DI vs. Biologos on the immune system and Edge of Evolution

Good luck with your attempt to get a Cornelius response.

I toddle over to UD occasionally, throw things at the screen and then toddle off. The egregious Denyse O'Leary is becoming more unstrung by the post. I thought perhaps the UD fellows might throw her out with her 'one string bow' argument: "I simply can't believe it, therefore how can you?" Incredulity in extremis. This woman has the intellectual clout of a staircase. They do however predict the imminent demise of Darwinism (whatever the fuck that is!) because Sarah Palin likes 'mama bears', or some such well thought out argument.

What I found interesting about Behe's latest book is how he presented a good argument for the greater productivity of evolution over design. In two ways: (1) Human design of drugs is repeatedly defeated by evolution in the malaria parasite (2) Human evolution of resistance to malaria compared to human designs against malaria.

What I find interesting about the recent outbreak of squabbles between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos isn't the latest (and inevitably short-lived) dust-up over minutiae raised by Behe or Meyer. The more important thing is that such disputes reveal a rupture a faction of the faith community that has traditionally been united in a common hostility to science. Any such splintering is welcome.

In this regard, it's also interesting to note some sniping by YECs like Ken Ham aimed at the Discovery Institute and other creationists who aren't firmly on board with his interpretation of scripture. This involves no scientific issues, but it's another fracture in the "big tent" of creationism, and it too is welcome.

Well as long as they refuse to do any science, they have no chance of convincing any real scientist of anything. As for convincing the masses, well I guess you don't really need science for that.

You would think that if Behe had the courage of his convictions that he would al least be in the lab trying to find one example of two mutations that were required to be simultaneous. Of course, once Lenski published, I guess he kind of realized that that wasn't true in most cases anyway. Too bad he never learned to be a real scientist and tried to disprove how own hypothesis. It would sure be easy to find examples of mutations that didn't have to be simultaneous. Now I wonder why he doesn't do that work and publish it?

@ TomS -

No, sorry, Behe doesn't have any good arguments in "The Edge of Evolution". Independently of each other, both Dave Wisker (who has contributed a couple of guest posts here) and I quickly recognized that Behe has a very poor understanding of coevolution that really amounts to ignorance. With respect to the Plasmodium malarial parasite and humanity, our interaction can be best seen as an ongoing pharmaceutical coevolutionary arms race between Plasmodium and ourselves.

Nick,

Thanks for yet another great post. I wish you had the time to post more often here, but am always grateful for yet another insightful piece.

Okay, let's be fair. I'd like to learn what the ID model of the origin of adaptive immunity is, and what evidence supports it. That way, I can compare it to contemporary mainstream ideas of how adaptive immunity arose, and make an objective decision about which is the best explanation.

So let's get started. What IS the ID model of the origin of adaptive immunity?

I'd like some evidence-based, testable answers to the following questions -

1) Who is the designer of the adaptive immune system?

2) Exactly what did the designer design?

3) When did the designer design it?

4) How did the designer design it?

Hi Harold,

Only ever posted here once before so apologies if speaking out of turn.

Should your point number 4 read:

Who constructed the design?

Which would clearly open up more questions such as:

Is the constructor the same god as the designer?

John Kwok said: ...Behe has a very poor understanding of coevolution that really amounts to ignorance.

The Curmudgeon said: What I find interesting about the recent outbreak of squabbles between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos isn't the latest (and inevitably short-lived) dust-up over minutiae raised by Behe or Meyer. The more important thing is that such disputes reveal a rupture a faction of the faith community that has traditionally been united in a common hostility to science. Any such splintering is welcome. In this regard, it's also interesting to note some sniping by YECs like Ken Ham aimed at the Discovery Institute and other creationists who aren't firmly on board with his interpretation of scripture. This involves no scientific issues, but it's another fracture in the "big tent" of creationism, and it too is welcome.

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: ...Behe has a very poor understanding of coevolution that really amounts to ignorance.

Ignorance is curable, but stupidity is forever. How anybody can live with that degree of ignorance and not do something about it is simply not sane. The literature is there, but as Behe proved (under oath) in 2005, he is far too deranged to bother looking at it: "He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." - Kitzmiller decision, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html Behe's method of research - getting an "understanding of coevolution" - consists of closing his eyes and singing "Lalala" as loud as he can until the impulse passes.

Ron Okimoto said:

The Curmudgeon said: What I find interesting about the recent outbreak of squabbles between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos isn't the latest (and inevitably short-lived) dust-up over minutiae raised by Behe or Meyer. The more important thing is that such disputes reveal a rupture a faction of the faith community that has traditionally been united in a common hostility to science. Any such splintering is welcome. In this regard, it's also interesting to note some sniping by YECs like Ken Ham aimed at the Discovery Institute and other creationists who aren't firmly on board with his interpretation of scripture. This involves no scientific issues, but it's another fracture in the "big tent" of creationism, and it too is welcome.

The united religious front against evolution never existed. Just look up the plantiffs against the creationist laws and the clergy letter project. Guys like Ken Ham have a beef with ID mainly because they are cutting into his share of the take. They would happily be in the big tent if they could profit by it. The millions that went into the ID creationist scam could have been had by the other creationist organizations.

Nick Matzke -

Creationism has always been a social and political phenomenon, not a scientific one. The idea is always to tell people that one particular "literal" interpretation of one set of Christian scripture is the correct one, and then move on from that to telling them that they have to obey harsh authoritarian commands.

Creationism in any form is fundamentally an effort to shut down science, with special focus on preventing new students from learning about it.

"Creation science" became extremely active during the sixties and seventies, although it long predates that time. My take is that this was a backlash against things like civil rights, emerging rights for women, etc, but that doesn't matter, the point is that it became very active.

The creation science/scientists of the sixties tended to approach things from the perspective of the physical sciences. Superficially, some of them seemed to sincerely try, until engaged. However, virtually all of this generation of "creation scientists" tend(ed) to do such things as repeat old, disproven arguments, quote mine, argue against straw man versions of opponents' true attitudes, etc, demonstrating very poor credibility.

This generation of "creation science" was pushed into public schools, and quickly fell afoul of the constitution and the courts.

However, science denial in public schools remains a major right wing cause. For many, it is a compulsion.

ID was invented, not because of philosophical or scientific insight, but to "court proof" evolution denial. The early works of ID by Behe and Dembski simply used faulty logic to claim that the evolution of certain biological features was "impossible", and jumped to the non sequitur conclusion of "design".

The idea was simply to deny science and imply creationism without specific use of overtly religious language.

This approach failed, mainly because it is transparent, but also because it was not very satisfying to its intended supporters. The success rate among fundamentalists of consistently biting their tongue and insisting that "ID is not about religion" is low.

Neil Lambert said: Hi Harold, Only ever posted here once before so apologies if speaking out of turn. Should your point number 4 read: Who constructed the design? Which would clearly open up more questions such as: Is the constructor the same god as the designer?

Neil Lambert asked: Is the constructor the same god as the designer?

harold said: However, science denial in public schools remains a major right wing cause. For many, it is a compulsion. ID was invented, not because of philosophical or scientific insight, but to "court proof" evolution denial. The early works of ID by Behe and Dembski simply used faulty logic to claim that the evolution of certain biological features was "impossible", and jumped to the non sequitur conclusion of "design".

John Kwok said: While I agree witn you that evolution denialism is a problem that is all too virulent amongst my fellow conservatives, it is not a problem confined only to them.

Nick Matzke: There hasn’t been a heck of a lot to talk about regarding the ID movement lately.

The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir." - Carl Sagan

Neil Lambert -

I entirely agree with your overall point, although I am satisfied with the way my questions are phrased for now.

Brief background - I was vaguely aware of "creation science", and quite aware of Biblical "literalism" of the Jack Chick variety, prior to the 1990's, but my first direct exposure to political ID/creationism came with the Kansas school board election of 1999. Technically, all that board did was try to eliminate evolution from the required curriculum, but its supporters spoke extensively about "ID".

For many years, my approach to this issue was to summarize, tersely but accurately, the actual claims of ID. I also frequently summarized basically how evolution works from a contemporary perspective in the molecular biology era (for full disclosure my training is as an MD pathologist, with a strong undergraduate background in biology and strong interest in basic science; I haven't been an academic for many years).

This approach was successful in convincing many neutral third party observers, who had previously lacked information, that creationist statements about evolution were false, and that ID was a bunch of BS. For the record, when dealing with unbiased people who "had heard of" or "were interested in" ID due to the media, I usually didn't even have to explain the logical flaws inherent in it. Typically, as I was proceeding with the fairest possible summary of basic ID claims I could manage, unbiased people would see the flaws even before I could point them out.

However, the dialog has changed a bit lately. ID is no longer a new, unfamiliar, potentially intriguing idea.

So now, rather than critique what ID has done (offer illogical arguments against evolution), I focus on the fact that there is no positive evidence whatsoever for magical or superpowerful "design" of biological structures.

Paul Burnett said:

John Kwok said: While I agree witn you that evolution denialism is a problem that is all too virulent amongst my fellow conservatives, it is not a problem confined only to them.

That's almost funny, John. Chris Mooney's book was not titled "The Republican and Democratic War Against Science." To my admittedly incomplete knowledge, there are not any state Democratic Party plank statements that approach the anti-evolution / pro-creationism (including pro-intelligent design creationism) plank statements of state Republican Parties (Texas, particularly). And everybody here at PT is well aware of the direct connection between right-wing conservative fundagelicalism and intelligent design creationism. There's a lot of difference between a few anecdotal reports of liberal ignorance about science and evolution, and the active (if not hyperactive) evolution denialism that is all too virulent almost solely amongst conservatives.

raven said: The creationist/ID demons are stirring again in Louisiana.

Paul Burnett said: And everybody here at PT is well aware of the direct connection between right-wing conservative fundagelicalism and intelligent design creationism.

Kwok,

I think the point is (as someone said) not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. Of all of the people who are actively pushing creationism as a political and social movement, I can't think of any who are not also conservatives. The number of people who may express doubt about biological evolution but who take no political stand one way or another is irrelevant.

Science News ScienceDaily.com Individual Mutations Are Very Slow to Promote Tumor Growth, Mathematical Modeling Shows ScienceDaily (Oct. 3, 2010) — Individual cancer-causing mutations have a minute effect on tumor growth, increasing the rate of cell division by just 0.4 percent on average, according to new mathematical modeling by scientists at Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, and other institutions. Their research, appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reinforces that cancer is the culmination of many accumulated mutations. It also highlights the fundamental heterogeneity and randomness of many cancers, consistent with the observations of epidemiologists and clinicians. "This work suggests that significant tumor growth probably requires the slow and steady accumulation of multiple mutations in a cell over a number of years," says lead author Ivana Bozic, a doctoral student in Harvard's Department of Mathematics and Program for Evolutionary Dynamics. "It also helps explain why so many cancer-driving mutations are needed to form an advanced malignancy within the lifetime of an individual." deleted Bozic's work adds to scientists' recent efforts to differentiate between "driver" and "passenger" mutations in tumors. Researchers have found that most solid tumors contain 40 to 100 mutations in coding genes, but that on average only 5 to 15 of these actually drive tumor growth. The remainder are simply along for the ride: associated with driver mutations, but not benefiting the tumor. Tumors begin growing with the first mutation that provides an advantage over other cells, allowing them to grow ever-so-slightly faster than their neighbors. But as these driver mutations slowly accumulate in a given cell, the effect is akin to the accelerating growth of savings through compound interest: Increasingly rapid cell division feeds the ever-faster addition of more driver mutations. deleted

While I agree witn you that evolution denialism is a problem that is all too virulent amongst my fellow conservatives,

it is not a problem confined only to them.

If it was, then we would see substantially greater acceptance of the fact of biological evolution amongst fellow Americans.

Unfortunately we haven’t, and I must note as anecdotal evidence, physicist Lisa Randall’s recounting of an airline conversation she had with a young Obama supporter soon after the Presidential inauguration in 2008, a Hollywood actor trained in molecular biology (who had taught science in an urban middle school), who rejected the validity of biological evolution, especially with regards to the origins of humanity.

Jim Wynne said: Kwok, I think the point is (as someone said) not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. Of all of the people who are actively pushing creationism as a political and social movement, I can't think of any who are not also conservatives. The number of people who may express doubt about biological evolution but who take no political stand one way or another is irrelevant.

harold said: John Kwok - We've had this conversation before, so I'll give one brief reply. I do have a question. Could you provide a reference or link containing Lisa Randall's original statement?

While I agree witn you that evolution denialism is a problem that is all too virulent amongst my fellow conservatives,

Thank you.

it is not a problem confined only to them.

That is technically correct, and I never said otherwise. However, as I have noted before in this venue, it is a matter of easily verifiable public record that the vast majority of political efforts to include ID/creationism in public school curricula, whether introduced at the federal level (Santorum), state level (many, usually voted down in legislatures), or local level such as school boards (who knows how many; several cases famously brought to conclusion), were introduced by Republicans.

If it was, then we would see substantially greater acceptance of the fact of biological evolution amongst fellow Americans.

What John means here is that polls routinely show large plurality support for the idea that humans were created specifically by God, and large majorities choose either that, or that God had something to do with human origins even though though evolution also contribued. John is making the point that even if all right wing conservatives gave one of those answers, for the numbers to be so high, someone else must also be giving one of those answers. Fine, as it stands, that is true. However - I don't care how people answer poll questions, or how they live their lives in general. What I care about is people who try to violate my rights and undermine my country by having science replaced with sectarian dogma in taxpayer funded public schools. As I mentioned above, those are coming from the right.

Unfortunately we haven’t, and I must note as anecdotal evidence, physicist Lisa Randall’s recounting of an airline conversation she had with a young Obama supporter soon after the Presidential inauguration in 2008, a Hollywood actor trained in molecular biology (who had taught science in an urban middle school), who rejected the validity of biological evolution, especially with regards to the origins of humanity.

You've mentioned this before. Can I have a reference to the original source?

Absolutely, and, sadly, that is something Behe refuses to accept, even now: raven said: The key is that mutations are additive and synergistic. Evolution starts with what is and builds on it in an incremental stepwise fashion. Behe's understanding of the mechanism of evolution is faulty and he is just wrong.

harold -

Here's the link to Jerry Coyne's question and all who responded, including Ken Miller and Lisa Randall. Just jump to Lisa Randall to read her comments:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne09/coyne09_index.html

harold -

I would also suggest that you look at polling data for Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. Recent polls show that there are substantilly more Canadians and British who recognize the scientific validity of biological evolution. I believe there are links over at NCSE's website, but I don't have time to look for them.

I'm not disagreeing with your observations, except to remind you and others that it is still true that most Americans do express some skepticism toward the fact of biological evolution, and that skepticism does cut across political lines. Moreover, combined, there are more Independents and Democrats who reject evolution than there are Republicans.

I’d like some evidence-based, testable answers to the following questions - 1) Who is the designer of the adaptive immune system? 2) Exactly what did the designer design? 3) When did the designer design it? 4) How did the designer design it?

Moreover, combined, there are more Independents and Democrats who reject evolution than there are Republicans.

harold said: I'd like some evidence-based, testable answers to the following questions - 1) Who is the designer of the adaptive immune system? 2) Exactly what did the designer design? 3) When did the designer design it? 4) How did the designer design it?

"In my humble opinion, the most important problems with Behe’s argument are…"

Nick, this is horrible framing. Science is about evidence, pseudoscience is about arguments and avoiding/cherrypicking evidence. It's far more devastating to point out Behe's ignorance of the relevant evidence and leave it at that.

Falk had an undergrad trash Behe on the evidence, and even Bilbo gave up:

http://biologos.org/blog/a-students-review-of-behes-two-binding-site-rule/

The Curmudgeon said: What I find interesting about the recent outbreak of squabbles between the Discovery Institute and BioLogos isn't the latest (and inevitably short-lived) dust-up over minutiae raised by Behe or Meyer. The more important thing is that such disputes reveal a rupture a faction of the faith community that has traditionally been united in a common hostility to science. Any such splintering is welcome. In this regard, it's also interesting to note some sniping by YECs like Ken Ham aimed at the Discovery Institute and other creationists who aren't firmly on board with his interpretation of scripture. This involves no scientific issues, but it's another fracture in the "big tent" of creationism, and it too is welcome.

Karen S. -

I'm just trying not to be a "dogmatic evolutionist" :).

I want to be fair and evaluate the evidence for ID objectively.

As soon as someone tells me what it is.

[sound of crickets chirping]

Tom S. -

Thank you for reminding me of that additional question (example of something which is NOT intelligently designed); I've been meaning to use it and keep forgetting.

harold said: What I care about is people who take actions intended to violate the constitution, base public legislation on religious dogma, and/or impede the progress of science by any combination of censorship, hostile appointments to key regulatory positions, elimination of funding, undermining of public education, etc. The drive for creationism in schools, and most other anti-science public policy, is unequivocally coming mainly-to-exclusively, at this point in time, from within the Republican party. That hasn't always been the case throughout history, but it is now. I can assure you that if it were coming from somewhere else, I would complain about that, too.

harold said: Karen S. - I'm just trying not to be a "dogmatic evolutionist" :). I want to be fair and evaluate the evidence for ID objectively. As soon as someone tells me what it is. [sound of crickets chirping]

John Kwok said: But before anyone else cares to condemn Republicans and Conservatives as exclusively lunatic anti-science haters, they must take a breath and remember the likes of Judge Jones, Paul Gross, and others, including yours truly.

Paul Burnett said: (clipped) And everybody here at PT is well aware of the direct connection between right-wing conservative fundagelicalism and intelligent design creationism. There's a lot of difference between a few anecdotal reports of liberal ignorance about science and evolution, and the active (if not hyperactive) evolution denialism that is all too virulent almost solely amongst conservatives.

Gary Hurd said:

Paul Burnett said: (clipped) And everybody here at PT is well aware of the direct connection between right-wing conservative fundagelicalism and intelligent design creationism. There's a lot of difference between a few anecdotal reports of liberal ignorance about science and evolution, and the active (if not hyperactive) evolution denialism that is all too virulent almost solely amongst conservatives.

There are some liberal variants of creationism. For Example, "Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact" by Vine Deloria. And there are also the "cosmic woo" of generally liberal New Age groupies, many of whom reject "patriarchal" sciences like physics, and biology. But because they are generally powerless, we are less aware, and less frightened by them. However, the entire Native American Graves Protection Act was a successful assault on science, and prompted by a liberal tradition of "respect" for religious traditions.

There are some liberal variants of creationism. For Example, “Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact” by Vine Deloria.

And there are also the “cosmic woo” of generally liberal New Age groupies, many of whom reject “patriarchal” sciences like physics, and biology.

But because they are generally powerless, we are less aware, and less frightened by them.

However, the entire Native American Graves Protection Act was a successful assault on science, and prompted by a liberal tradition of “respect” for religious traditions.

I'll add here that Behe's claim that more than 2 mutations are the Edge of Evolution is just wrong.

In his own case of drug resistance in malaria, there are cases of resistance to combination drugs that have 5 required mutations.

The current model of cancer is a somatic cell evolutionary one. It's found that end stage cancers have 5 to 15 required mutations, considerably more than Behe's 2. This is common enough that it will kill 1/3 of the US population. And fast enough that it happens within a person's lifetime. The key is that mutations are additive and synergistic. Evolution starts with what is and builds on it in an incremental stepwise fashion.

John Kwok said: But before anyone else cares to condemn Republicans and Conservatives as exclusively lunatic anti-science haters, they must take a breath and remember the likes of Judge Jones, Paul Gross, and others, including yours truly.

tomh said: 2) Anti-science types who are trying to undermine education are just about all Republicans (true).

I agree with your description of the technical details Nick - and I say this as someone who is not really trained in this aspect of biology - but again, I would merely observe that Behe's fundamental problem is his woeful ignorance and understanding of coevolution, which both Dave Wisker and I picked up immediately when we started reading Behe's book soon after it was published (I know this since Dave and I had corresponded and we both realized we had reached similar conclusions with regards to Behe's understanding of coevolution.).

Yep, Gary. And you need to start worrying about guys like Steve Talbott as well (http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/).

Its funny but Nick seems to be making the same mistake darwinists accuse IDists of making. They like to point out with chuckles to go that Demski sounded the death knell of Darwinism years ago and sure enough Darwin defenders are still standing.

Now Nick in his latest post seems to be borrowing this rhetorical mechanism but with a new twist; gently reminding us the softening wimpers of a listless intelligent design.

Yet, while the main defenders could be counted on a single hand: Dembski, Wells, Behe, and later Meyer, Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc it seems there is this perceptible, steady stream of scientists and mathematicians friendly to the ID mindset making their entrance: Axe, Abel, Marks, Ewert and most recently, Talbott.

Most fascinating animal, that design mindset: at once withering yet growing, expanding, energizing. What do we make of it?

Steve P. said: Yep, Gary. And you need to start worrying about guys like Steve Talbott as well (http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/). Its funny but Nick seems to be making the same mistake darwinists accuse IDists of making. They like to point out with chuckles to go that Demski sounded the death knell of Darwinism years ago and sure enough Darwin defenders are still standing. Now Nick in his latest post seems to be borrowing this rhetorical mechanism but with a new twist; gently reminding us the softening wimpers of a listless intelligent design. Yet, while the main defenders could be counted on a single hand: Dembski, Wells, Behe, and later Meyer, Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc it seems there is this perceptible, steady stream of scientists and mathematicians friendly to the ID mindset making their entrance: Axe, Abel, Marks, Ewert and most recently, Talbott. Most fascinating animal, that design mindset: at once withering yet growing, expanding, energizing. What do we make of it?

John Kwok said:

tomh said: 2) Anti-science types who are trying to undermine education are just about all Republicans (true).

However, before we lose sight as to who are worse with regards to evolution denialism, ...

Most fascinating animal, that design mindset: at once withering yet growing, expanding, energizing. What do we make of it?

tomh said:

John Kwok said:

tomh said: 2) Anti-science types who are trying to undermine education are just about all Republicans (true).

However, before we lose sight as to who are worse with regards to evolution denialism, ...

Which has nothing to do with who is trying to undermine education. I guess I was wrong, you can't understand the difference in the two statements.

Karen S. said: Nothing, until they do ID-related research and publish the results in reputable journals.

Stanton said:

Steve P. said: Yep, Gary. And you need to start worrying about guys like Steve Talbott as well (http://natureinstitute.org/txt/st/). Its funny but Nick seems to be making the same mistake darwinists accuse IDists of making. They like to point out with chuckles to go that Demski sounded the death knell of Darwinism years ago and sure enough Darwin defenders are still standing. Now Nick in his latest post seems to be borrowing this rhetorical mechanism but with a new twist; gently reminding us the softening wimpers of a listless intelligent design. Yet, while the main defenders could be counted on a single hand: Dembski, Wells, Behe, and later Meyer, Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc it seems there is this perceptible, steady stream of scientists and mathematicians friendly to the ID mindset making their entrance: Axe, Abel, Marks, Ewert and most recently, Talbott. Most fascinating animal, that design mindset: at once withering yet growing, expanding, energizing. What do we make of it?

Tell us, Steve P, what new wonders of Intelligent Design has this fabulous new generation of Intelligent Design proponents brought us? What new explanations and definitions have these Wunderkinder shown us? Oh, wait, they've done nothing.

DS said: You would think that if Behe had the courage of his convictions that he would al least be in the lab trying to find one example of two mutations that were required to be simultaneous. Of course, once Lenski published, I guess he kind of realized that that wasn't true in most cases anyway. Too bad he never learned to be a real scientist and tried to disprove how own hypothesis. It would sure be easy to find examples of mutations that didn't have to be simultaneous. Now I wonder why he doesn't do that work and publish it?

Matt G said: On the very subject is this article from last week's Science: http://tinyurl.com/29ct65u

Thanks for the links guys. I seemed to have missed that paper. Maybe I just haven't gotten around to reading that issue yet. Now I am sure that when Behe reads it he will no doubt admit that he was wrong and jump off the ID bandwagon. He is after all a real scientist who reads the literature and... wait, what? Oh. Never mind.

I have trudged through so many ID arguments lately that I have completely given up on ever finding an argument where they didn't start with an unsupported answer. I am no scientist, but I know you can't have absolute faith in your own opinion. You can't start a thesis by concluding that something is absolutely true and ID'ers always begin in a state of unwavering opinion long before doing any research or looking into scientific data.

Karen S. said:

Most fascinating animal, that design mindset: at once withering yet growing, expanding, energizing. What do we make of it?

Nothing, until they do ID-related research and publish the results in reputable journals.

那個事件在豪豬的该年將發生。

Stanton said: There is an ancient Chinese proverb that applies to this situation:

那個事件在豪豬的该年將發生。

Steve P. -

Okay, let’s be fair. I’d like to learn what the ID model of the origin of adaptive immunity is, and what evidence supports it. That way, I can compare it to contemporary mainstream ideas of how adaptive immunity arose, and make an objective decision about which is the best explanation.

So let’s get started. What IS the ID model of the origin of adaptive immunity?

I’d like some evidence-based, testable answers to the following questions -

1) Who is the designer of the adaptive immune system?

2) Exactly what did the designer design?

3) When did the designer design it?

4) How did the designer design it?

Steve P. -

When you finish with my questions above, could you give me an example of something that ISN'T intelligently designed, in your view?

Paul Burnett said:

Stanton said: There is an ancient Chinese proverb that applies to this situation:

那個事件在豪豬的该年將發生。

Okay, I'll bite: Please provide a translation.

harold said: Steve P. - When you finish with my questions above, could you give me an example of something that ISN'T intelligently designed, in your view?

I would imagine that the YEC answer to, "What is not intelligently designed?", would be that, "God created the universe and everything in it". God created life. God created the rock you're holding. God created every proton and neutron of every atom. Therefore, by definition there is nothing that is not intelligently designed. It seems like a pretty clear and concise cosmology, that can be expressed in its entirety in a single sentence of eight words or less.

As to ID, I've read statements that ID claims that "some things" are just too complex to have not been designed. I've never heard any ID proponent even allow that some things may not have been designed.

But then was GOD intelligently designed?

By whom?

When?

I would imagine that the YEC answer to, “What is not intelligently designed?”, would be that, “God created the universe and everything in it”.

As to ID, I’ve read statements that ID claims that “some things” are just too complex to have not been designed. I’ve never heard any ID proponent even allow that some things may not have been designed.

JAM said: "In my humble opinion, the most important problems with Behe’s argument are…" Nick, this is horrible framing. Science is about evidence, pseudoscience is about arguments and avoiding/cherrypicking evidence. It's far more devastating to point out Behe's ignorance of the relevant evidence and leave it at that. Falk had an undergrad trash Behe on the evidence, and even Bilbo gave up: http://biologos.org/blog/a-students-review-of-behes-two-binding-site-rule/

Garbled and just realized that my last sentence should have read:

Whoever that undergraduate student is, I hope she has a promising career in biological research as well as in medicine.

Here's the link to David Levin's review for those who are interested:

http://ncse.com/rncse/27/1-2/review-edge-evolution

My problem with Dawkins's review was that it was a bit too general - probably because of Dawkins's intended audience - but he could have still have hit him as hard as Miller, Levin and several others did, and have it still quite comprehensible to a general public.

Steve P. - When you finish with my questions above, could you give me an example of something that ISN’T intelligently designed, in your view?

raven said:

Steve P. - When you finish with my questions above, could you give me an example of something that ISN’T intelligently designed, in your view?

Wasting your time with that driveby troll. As Hitchens said once, "An assertion made without supporting evidence can be denied without evidence." The troll provides as much evidence for ID as the theory that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

raven said: The troll provides as much evidence for ID as the theory that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

Paul Burnett said:

raven said: The troll provides as much evidence for ID as the theory that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

Is the turtle also rotating once every 24 hours? Or is the earth rotating on the back of a non-rotating turtle? (I've always wondered about this.) Perhaps FL or Steve P. can help us here.

Mike Elzinga said:

Paul Burnett said:

raven said: The troll provides as much evidence for ID as the theory that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

Is the turtle also rotating once every 24 hours? Or is the earth rotating on the back of a non-rotating turtle? (I've always wondered about this.) Perhaps FL or Steve P. can help us here.

As the Turtle Turns.

Ron Okimoto said: My guess is that since the turtle isn't supposed to be moving (fixed earth) that the turtle is on its back with the earth resting on the ventral surface. Male turtles often have a nice concave surface that would allow the earth to rest there. The turtle could then spin more easily so it would be the turtle spinning and not the earth.

Steve P. said: Yet, while the main defenders could be counted on a single hand: Dembski, Wells, Behe, and later Meyer, Sternberg, Gonzalez, etc it seems there is this perceptible, steady stream of scientists and mathematicians friendly to the ID mindset making their entrance: Axe, Abel, Marks, Ewert and most recently, Talbott.

Is the turtle also rotating once every 24 hours?

raven said:

Is the turtle also rotating once every 24 hours?

The big question in the Turtleist community is still being debated. What is the Turtle standing on?

raven said:

Is the turtle also rotating once every 24 hours?

The big question in the Turtleist community is still being debated. What is the Turtle standing on?

Hitchens and Dembski were debating the existence of GOD, and apparently, Hitchens made some arguments which persuaded even the predominantly Fundamentalist Christian audience.

raven said:

Hitchens and Dembski were debating the existence of GOD, and apparently, Hitchens made some arguments which persuaded even the predominantly Fundamentalist Christian audience.

Didn't listen to the webcast but did read the play by play. Dembski spent a lot of time claiming that evolution is incompatible with xianity. This has to be in competition for the longest running lie of creationists. It is obviously false. Most xians worldwide don't have a problem with evolution. The USA has only 12.5% of the world's xians. Most of those aren't fundies. It is more correct to say that a small subset of cults based in the south central USA have a religion incompatible with science. Which is their problem, not ours.

Steve P. said: ...it seems there is this perceptible, steady stream of scientists and mathematicians friendly to the ID mindset making their entrance: Axe, Abel, Marks, Ewert and most recently, Talbott.

raven said: Dembski spent a lot of time claiming that evolution is incompatible with xianity. This has to be in competition for the longest running lie of creationists. It is obviously false.

Paul Burnett said:

raven said: The troll provides as much evidence for ID as the theory that the earth rests on the back of a giant turtle.

Is the turtle also rotating once every 24 hours? Or is the earth rotating on the back of a non-rotating turtle? (I've always wondered about this.) Perhaps FL or Steve P. can help us here.

And are these turtles teenage, mutant or ninja? Or some combination thereof?

Nestlé.

John Kwok said: While I agree witn you that evolution denialism is a problem that is all too virulent amongst my fellow conservatives, it is not a problem confined only to them. If it was, then we would see substantially greater acceptance of the fact of biological evolution amongst fellow Americans.

The most peculiar finding here is that political conservatism is associated with disbelief in the Big Bang and in evolution even among non-fundamentalist respondents who are well-educated (Fig. 1). This reliable result [RDB Note: p < 0.001] defies commonsense interpretation.

Pertinent independent variables—religiosity, education, and political conservatism—are used in an OLS regression model to predict each incorrect belief. The effects of each independent variable (along with significance levels) are shown in Table 2 as betas. We see that fundamentalist religiosity, with beta=0.32, is the independent variable most strongly related to disbelief in human evolution. Education (beta=−0.15) is a weaker and negative predictor, meaning that people with little education are somewhat more likely than those well-educated to disbelieve in evolution. Political conservatives are more likely than liberals to disbelieve in evolution. Predictors (betas) of doubting the Big Bang are virtually the same as those for disbelief in evolution. Fundamentalist religiosity has by far the strongest effect in both cases. Low education and political conservatism contribute lesser but about equal amounts, independently of religiosity. Religiosity and low education only slightly influence disbelief in continental drift. Only low education predicts confusion about whether the sun or earth is the center of rotation. The persistent covariation of political view with “Big Bang” beliefs, despite statistical controls, is illustrated in Fig. 1, which is limited to subjects who are not in fundamentalist religious denominations. Here, the percentage of respondents believing that the universe began with a huge explosion is plotted simultaneously against political view (conservative, moderate, and liberal) and education (high school or less, some college, and graduate school). As a cautionary note, subsample sizes are small, ranging from 26 to 97. However, the consistency of results—across all educational groups—is striking. Among nonfundamentalist respondents, whatever their education level, belief in the Big Bang rises along with political liberalism.

Why should well-educated political conservatives, who are not committed to a literal Bible, be especially prone to reject central principles of modern earth science? The answer, I think, lies first in realizing that most educated people do not thoroughly understand the biological, geological, and astronomical evidence that makes scientifically unassailable cases for the evolution of life and the expansion of the universe. Most nonscientists accept (or reject) these concepts largely on the word of authorities whom they respect or on views that are current in their circles (Ruse 2005). Furthermore, in American politics during the last few decades, there has been increasing left–right polarization on a number of “hot button” issues including abortion, the Iraq war, immigration, climate change, and teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. Citizens leaning toward each extreme tend to adopt the issues of their fellow extremists (Hetherington and Weiler 2009). Conservatives with no particular interest in the Bible tend to accept the positions vigorously espoused by their coalition mates on the religious right. There is no reason to doubt that this is a symmetrical effect, working as well on liberals. In principle, a biblical literalist could object to plate tectonics with its implication of an earth that is millions if not billions of years old. But in practice, continental drift has not been drawn into the political fray.

Rich Blinne said:

John Kwok said: While I agree witn you that evolution denialism is a problem that is all too virulent amongst my fellow conservatives, it is not a problem confined only to them. If it was, then we would see substantially greater acceptance of the fact of biological evolution amongst fellow Americans.

Check out the paper cited by the PT post on Evolution: Education and Outreach:

The most peculiar finding here is that political conservatism is associated with disbelief in the Big Bang and in evolution even among non-fundamentalist respondents who are well-educated (Fig. 1). This reliable result [RDB Note: p < 0.001] defies commonsense interpretation.

While the Beta is much higher for fundamentalism, conservatism is a slightly higher predictor of denialism than lack of education. Here's a more extended discussion that answers our back and forth on the statistical relationip of politics, religion, and education and denialism.

Pertinent independent variables—religiosity, education, and political conservatism—are used in an OLS regression model to predict each incorrect belief. The effects of each independent variable (along with significance levels) are shown in Table 2 as betas. We see that fundamentalist religiosity, with beta=0.32, is the independent variable most strongly related to disbelief in human evolution. Education (beta=−0.15) is a weaker and negative predictor, meaning that people with little education are somewhat more likely than those well-educated to disbelieve in evolution. Political conservatives are more likely than liberals to disbelieve in evolution. Predictors (betas) of doubting the Big Bang are virtually the same as those for disbelief in evolution. Fundamentalist religiosity has by far the strongest effect in both cases. Low education and political conservatism contribute lesser but about equal amounts, independently of religiosity. Religiosity and low education only slightly influence disbelief in continental drift. Only low education predicts confusion about whether the sun or earth is the center of rotation. The persistent covariation of political view with “Big Bang” beliefs, despite statistical controls, is illustrated in Fig. 1, which is limited to subjects who are not in fundamentalist religious denominations. Here, the percentage of respondents believing that the universe began with a huge explosion is plotted simultaneously against political view (conservative, moderate, and liberal) and education (high school or less, some college, and graduate school). As a cautionary note, subsample sizes are small, ranging from 26 to 97. However, the consistency of results—across all educational groups—is striking. Among nonfundamentalist respondents, whatever their education level, belief in the Big Bang rises along with political liberalism.

Rich Blinne said: Here's a reason hypothesized why non-religious conservatives fall into denialism:

Why should well-educated political conservatives, who are not committed to a literal Bible, be especially prone to reject central principles of modern earth science? The answer, I think, lies first in realizing that most educated people do not thoroughly understand the biological, geological, and astronomical evidence that makes scientifically unassailable cases for the evolution of life and the expansion of the universe. Most nonscientists accept (or reject) these concepts largely on the word of authorities whom they respect or on views that are current in their circles (Ruse 2005). Furthermore, in American politics during the last few decades, there has been increasing left–right polarization on a number of “hot button” issues including abortion, the Iraq war, immigration, climate change, and teaching “intelligent design” in public schools. Citizens leaning toward each extreme tend to adopt the issues of their fellow extremists (Hetherington and Weiler 2009). Conservatives with no particular interest in the Bible tend to accept the positions vigorously espoused by their coalition mates on the religious right. There is no reason to doubt that this is a symmetrical effect, working as well on liberals. In principle, a biblical literalist could object to plate tectonics with its implication of an earth that is millions if not billions of years old. But in practice, continental drift has not been drawn into the political fray.

Interestingly enough, even though plate tectonics is as much of a threat to a young Earth it's not an issue because of the lack of a religion/politics nexus. This is backed by my personal experience where evangelicals that are apolitical are much easier to teach on these subjects. Education has little to do with it and ironically the more educated, politically-motivated folks are the hardest of all to crack.

John Kwok said: I just did and am disappointed that Niles Eldredge accepted it for publication. The statistical results are not nearly as robust as I would like,and I have to wonder whether a better predictor would have been via some type of logistic regression, not ordinary least squares linear regression:

Allan Mazur wrote: (emphasis added by SWT) For technical reasons, when the dependent variable is binary (e.g., true/false), OLS regression somewhat distorts significance levels. An alternate technique, logit analysis, is more accurate but also more difficult to interpret (Agresti 2002). For ease of interpretation, I show results from OLS regressions. Logit analyses, done separately but not shown, give similar significance levels, so there is no distortion in the following results.

SWT said:

John Kwok said: I just did and am disappointed that Niles Eldredge accepted it for publication. The statistical results are not nearly as robust as I would like,and I have to wonder whether a better predictor would have been via some type of logistic regression, not ordinary least squares linear regression:

Allan Mazur wrote: (emphasis added by SWT) For technical reasons, when the dependent variable is binary (e.g., true/false), OLS regression somewhat distorts significance levels. An alternate technique, logit analysis, is more accurate but also more difficult to interpret (Agresti 2002). For ease of interpretation, I show results from OLS regressions. Logit analyses, done separately but not shown, give similar significance levels, so there is no distortion in the following results.

John Kwok said: I did see that SWT, but the value of r is a bit low. Should be higher, closer to .9 for it to be truly statistically robust:

SWT said: [Deleted for brevity]

Anyway, as I noted in my reply to Blinne this result is only of one "snapshot". It doesn't refute my observation as to what long-term temporal trends in polling data have shown (As a former paleobiologist, that's something that is IMHO a legitimate point, since I was referring to long-term trends in polling data not statistical analysis of a single poll taken at one period in time, which is what Mazur has done here.).

SWT said:

John Kwok said: I did see that SWT, but the value of r is a bit low. Should be higher, closer to .9 for it to be truly statistically robust:

SWT said: [Deleted for brevity]

Anyway, as I noted in my reply to Blinne this result is only of one "snapshot". It doesn't refute my observation as to what long-term temporal trends in polling data have shown (As a former paleobiologist, that's something that is IMHO a legitimate point, since I was referring to long-term trends in polling data not statistical analysis of a single poll taken at one period in time, which is what Mazur has done here.).

A few quick shots, then I need to be off to more productive things on this holiday. 1) This is indeed a snapshot rather than a trend analysis. What the snapshot says, in agreement with other recent snapshots we've discussed, is that rejection of evolution is strogly correlated with religious fundamentalism, political conservatism, and lack of education. While the historical trend is interesting, effective strategies need to deal with the world as is -- the study results suggest potential areas of focus. 2) Would the results be stronger if there were a larger r²? Sure. The low r² suggests there are other factors not included in the study that are influencing evolution denial. Even so, the beta values are in fact siginificantly different from zero, so it's reasonable to move forward on the basis of the correlation results until we have more complete and more recent data in hand. 3) As far as I know, there's nothing inherent in political conservatism or liberalism that would necessarily drive one to science denialism; this is tacitly acknowledged by Mazur, who proposes instead essentially a sociological explanation for the data. I wouldn't be surprised to find a similar trend with anti-vax positions among liberals. Now, get off the computer and enjoy your Thanksgiving!

the value of r is a bit low. Should be higher, closer to .9 for it to be truly statistically robust

Have been jumping on back and forth between watching this year's Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade on NBC. Hope yours is a great Thanksgiving too SWT.

Tulse said:

the value of r is a bit low. Should be higher, closer to .9 for it to be truly statistically robust

There are simply no psychological phenomena of any kind that produce such a high r value, much less phenomena as complex as the relationship between political commitments and scientific beliefs.

SWT said: 2) Would the results be stronger if there were a larger r²? Sure. The low r² suggests there are other factors not included in the study that are influencing evolution denial. Even so, the beta values are in fact siginificantly different from zero, so it's reasonable to move forward on the basis of the correlation results until we have more complete and more recent data in hand. 3) As far as I know, there's nothing inherent in political conservatism or liberalism that would necessarily drive one to science denialism; this is tacitly acknowledged by Mazur, who proposes instead essentially a sociological explanation for the data. I wouldn't be surprised to find a similar trend with anti-vax positions among liberals. Now, get off the computer and enjoy your Thanksgiving!

more statistically robust

Tulse said:

more statistically robust

You've used this term several times -- can you clarify what you mean by it?

Funny you should ask, since you’re commenting on statistics

If the author had a higher r value using some kind of regression other than ordinary least square regression, then that should have been the result reported, not this.

Tulse -

It might be unclear to you what "statistically robust" means, but this has been emphasized by biostatisticans and psychometricians I have known for years.

As for your second point, we are talking about, in essence, is this regression model better at predicting this behavior than some other type of regression; in plain English, could there been another regression analysis that did a better job in curve fitting the data?

JohnK said:

Steve P. said: ...it seems there is this perceptible, steady stream of scientists and mathematicians friendly to the ID mindset making their entrance: Axe, Abel, Marks, Ewert and most recently, Talbott.

Abel has been an evolution-by-natural-processes opponent for, at the very least, 15 years.

Hope you are enjoying your Turkey dinner SWT, but hope you bear in mind what I have observed with respect to regression analysis and statistically robust in my back and forth with Tulse. As for Blinne, he shouldn't be so enthusiastic about the conclusions drawn by Mazur when Mazur may not have used another form of regression analysis that could have yielded a higher r (regression coefficient).

John Kwok said: Hope you are enjoying your Turkey dinner SWT, but hope you bear in mind what I have observed with respect to regression analysis and statistically robust in my back and forth with Tulse. As for Blinne, he shouldn't be so enthusiastic about the conclusions drawn by Mazur when Mazur may not have used another form of regression analysis that could have yielded a higher r (regression coefficient).

Some kind of data transformation which would have rendered the data into one more closely following a normal distribution might have yielded a higher r value in Mazur's ordinary least squares linear regression analysis (And I believe that is important simply for demonstrating that this regression model is truly statistically robust to account for the polling behavior analyzed in this study. By data transformation, I am referring to longstanding techniques to transform the data into logs (logarithmic and/or natural logarithmic transformation) or square roots.

Blinne -

Note my recent comments as to how Mazur should have treated the data. The fact that the regression coefficient for his regression analysis is approximately 0.6 indicates that there is a lot of variance in the data that isn't explained by the ordinary least squares regression analysis. Had he subjected it to some kind of data transformation (e. g. logarithmic, natural logarithmic or square root), it is possible that he could have had a linear regression analysis with a r value substantialy higher than 0.6. Or maybe he should havve tried some kind of logistic regression or some other kind of regression analysis. So your exuberant arm-waving about how his predictor variable(s) may have supported your sociopolitical (and religious) biases is both unnecessary and excessive (And Mazur was sufficiently right not to make too much with regards to these connections.).

John Kwok said: Some kind of data transformation which would have rendered the data into one more closely following a normal distribution might have yielded a higher r value in Mazur's ordinary least squares linear regression analysis (And I believe that is important simply for demonstrating that this regression model is truly statistically robust to account for the polling behavior analyzed in this study. By data transformation, I am referring to longstanding techniques to transform the data into logs (logarithmic and/or natural logarithmic transformation) or square roots.

SWT said:

John Kwok said: Some kind of data transformation which would have rendered the data into one more closely following a normal distribution might have yielded a higher r value in Mazur's ordinary least squares linear regression analysis (And I believe that is important simply for demonstrating that this regression model is truly statistically robust to account for the polling behavior analyzed in this study. By data transformation, I am referring to longstanding techniques to transform the data into logs (logarithmic and/or natural logarithmic transformation) or square roots.

Mazur used publicly available data in his analysis. If you think you can do a better statistical analysis, have at it.

SWT said: Mazur used publicly available data in his analysis. If you think you can do a better statistical analysis, have at it.

John Kwok said: I may just do that when if and when I opt to load R onto my laptop and master it:

SWT said: Mazur used publicly available data in his analysis. If you think you can do a better statistical analysis, have at it.

But frankly the responsibility was Mazur's and the editors. Am surprised Niles didn't pick this up (Though I am certain that if he was alive, biostatistican Leslie F. Marcus, one of my graduate school professors, would have and have insisted that either another regression technique be used and/or have the data normalized by one of the standard data transformation techniques I have just mentioned.).

SWT meant to say:

John Kwok said: I may just do that when if and when I opt to load R onto my laptop and master it:

SWT said: Mazur used publicly available data in his analysis. If you think you can do a better statistical analysis, have at it.

But frankly the responsibility was Mazur's and the editors...

... and the experts who peer-reviewed this paper, his previous papers on the same subject, and papers by others that reached similar conclusions. Remember also that Mazur completed a logit analysis and got similar significance results.

No, SWT I am not hand waving. It is standard statistical practice - and again this has been drilled again and again by biostatisticians and psychometricians that I have spoken to for years - that data transformations such as logs and/or square roots need to be considered. Moreover Mazur did not report completely any tests which demonstrated that the regression coefficient was significant at the .05 level (again common statistical practice) of the kind I would expect if I was reading an article in American Naturalist, Evolution, or even Paleobiology. So I am sorry SWT, but there are sufficient statistical grounds IMHO to question the soundness of Mazur's statistical analysis without delving further by discussing Mazur's conclusions (And to his credit I must commend him for not making as much as Blinne has.).

SWT said: BTW, the site that houses the data Mazur used has many analysis tools available, so there's no need to obtain any other software.

SWT said: ... and the experts who peer-reviewed this paper, his previous papers on the same subject, and papers by others that reached similar conclusions. Remember also that Mazur completed a logit analysis and got similar significance results.

Back from vacation ... and I must respond to the mess posted above.

1) Contrary to John Kwok's assertions above, Mazur reported significance levels for his regression parameters. He completed a logit regression as well, but chose not to present the results because (a) the significance levels were similar to those obtained using OLS regression and (2) he (and presumably the journal editor and reviewers) recognized that the OLS regression results would be clearer for his readers to understand.

2) The r² value indicates that the regression model used explains about 45% of the observed variance of the dependent variable. This can be the result of the algebraic form of the model, omission of a key correlating variable, extremely noisy data, or some or all of the above. John Kwok argues that a change in the algebraic structure of the regression model will likely improve the fit; this might be true, but if so, will only strengthen the relationship of evolution denial to fundamentalism, lack of education, and political conservatism. Given that the data set includes well-educated liberal non-fundamentalist evolution deniers and a lot of well-educated political and religious moderate evolution deniers, there's going to be a limit to how much of the sample variance can be explained using the variables currently included in the regression.

3) The paper was published in a journal with a significantly different audience than "epidemiological journals, American Naturalist, Evolution or Palebiology (sic)" -- Evolution: Education and Outreach targets "K-16 students, teachers and scientists alike, the journal presents articles to aid members of these communities in the teaching of evolutionary theory. It connects teachers with scientists by adapting cutting-edge, peer reviewed articles for classroom use on varied instructional levels." The presentation of statistical methods and results is certainly appropriate for this journal.

4) John Kwok has argued that a published, peer-reviewed paper is inadequate. When one of my graduate students believes they have found an error in a peer-reviewed paper, the first thing I check is how thoroughly they understand the paper. Next, I require a fairly detailed rebuttal, quantitative if appropriate, and comparison with other results in the literature if available. (I often require them to reproduce statistical results with which we agree to make sure that we understand the methodology.) The simple fact is, the paper under discussion here explains the statistical methods in enough detail to reproduce its results. If, rather than spending his time whining about data transformations and significance levels, John Kwok had taken the time to read the paper carefully and do some quick checks with the original data set, he would have found that the statistics were executed competently.

5) John Kwok has made a much bigger deal of this paper than Rich Blinne has. Also, interestingly, John Kwok has completely failed to respond to Mazur's suggestion for why well-educated non-fundamentalist political conservatives would reject evolution. Given that that group clearly exists, why the group exists is (at least for me) a much more interesting and important question than whether OLS regression or logit regression was used.

John Kwok, don't even bother responding unless you have something new to say. As someone who has significant training and experience in statistics and who regularly applies statistical tools for model testing, I don't need another repetition of your superficial comments based on a class you took -- demonstrate the you can do the work and we'll talk. Demonstrate that you understand Mazur's point and we'll talk. If I don't hear from you, or if you simply post another regurgitation of what's already been posted here, I'll assume that you have no interest in actual discussion of the situation and will not bother to respond.

SWT said: Back from vacation ... and I must respond to the mess posted above. 1) Contrary to John Kwok's assertions above, Mazur reported significance levels for his regression parameters. He completed a logit regression as well, but chose not to present the results because (a) the significance levels were similar to those obtained using OLS regression and (2) he (and presumably the journal editor and reviewers) recognized that the OLS regression results would be clearer for his readers to understand. 2) The r² value indicates that the regression model used explains about 45% of the observed variance of the dependent variable. This can be the result of the algebraic form of the model, omission of a key correlating variable, extremely noisy data, or some or all of the above. John Kwok argues that a change in the algebraic structure of the regression model will likely improve the fit; this might be true, but if so, will only strengthen the relationship of evolution denial to fundamentalism, lack of education, and political conservatism. Given that the data set includes well-educated liberal non-fundamentalist evolution deniers and a lot of well-educated political and religious moderate evolution deniers, there's going to be a limit to how much of the sample variance can be explained using the variables currently included in the regression. 3) The paper was published in a journal with a significantly different audience than "epidemiological journals, American Naturalist, Evolution or Palebiology (sic)" -- Evolution: Education and Outreach targets "K-16 students, teachers and scientists alike, the journal presents articles to aid members of these communities in the teaching of evolutionary theory. It connects teachers with scientists by adapting cutting-edge, peer reviewed articles for classroom use on varied instructional levels." The presentation of statistical methods and results is certainly appropriate for this journal. 4) John Kwok has argued that a published, peer-reviewed paper is inadequate. When one of my graduate students believes they have found an error in a peer-reviewed paper, the first thing I check is how thoroughly they understand the paper. Next, I require a fairly detailed rebuttal, quantitative if appropriate, and comparison with other results in the literature if available. (I often require them to reproduce statistical results with which we agree to make sure that we understand the methodology.) The simple fact is, the paper under discussion here explains the statistical methods in enough detail to reproduce its results. If, rather than spending his time whining about data transformations and significance levels, John Kwok had taken the time to read the paper carefully and do some quick checks with the original data set, he would have found that the statistics were executed competently. 5) John Kwok has made a much bigger deal of this paper than Rich Blinne has. Also, interestingly, John Kwok has completely failed to respond to Mazur's suggestion for why well-educated non-fundamentalist political conservatives would reject evolution. Given that that group clearly exists, why the group exists is (at least for me) a much more interesting and important question than whether OLS regression or logit regression was used. John Kwok, don't even bother responding unless you have something new to say. As someone who has significant training and experience in statistics and who regularly applies statistical tools for model testing, I don't need another repetition of your superficial comments based on a class you took -- demonstrate the you can do the work and we'll talk. Demonstrate that you understand Mazur's point and we'll talk. If I don't hear from you, or if you simply post another regurgitation of what's already been posted here, I'll assume that you have no interest in actual discussion of the situation and will not bother to respond.

SWT said: Back from vacation ... and I must respond to the mess posted above. 1) Contrary to John Kwok's assertions above, Mazur reported significance levels for his regression parameters. He completed a logit regression as well, but chose not to present the results because (a) the significance levels were similar to those obtained using OLS regression and (2) he (and presumably the journal editor and reviewers) recognized that the OLS regression results would be clearer for his readers to understand. 2) The r² value indicates that the regression model used explains about 45% of the observed variance of the dependent variable. This can be the result of the algebraic form of the model, omission of a key correlating variable, extremely noisy data, or some or all of the above. John Kwok argues that a change in the algebraic structure of the regression model will likely improve the fit; this might be true, but if so, will only strengthen the relationship of evolution denial to fundamentalism, lack of education, and political conservatism. Given that the data set includes well-educated liberal non-fundamentalist evolution deniers and a lot of well-educated political and religious moderate evolution deniers, there's going to be a limit to how much of the sample variance can be explained using the variables currently included in the regression. 3) The paper was published in a journal with a significantly different audience than "epidemiological journals, American Naturalist, Evolution or Palebiology (sic)" -- Evolution: Education and Outreach targets "K-16 students, teachers and scientists alike, the journal presents articles to aid members of these communities in the teaching of evolutionary theory. It connects teachers with scientists by adapting cutting-edge, peer reviewed articles for classroom use on varied instructional levels." The presentation of statistical methods and results is certainly appropriate for this journal. 4) John Kwok has argued that a published, peer-reviewed paper is inadequate. When one of my graduate students believes they have found an error in a peer-reviewed paper, the first thing I check is how thoroughly they understand the paper. Next, I require a fairly detailed rebuttal, quantitative if appropriate, and comparison with other results in the literature if available. (I often require them to reproduce statistical results with which we agree to make sure that we understand the methodology.) The simple fact is, the paper under discussion here explains the statistical methods in enough detail to reproduce its results. If, rather than spending his time whining about data transformations and significance levels, John Kwok had taken the time to read the paper carefully and do some quick checks with the original data set, he would have found that the statistics were executed competently. 5) John Kwok has made a much bigger deal of this paper than Rich Blinne has. Also, interestingly, John Kwok has completely failed to respond to Mazur's suggestion for why well-educated non-fundamentalist political conservatives would reject evolution. Given that that group clearly exists, why the group exists is (at least for me) a much more interesting and important question than whether OLS regression or logit regression was used. John Kwok, don't even bother responding unless you have something new to say. As someone who has significant training and experience in statistics and who regularly applies statistical tools for model testing, I don't need another repetition of your superficial comments based on a class you took -- demonstrate the you can do the work and we'll talk. Demonstrate that you understand Mazur's point and we'll talk. If I don't hear from you, or if you simply post another regurgitation of what's already been posted here, I'll assume that you have no interest in actual discussion of the situation and will not bother to respond.

John Kwok said: 1) I did not see any tests of significance reported to test whether r itself was indeed statistically significant. 2) If the regression model explains only 45% of the variance then it isn’t a good model to explain the behavior, as indicated by virtue of the fact that r=.64.

3) The issue of the audience is irrelevant. If the regression model explains only 45% of the variance, then why publish it at all? Seriously. If Mazur is going to make the case that he made - and to his credit, it was quite tentative - shouldn’t he have made it then using the best results from a regression model that clearly showed the linkage (And I am not making this criticism because I reject his hypothesis - which I do accept, but solely for anecdotal reasons - but instead, because I think he could have done a better job in his statistical analysis that could clearly demonstrate such a linkage.)?

4) SWT, mistakes can and do occur in peer review, and as I noted in my earlier comment, apparently standards for accepting a paper for publication are substantially lower in some medical journals than they are in epidemiological journals, Nature, American Naturalist, Evolution or Paleobiology. And I do not base my conclusions solely upon my graduate education (BTW I had more than one course in biostatistics.), but rather, on having read critically, relevant scientific literature in the past, and via discussions I have had with biostatisticans and psychometricians over the years.

5) You missed my rejoinder to Blinne about Mazur’s observation - which Blinne subsequently amplified - about "well-educated non fundamentalist political conservatives rejecting evolution" - which does not explain yours truly, noted skeptic Michael Shermer, radio talk show host John Batchelor, National Review columnist John Derbyshire, Washington Post columnists Charles Krauthammer and George Will, Rolling Stone columnist (who also writes for The Weekly Standard) P. J. O’Rourke, and especially, biologist Paul R. Gross, formerly, Provost, University of Virginia and Director, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole (He co-authored with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".), and Federal judge John Jones. IMHO, Mazur’s assertion - though probably true but not necessarily for the reason he might claim - is more anecdotal in nature thatn you would care to admit.

6) Mazur's analysis - as a single "snapshot" - does not really shed much light as to why most Americans - including moderates and liberals - have consistently expressed skepticism - if not outright rejection - of biological evolution for decades (For anyone who wants an answer, I think Ken Miller has offered a valid reason in his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul", drawing upon work by his Brown University colleague - eminent historian Gordon Wood (widely viewed as the most authorative with regards to the nature of the American Revolution and the drafting of the United States Constitution) - in illustrating longstanding American interest in "questioning authority".).

Technical analysis isn’t just useful for predicting trends in stocks and shares, it can also chart and predict cycles and trends between different currencies. Forex technical analysis can come in both long term and short term forms, from several weeks to a few hours, and can help Forex traders jump on and off positions in time to make a decent profit.