utterly unqualified in biology, gloating about how many students leave his course with new confusion and doubts about evolution (as opposed as having learned positive evidence for anything), and an evolution-friendly professor that is cowed into misrepresenting the status of evolutionary theory by student harassment. That's a shocking picture, indeed.

— Andrea Bottaro

Tara Wrote: Robert M. Hazen 02 Feb 2006, 8:00 PM @ Sun Room, Memorial Union - Robert M. Hazen is the Clarence Robinson Professor of Earth Science at George Mason University

In the beginning God set the entire magnificent fabric of the universe into motion...In such a universe, scientific study provides a glimpse of creator as well as creation. Robert Hazen

Seriously, this makes me angry, very very angry. She's a college freshman, of course she's not going to know enough about the Type III secretion system. Yet he calls her a "scientist" and probably takes a perverse pleasure in beating her down, as if he's taking on the scientific community itself: "take that, you eggheads!"

there is a raging social controversy that is directly relevant to the science education of students. That is the controversy that needs to be taught.

He's a fine gentleman.

To teach a course talking about mousetraps, flagella, clotting cascades, &c., without acknolwedging that these examples have been refuted

In the beginning God set the entire magnificent fabric of the universe into motion...In such a universe, scientific study provides a glimpse of creator as well as creation.

You forget, ID IS the null hypothesis...

Hey all--can we can do without the personal attacks on other posters, please? It would be much appreciated.

John MacDonald's evolving mousetrap.

RBH

Dr. Hazen spoke at our last IDEA meeting at GMU. He's a fine gentleman.

Let the universities take care of it themselves. The only genuinely faster-than-light communication in the universe is quantum tunneling and the academic scuttlebutt. I predict that particular university is going to find itself painfully short of (qualified) staff pretty soon. And if some students want to attend second-rate universities because of their religious preference, well, as long as they pay the check themselves it's no skin off my nose. Of course, had it been a publicly funded UNI I would have objected rather - ah - forcefully.

My sympathies for Ms. West and those who find themselves in like situations, though. It's a tragedy (or a travesty, depending on your taste in adjectives) that people have to pay for their education in the US.

- JS

You forget, ID IS the null hypothesis...

[OT]

Hi Salvador,

Do you have any interest in explaining the roles TRACT and DELIM play in the formulation of CSI? I'm really looking for someone to interpret Dembski, and I imagine you've read him more than anyone else here. I can set up a thread in After the Bar Closes if you'd like to help us understand how these concepts are related.

Thanks!
Matt

So what happens if someone askes the good perfesser if something irreducibly complex can be adapted to a perform a completely unrelated function and then hands him something from this page?

Hi Sal,

I see that you only do drive-bys at KCFS these days - odd, you started that just after I challenged you to put your money where your mouth is re: bias affecting sequence alignment and analyses. Thats ok - Wells couldn't do it either...

Actually, it's pretty easy to imagine a snap mousetrap "evolving" from mousetraps with fewer parts---see examples here and here and here, for example.

Hi,

I apologize for posting off-topic but I was wondering whether anybody here could help me. My husband and I live in Indiana where, as you may have heard, the Republican led legislature is considering bringing forward legislation that would mandate the teaching of ID in public schools. I've written to the NCSE to ask for their advice and a friend suggested that this would also be a good place to request help. What can we do to organize opposition to this legislation? I've looked to see if there is a Citizens for Science group in Indiana, but there doesn't appear to be one. We really don't know what we're doing; we just know we have to do something. We simply can't sit by and let our educational system be hijacked. Any and all advice and/or suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanking you in advance,

Judy Kemp
Fishers, IN

Actually, it's pretty easy to imagine a snap mousetrap "evolving" from mousetraps with fewer parts

Behe cites a mousetrap as an illustration of an "irreducibly complex system", and argues that since each component of the mousetrap--the spring, the wooden base, the wire hammer--is necessary for the functioning of the mousetrap, no functional trap can have developed step by step, without all of these things being present. Let us, then, show how a mousetrap could indeed evolve step by step, using exaptation. We begin with the simplest possible "mousetrap"--a simple piece of bait left out on the floor. When the mouse approaches the bait, we hit it with a hammer. A slight modification to our existing system. We place the bait in a small hole or hollow in the wall. This has the advantage of momentarily confusing the mouse when we surprise it at the bait, since it takes a moment for the mouse to find the exit hole, giving us more time to hit it with the hammer. Another slight modification--we place a small metal hinged door over the opening to the hole, which swings freely back and forth. This confuses the mouse slightly more and it takes a little bit more time to find the exit -- giving us a bit more time to hit it with the hammer. Next, we add a spring mechanism that can be tripped by the mouse as it takes the bait, thus causing the door to close behind it. The advantage is that we no longer have to be waiting there when the mouse enters--instead, the mouse is now confined and can be hit with us by a hammer at any convenient later time. Another modification: we turn the whole apparatus 90 degrees so it rests horizontally instead of vertically. In other words, our baited hole is now in the floor instead of in the wall. This has the advantage of allowing the mouse to approach our trap from any direction, instead of limiting access to just one side of the wall. Another modification: We eliminate the hole and simply place the spring door apparatus on the floor in such a way that, when tripped, the trap door slams down forcefully on the floor where the trigger is located, mashing the mouse for us when it trips the trigger. The new advantage is that we no longer have to hit the mouse with the hammer at all--the new trap in effect does that for us. A final modification. We cut out the part of the floor that surrounds our trap and attach the trap mechanism directly to it. This allows us to deploy our trap anywhere we like, instead of limiting it to one locality. And there we have it---step by step development of something that is supposed to be "irreducibly complex". Each step is fully functional by itself, and in each step, the intended result is achieved--a dead mouse. Each successive step builds upon the preceding one by small modifications, yet each step is more efficient in some way than its predecessor. And each step uses "exaptation"---it coopts whatever happens to be handy and incorporates it into our growing system. The bait used in the first trap can be a leftover from last night's dinner, or it could be a crumb we find behind the couch. The wall can be anywhere in the house. The free-swinging trapdoor could come from an old Coke machine, or it could be taken from the ice cube maker on the fridge. The spring can come from any bit of machinery we have around the house. Evolution is full of examples of such exaptation, in which previously unrelated structures are incorporated into developing systems and given new functions. One example is the development of feathers for insulation in small theropod dinosaurs--feathers which were later incorporated into wings as flying mechanisms. A particularly good example of exaptation is the therapsid-mammal fossil series (discussed in another article) which shows the gradual changes that resulted from exapting the reptilian lower jawbones to work as inner ear bones instead. By claiming such systems to be "irreducibly complex", Behe is demonstrating a basic ignorance of how evolution works.

Hi Sal. Welcome back.

Hey Sal, the last dozen or so times you were here, you ran away without answering four simple questions I've asked of you. So I'll ask again. And again and again and again and again, every time you show up here, until you either answer or run away. I want every lurker who comes in here to see that you are nothing but an evasive dishonest coward.

(1) what is the scientific theory of creation (or intelligent design) and how can we test it using the scientific method?

I do *NOT* want you to respond with a long laundry list of (mostly
inaccurate) criticisms of evolutionary biology. They are completely
irrelevant to a scientific theory of creation or intelligent design.
I want to see the scientific alternative that you are proposing----
the one you want taught in public school science classes, the one
that creationists and intelligent design "theorists" testified under
oath in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and elsewhere is SCIENCE and is
NOT based on religious doctrine. Let's assume for the purposes of
this discussion that evolutionary biology is indeed absolutely
completely totally irretrievable unalterably irrevocably 100% dead
wrong. Fine. Show me your scientific alternative. Show me how your
scientific theory explains things better than evolutionary biology
does. Let's see this superior "science" of yours.

Any testible scientific theory of creation should be able to provide
answers to several questions: (1) how did life begin, (3) how did the
current diversity of life appear, and (3) what mechanisms were used
in these processes and where can we see these mechanisms today.

Any testible scientific theory of intelligent design should be able
to give testible answers to other questions: (1) what exactly did
the Intelligent Designer(s) do, (2) what mechanisms did the
Designer(s) use to do whatever it is you think it did, (3) where can
we see these mechanisms in action today, and (4) what objective
criteria can we use to determine what entities are "intelligently
designed" and what entities aren't (please illustrate this by
pointing to something that you think IS designed, something you think
is NOT designed, and explain how to tell the difference).

If your, uh, "scientific theory" isn't able to answer any of these
questions yet, then please feel free to tell me how you propose to
scientifically answer them. What experiments or tests can we
perform, in principle, to answer these questions.

Also, since one of the criteria of "science" is falsifiability, I'd
like you to tell me how your scientific theory, whatever it is, can
be falsified. What experimental results or observations would
conclusively prove that creation/intelligent design did not happen.

Another part of the scientific method is direct testing. One does
not establish "B" simply by demonstrating that "A" did not happen. I
want you to demonstrate "B" directly. So don't give me any "there
are only two choices, evolution or creation, and evolution is worng
so creation must be right" baloney. I will repeat that I do NOT want
a big long laundry list of "why evolution is wrong". I don't care
why evolution is wrong. I want to know what your alternative is, and
how it explains data better than evolution does.

I'd also like to know two specific things about this "alternative
scientific theory": How old does "intelligent design/creationism theory"
determine the universe to be. Is it millions of years old, or
thousands of years old. And does 'intelligent design/creationism theory'
determine that humans have descended from apelike primates, or
does it determine that they have not.

I look forward to seeing your "scientific theories". Unless of course you don't HAVE any and are just lying to us when you claim to.

(2) According to this scientific theory of intelligent design, how old is the earth, and did humans descend from apelike primates or did they not?

(3)

What, precisely, about "evolution" is any more "materialistic" than, say, weather forecasting or accident investigation or medicine. Please be as specific as possible.

I have never, in all my life, ever heard any weather forecaster mention "god" or "divine will" or any "supernatural" anything, at all. Ever. Does this mean, in your view, that weather forecasting is atheistic (oops, I mean, "materialistic" and "naturalistic" ---- we don't want any judges to think ID's railing against "materialism" has any RELIGIOUS purpose, do we)?

I have yet, in all my 44 years of living, to ever hear any accifdent investigator declare solemnly at the scene of an airplane crash, "We can't explain how it happened, so an Unknown Intelligent Being must have dunnit." I have never yet heard an accident investigator say that "this crash has no materialistic causes --- it must have been the Will of Allah". Does this mean, in your view, that accident investigation is atheistic (oops, sorry, I meant to say "materialistic" and "naturalistic" --- we don't want any judges to know that it is "atheism" we are actually waging a religious crusade against, do we)?

How about medicine. When you get sick, do you ask your doctor to abandon his "materialistic biases" and to investigate possible "supernatural" or "non-materialistic" causes for your disease? Or do you ask your doctor to cure your naturalistic materialistic diseases by using naturalistic materialistic antibiotics to kill your naturalistic materialistic germs?

Since it seems to me as if weather forecasting, accident investigation, and medicine are every bit, in every sense,just as utterly completely totally absolutely one-thousand-percent "materialistic" as evolutionary biology is, why, specifically, is it just evolutionary biology that gets your panties all in a bunch? Why aren't you and your fellow Wedge-ites out there fighting the good fight against godless materialistic naturalistic weather forecasting, or medicine, or accident investigation?

Or does that all come LATER, as part of, uh, "renewing our culture" ... . . ?

(4) The most militant of the Ayatollah-wanna-be's are the members of the "Reconstructionist" movement. The Reconstructionists were founded by Rouas J. Rushdoony, a militant fundamentalist who was instrumental in getting Henry Morris's book The Genesis Flood published in 1961. According to Rushdoony's view, the United States should be directly transformed into a theocracy in which the fundamentalists would rule directly according to the will of God. "There can be no separation of Church and State," Rushdoony declares. (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 51) "Christians," a Reconstructionist pamphlet declares, "are called upon by God to exercise dominion." (cited in Marty and Appleby 1991, p. 50) The Reconstructionists propose doing away with the US Constitution and laws, and instead ruling directly according to the laws of God as set out in the Bible---they advocate a return to judicial punishment for religious crimes such as blasphemy or violating the Sabbath, as well as a return to such Biblically-approved punishments as stoning.

According to Rushdoony, the Second Coming of Christ can only happen after the "Godly" have taken over the earth and constructed the Kingdom of Heaven here: "The dominion that Adam first received and then lost by his Fall will be restored to redeemed Man. God's People will then have a long reign over the entire earth, after which, when all enemies have been put under Christ's feet, the end shall come." (cited in Diamond, 1989, p. 139) "Christian Reconstructionism," another pamphlet says, "is a call to the Church to awaken to its Biblical responsibility to subdue the earth for the glory of God . . . Christian Reconstructionism therefore looks for and works for the rebuilding of the institutions of society according to a Biblical blueprint." (cited in Diamond 1989, p. 136) In the Reconstructionist view, evolution is one of the "enemies" which must be "put under Christ's feet" if the godly are to subdue the earth for the glory of God.

In effect, the Reconstructionists are the "Christian" equivilent of the Taliban.

While some members of both the fundamentalist and creationist movements view the Reconstructionists as somewhat kooky, many of them have had nice things to say about Rushdoony and his followers. ICR has had close ties with Reconstructionists. Rushdoony was one of the financial backers for Henry Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", and Morris's son John was a co-signer of several documents produced by the Coalition On Revival, a reconstructionist coalition founded in 1984. ICR star debater Duane Gish was a member of COR's Steering Committee, as was Richard Bliss, who served as ICR's "curriculum director" until his death. Gish and Bliss were both co-signers of the COR documents "A Manifesto for the Christian Church" (COR, July 1986), and the "Forty-Two Articles of the Essentials of a Christian Worldview" (COR,1989), which declares, "We affirm that the laws of man must be based upon the laws of God. We deny that the laws of man have any inherent authority of their own or that their ultimate authority is rightly derived from or created by man." ("Forty-Two Essentials, 1989, p. 8). P>The Discovery Institute, the chief cheerleader for "intelligent design theory", is particularly cozy with the Reconstructionists. The single biggest source of money for the Discovery Institute is Howard Ahmanson, a California savings-and-loan bigwig. Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Renewal of Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory" (other branches of Discovery Institute are focused on areas like urban transportation, Social Security "reform", and (anti) environmentalist organizing).

Ahmanson is a Christian Reconstructionist who was long associated with Rushdooney, and who sat with him on the board of directors of the Chalcedon Foundation -- a major Reconstructionist think-tank -- for over 20 years, and donated over $700,000 to the Reconstructionists. Just as Rushdooney was a prime moving force behind Morris's first book, "The Genesis Flood", intelligent design "theorist" Phillip Johnson dedicated his book "Defeating Darwinism" to "Howard and Roberta" -- Ahmanson and his wife. Ahmanson was quoted in newspaper accounts as saying, "My purpose is total integration of Biblical law into our lives."

Ahmanson has given several million dollars over the past few years to anti-evolution groups (including Discovery Institute), as well as anti-gay groups, "Christian" political candidates, and funding efforts to split the Episcopalian Church over its willingness to ordain gay ministers and to other groups which oppose the minimum wage. He was also a major funder of the recent "recall" effort in California which led to the election of Terminator Arnie. Ahmanson is also a major funder of the effort for computerized voting, and he and several other prominent Reconstructionists have close ties with Diebold, the company that manufactures the computerized voting machines used. There has been some criticism of Diebold because it refuses to make the source code of its voting machine software available for scrutiny, and its software does not allow anyone to track voting after it is done (no way to confirm accuracy of the machine).

Some of Ahmanson's donations are channeled through the Fieldstead Foundation, which is a subspecies of the Ahmanson foundation "Fieldstead" is Ahmanson's middle name). The Fieldstead Foundation funds many of the travelling and speaking expenses of the DI's shining stars.

Ahmanson's gift of $1.5 million was the original seed money to organize the Center for Science and Culture, the arm of the Discovery Institute which focuses on promoting "intelligent design theory". By his own reckoning, Ahmanson gives more of his money to the DI than to any other poilitically active group -- only a museum trust in his wife's hometown in Iowa and a Bible college in New Jersey get more. In 2004, he reportedly gave the Center another $2.8 million. Howard Ahamnson, Jr sits on the Board Directors of Discovery Institute.

Since then, as his views have become more widely known, Ahmanson has tried to backpeddle and present a kinder, gentler image of himself. However, his views are still so extremist that politicians have returned campaign contributions from Ahmanson once they learned who he was.

So it's no wonder that the Discovery Institute is reluctant to talk about the funding source for its Intelligent Design campaign. Apparently, they are not very anxious to have the public know that most of its money comes from just one whacko billionnaire who has long advocated a political program that is very similar to that of the Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.

Do you repudiate the extremist views of the primary funder of the Center for (the Renewal of) Science and Culture, Howard Ahmanson, and if so, why do you keep taking his money anyway? And if you, unlike most other IDers, are not sucking at Ahmanson's teats, I'd still like to know if you repudiate his extremist views.

Oh, and your latest round of blithering about "anti-God" and "anti-religion" prompts yet another question, Sal (whcih, of course, you also will not answer).

(5) Sal, you must KNOW that your ID heroes are in court right now
trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS
PURPOSE OR AIM. You must KNOW that if the courts rule that
creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine,
then your ID crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So
you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID
is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are
UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public,
that your heroes are just lying under oath when they claim that
creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here
yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so
desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are
you really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

Posted by Judy Kemp on November 14, 2005 07:09 PM (e) (s) Hi, I apologize for posting off-topic but I was wondering whether anybody here could help me. My husband and I live in Indiana where, as you may have heard, the Republican led legislature is considering bringing forward legislation that would mandate the teaching of ID in public schools. I've written to the NCSE to ask for their advice and a friend suggested that this would also be a good place to request help. What can we do to organize opposition to this legislation? I've looked to see if there is a Citizens for Science group in Indiana, but there doesn't appear to be one. We really don't know what we're doing; we just know we have to do something. We simply can't sit by and let our educational system be hijacked. Any and all advice and/or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanking you in advance, Judy Kemp Fishers, IN

judy:

first off:

get familiar with the issues behind the ID movement, and what arguments they make, learn why ID isn't science. Review the proceedings of the trial in Dover, and use what you learn to "get the word out".

there are exellent resources linked to the main page on this site, amongst many others like this one:

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

once you feel you have a good grasp of the issues...

publicize, publicize, publicize!

get your opinions out there! contact your local paper and ask to be interviewed about your concerns.

contact your local university to get their opinions on the attempts by the legislature to "redefine science".

contact the ACLU; this IS a freedom of religion issue, not just a science one.

contact your legislators and let them know what you think; make copies of your communications to them and publicize them in your local papers and media.

these cockroaches shrivel in the light of facts. We saw it in Dover, and you can do the same in Indiana.

good luck!

oh, and of course, contact your local school board and districts to get their opinions out in the open as well.

The strongest evidence ID claims to have is that of irreducibly complex systems. Let's face it, that's a really subjective interpritation.

— Jacob Stockton

Hello Judy,

If you go to the main page here at PT, you will see a series of light blue boxes on the right hand side. If you scroll down to the State Science Groups box, you will see a list of links to several sites that may be able to give you focused information on this issue. I hope this helps.

Judy Kemp: Your best source of information is National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Google for it and then get in touch with them (with Nic Matzke, or Wesley Elsberry, or Glenn Branch, or Eugenie Scott, they will help you. Email addresses of some of them you find in the "Contributors" section of this blog (in one of the boxes at the left side at the top of this blog.

John Hawks likes you:
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/health/pathogens/ebola_aetiology_2005.html

Judy - you might want to start a blog and meetup to start getting people together who share an interest in defeating this nonsense. I second what others have said about writing letters to the editor. Note the names and cities of other pro-science letter writers - and contact them.

Another excellent resource is the Index to Creationist Claims (just google it).

Good luck....

Pete:

Thank you for clarifying the exact definition of irreducible complexity. I used it incorrectly. I used the term "subjective" because while I was reading the Dover transcripts and Behe was discussing how we "knew" intuitively if something was designed (by providing examples of human design, of course), it seemed to me that recognizing design in natural systems would be subjective (no matter what definitions were trotted out long after he reached that conclusion). And I have thought about the IC implies ID implies evolution = false argument. I said that seeing design and seeing evolution are not incompatible because I was using the broad definition of design, not ID specifically. I was trying to point the way that ID spokesmen who aren't actively trying to avoid mentioning religion are those that are trying to convince people that evolution is atheistic and unholy and not a belief that good Christians want to get themselves mixed up in. Evolution is not compatible with ID by the definition of ID, but it is not incompatible with "design" the way most people think of the term.

Oh well. I stand corrected and I hope clarified.

While it is an apalling waste of time and money to let such people stay on the payroll, maybe we should just wait? Sure, they'll get funding via some church-rooted organisation or other, but such organisations will later have to hire the ID espousing graduates, because sure as hell no-one else will.

My mental picture:
"the key to my R&D program is called waiting for a miracle" says the hopeful applicant to the venture capitalist driven biotech hiring committee.
or even:
"Don't bother developing a new antiobiotic product, my insight is that an unspecified (intelligent) meddler will produce a miracle to oppose you."

The down side is, it lends unearned cachet to crap idealogy and uncritical proponents of such. The length of time this goes on is determined by whether universities are really just prostitutes (as they often appear) or set some store by their research and teaching record? Perhaps the last bastion of demonstrated competance is the professional society.

OK, I'll try again...

John McDonald himself beat me to it with a reference to his "Behetraps." Anyone know whether Ingebritsen granted "equal time" for them?

Just in case anyone doesn't get Salvadore "Sancho Panzo" Cordova

here is his MO

Bunny suicides!

http://hannes.domainplanet.at/fusi/BunnySuicide/Bunny%20suicides.html

Sancho Panza can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quixote

As someone who attended Carnegie Mellon and was impressed by the level of scholarship there, I hope that this nonsense was brought up by a student club ... I would shudder to think there are faculty there who would buy such crap. On the other hand, the university does have money (and a building named for) from Scaife ...

Tara asked: And just what did he say there? Doesn't sound like he agrees with your position, despite the fact that (it would seem) he's a Christian.

Tara,

"Irreducible complexity" is a phony line of reason. They is no supporting scientific or mathmatical logic/evidence behind it.

They are trying to sell you something that doesn't exist...Don't be taken in.

LOL...Discovery Day!!! (or Cranial Rectal Inversion Day)

"Teleological Blog
Detecting Design and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds"

Nothing at all to do with actual research, science, or critical thinking...'cause you don't really need it! You already know what the answer is!

hhhmmmm....that sounds familiar...where have I heard that before???

You people are so transparent

Regarding Matt's querry of TRACT and DELIM, I have response at:

PT Post 54963

If you are the real Matt Brauer, I would be interested in discussing this with you at AntiEvolution.org.

Salvador

Posted by Steverino on November 15, 2005 12:36 PM (e) (s) You people are so transparent

Wow! All these people sympathetic to ID. I wonder when they will be publishing their ID led research.

I'd better not twiddle my thumbs; they might end up falling off.

At GMU there are several ID leaning faculty and large numbers of ID leaning students, and in the wake of the dismissal of a ID leaning professor of cellular biology and scientist specializing in Immunopharmacology Caroline Crocker, he would be the best person to restore some degree of appreciation for the non-ID science faculty at GMU. I think he recognizes that demeaning and insulting ID leaning students (especially since several ID leaning Bio Students have graduated from GMU in the past, including those at the PhD level), it would be counter productive to be insulting and demeaning them.

— Sal

Hazen later had praise for some of Wells scholarship, but felt Wells goes too far in claiming ID.

Stephen Elliott:

"The thing is though; they are not transparent.
I know that is not the case for you, but for people (non scientific) who are being exposed to ID for the first time it sounds very plausible."

This is quite true. I know that in my family, even though we all have college educations, including several advanced degrees in Science (not including me), the ID propaganda seems reasonable at a glance. This is primarily because, as Christians, they are predisposed to the idea of ID, and as Americans, they are predisposed to fairness. However, if I can get them to do even minimal research on the subject, that predisposition evaporates. The problem is to get them to do that research.

In that regard, the DI has unintentionally given me a good attention getter: "Did you know that Intelligent Design Theory includes redefining science to include Astrology, Palm Reading and Tarot Cards? And that they have done just that in Kansas?"

I am looking forward to trying this out at Thanksgiving.

Tara wondered of Macosko: Tragic. I wonder if he uses Wells' "Icons" or some other such nonsense?

The John Templeton Foundation distances itself from Intelligent Design and rebuts the WSJ characterization of the foundation as a supporter of ID.

— matt

I ought to have highlighted also:

o origin and evolution of life

And what is fine-tuning if not another phrase for intellegient design?

At GMU there are several ID leaning faculty and large numbers of ID leaning students

Thomas Ingebritsen pulled six mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in his "God and Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one component --- either the spring, hammer or holding bar --- from each mousetrap. They then tested the traps, which all failed to snap. "Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University molecular biologist asked the class.

Thomas Ingebritsen pulled six mousetraps from a shopping bag and handed them out to students in his "God and Science" seminar. At his instruction, they removed one component --- either the spring, hammer or holding bar --- from each mousetrap. They then tested the traps, which all failed to snap. "Is the mousetrap irreducibly complex?" the Iowa State University molecular biologist asked the class.

And what is fine-tuning if not another phrase for intellegient design?

— Leigh Jackson

I contend that the anthropic principle is a form of ID. It employs the same rationale as Behe et al. There is something so difficult to explain in natural terms that we must assume a supernatural cause.

Behe and his mates argue for divine intervention; religiously inclined supporters of AP argue for divine pre-emption. There's a question over the how and when, but it's God who is responsible for life, just the same.

The scientific response to the unexplained reason for the universe being just this way and not another, is to say that there is some serious stuff that we do not yet know - and need to know. There is a lot more work still to be done.

The religious response is to say godidit. We will probably never get to know all the answers. There will always be mysteries. Scientists will always be looking for answers, whilst the religiously-minded will always be seeing signs of God.

Sometimes, of course, some scientists will be happy to see signs of God too, but science would cease if all scientists were to see God behind every mystery.