Paperback version now available!
REAL Science Blog
Friday, January 30, 2009
Catch Your Inner Fish on Paper
Paperback version now available!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A Teachable Moment in Texas
In my previous post, I pointed out that one of the amendments adopted last week by the Texas Board of Education was so egregiously nonsensical that it exposed "scientific ignorance" on the part of the Board members who voted to adopt the amendment.
Before we get too far into this, I need to pause for a moment and acknowledge the horribly unfair situation that the Board members were put in. The specific wording of the amendment in question was proposed (and presumably written) by board chairman Don McLeroy. McLeroy's proposal came after the Board had already rejected an earlier attmept to re-insert language into the standards that would require students to learn about the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. Board members were given very little time to read and understand the amendment before they were forced to cast their vote on it. Even worse, they had no opportunity to consult with scientists in the room who could have explained why the wording of the amendment is nonsensical.
Below is the exact wording of the standard that has been added to section 7 of the Biology TEKS:
"...describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."
Bear with me because I'm going to have to break this into pieces.
The first problem is that the use of the phrase "sufficiency or insufficiency" portrays the inference of common ancestry as an open question. By leaving it open, the standard engenders improper doubt about the unifying principle of modern Biology. Among scientists, the fact of common ancestry of all living and fossil species is not in doubt. Just ask Intelligent Design proponent Michael Behe.
The apparent intent of including the "sufficiency or insufficiency" phrase is to imply that common ancestry ought to be rejected as an insufficient explanation. A Biology teacher who teaches that biologists have real doubts about common ancestry would be committing educational malpractice.
The most problematic part of the standard is that it confuses a scientific inference for a scientific explanation. Scientific inferences, like the inference of common ancestry, are conclusions that are drawn from the patterns in the available evidence. Scientific explanations, like the proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change, are attempts to identify and explicate the natural causes for those patterns.
If you are sitting at the dinner table and the doorbell rings, you will likely conclude that someone must be at the door. This is because you know the same thing has happened before. Your "someone is at the door" conclusion is an inference that you have drawn from patterns in the available evidence.
The same can be said of the inference of common ancestry. Scientists who have examined the patterns in the genetic, morphological, biogeographical, embryological, and fossil evidence have come to the conclusion that all living things have descended from common ancestors. This is because scientists know that living things today come from their ancestors and that an extrapolation of this phenomenon backwards in time is consistent with the patterns seen in the available evidence. Indeed, in many cases, common ancestry is the only reasonable explanation that makes sense of biological observations.
Now, let's go back to our doorbell example. Imagine that you were asked to give a detailed explanation of exactly how the ringing of a doorbell led you to conclude that someone was at the door. Such an explanation would probably involve a discussion of the circuitry of the doorbell system and how the sound is made when a button outside the door is pushed to complete the curcuit. You would probably then describe how the sound propagates through the air in your house as a longitudinal wave until it reaches your eardrum, causing it to vibrate. Next, you might delve into the anatomy of the ear, the perception of the sound of the doorbell, and the way in which your brain functions in recognizing and identifying the meaning of that sound. After all of this, you might even mention that there are other types of doorbells that use do not use electricity to generate sound.
The proposed mechanisms of evolutionary change are like your detailed explanation of how a doorbell works. These mechanisms provide the explanation for how the patterns in the scientific evidence (those patterns indicative of common ancestry) were generated. As I mentioned in my previous post, the "sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record" can be explained using various mechanisms, including natural selection, reproductive isolation, speciation, changes in the environment, and the formation, preservation, and discovery of fossils.
And here's where we get to the really bad news for anti-evolutionists: based on our current understanding of how these evolutionary mechanisms work, scientists actually predict the "sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." That's because the formation of new species usually occurs quickly and in small, isolated populations. Therefore, scientists expect there to be less fossil evidence of species-to-species transitions. Even so, while it is certainly true that most fossil lineages exhibit relatively long periods of stasis, there are also many lineages that exhibit gradual change with clear transitional forms linking one species to another.
Ironically, despite the confusion, the standard correctly implies (albeit inadvertently) that the inference of common ancestry may be insufficient as an explanation for the patterns observed in the fossil record. That's because common ancestry is not a mechanism of evolutionary change. It is the result of the mechanisms of evolutionary change.
At this point, you might be wondering how someone like Dr. McLeroy could claim to know something about evolution and still get it so wrong. Well, I think if you scroll up to the banner at the top of this page, you'll see one possible explanation.
Or maybe this quote is more apt:
"If you can't convince them; confuse them."
-Harry S. Truman
Either way, you can hopefully now see why the current political process of determining science curriculum in this country is ultimately bad for science education.
One Final Note:
It is quite easy for those of us who understand the problem with this amendment to get angry at the perceived arrogance of those who would so blindly criticize that which they clearly do not understand. But anger will not accomplish anything.
Instead of anger, we must calmly and patiently explain why the amendment is misguided. I am confident that the teachable members of the Board will correct their mistake when the final vote occurs in March.
Here's hoping that they have the humility and willingness to accept correction.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Asking For Trouble
Here's another quote from one of the Texas Board of Education members who supported the failed attempt to re-insert "strengths and weaknesses" into the Texas science curriculum standards:
"We have had a solid standard that has worked for this state. We are not separating evolution out and teaching it differently. That's where you get into trouble."
Terri Leo is exactly right, of course. Singling out evolution for special treatment is an anti-evolution strategy that has consistently failed in the courts. Judge Jones addressed this particular strategy on page 57 of his ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Intelligent Design case.
Quoting from an earlier ruling that struck down an evolution textbook disclaimer, Jones wrote:
In singling out the one scientific theory that has historically been opposed by certain religious sects, the Board sent the message that it "believes there is some problem peculiar to evolution," and "[i]n light of the historical opposition to evolution by Christian fundamentalists and creationists[,] . . . the informed, reasonable observer would infer the School Board's problem with evolution to be that evolution does not acknowledge a creator."
Ms. Leo obviously knows that, by singling out evolution for special treatment, a Board of Education is just asking for trouble. Based on previous court decisions, such a move would have very little chance of surviving a challenge in the courtroom.
It might therefore come as a surprise to the reasonable observer that Leo and some of her fellow Board members would propose amendments to the standards that do exactly that.
But don't take my word for it. Here's how the Discovery Institute's John West described the Board's actions:
It's true that the Board narrowly rejected a motion to preserve the language in the current science standards calling for students to study the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. But that's only half of the story. Later in the afternoon, the Board amazingly passed a series of amendments to the actual science standards dealing with evolution-both for general biology, and for a new course in earth and space science. These amendments, most of which were enacted by large margins, specifically require students to "analyze and evaluate" the evidence for common ancestry, natural selection, mutation, and a variety of other planks of modern evolutionary theory.
Among the amendments that passed, one addition to the Biology TEKS is particularly egregious. Board chairman Don McLeroy proposed an amendment that would expect students to:
"describe the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record."
In the famous words of quantum physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right. It's not even wrong."
Common ancestry is an inference from the genetic, morphological, biogeographical, embryological, and fossil evidence. The "sudden appearance, stasis and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record" is explained by various processes, including natural selection, speciation, the formation, preservation, and discovery of fossils, and other natural phenomena.
I like how Tony Whitson described McLeroy's amendment on his blog:
I should think that a HS student would get full credit for stating that Common Descent is completely insufficient to explain sudden appearance, stasis and the sequential nature of the fossil record, just (exactly) as it is insufficient to explain gravity or thermodynamics.
But those insufficiencies provide no grounds for doubting common descent.
Dr. David Hillis put it this way in today's New York Times:
The amendment "makes no sense to me," said David M. Hillis, a prominent professor of biology at the University of Texas, adding, "It's a clear indication that the chairman of the state school board doesn't understand the science."
To summarize, here's the current situation concerning the science curriculum standards in Texas:
The Texas Board of Education has voted to drop language mandating that students be taught the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. However, Board members knowingly invited trouble by supporting amendments to the standards that singled out evolution for special treatment, exposing their own scientific ignorance in the process.
Thankfully, supporters of REAL science have time before the final vote in March to alert the Board of the inaccuracy of these last-ditch attempts to cast doubt on evolution.
Edited for grammar, 11:05am, 01/25
Fall Out in Texas
Here is an interesting pair of quotes from members of the Texas Board of Education who unsuccessfully opposed the removal of the "strengths and weaknesses" standard from the Texas science curriculum standards.
"This isn't about religion. I don't know how many times we have to say it before people accept it."
"This is a battle of academic freedom. This is a battle over freedom of speech. It's an issue of freedom of religion."
Apparently, Ms. Cargill, you'll have to say it at least one more time.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Creationists 1, Texas Students -10
Everything's bigger in Texas, they say, and that saying seems to encompass the mess they're having right now over the science standards.
4:23 - McLeroy wants to amend the section on biology dealing with evolution, calling into question common descent through evolution. This is a very bad amendment. Good heavens. McLeroy is a dentist, and he's trying to argue against the heart of evolution right here. He has absolutely no qualifications here.
4:32 - We're reeling here. McLeroy has launched a broadside against a core concept of evolution - common descent. This is like an army losing a battle ("strengths and weaknesses") and then launching a nuclear strike.
4:45 - Good God. It passed. Board members surely don't understand what they've done here. Certainly not all of them. Strengths and weaknesses is out, but McLeroy has succeeded in using the standards to raise doubts about a core concept of biology.
4:48 - The board has voted 9-6 to give preliminary approval to the standards.
McLeroy may also have just opened up the Texas science standards to an easy legal defeat by singling out evolution over other theories in such a blatant manner. One thing's for sure - McLeroy and his partners in crime aren't going to give in easily to the Enlightenment.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
"We Will Restore Science"
"We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do." - President Barack Obama, inaugural address, 1/20/09
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Recently, the Discovery Institute's Anika Smith had this to say about the removal of a provision that would have explicitly prohibited the teaching of Intelligent Design (and/or Creationism) in the science classrooms of Louisiana public schools:
The legally redundant provision would have gone beyond the intent of the legislation...
When I initially read Smith's post, I was left wondering: how can something be "legally redundant" and "beyond the intent of the legislation" at the same time?
Is this some kind of paradox? I daresay that, like Alice in Through the Looking-Glass, I haven't had much practice believing impossible things.
Thankfully, John Pieret of "Thoughts in a Haystack" delved in to try to sort it all out:
Huh? How's that? If the provision was "legally redundant" that would mean that banning ID is already in the guidelines. If banning ID is against the intent of the legislation, removing the "legally redundant" provision wouldn't restore the legislature's intent. Conversely, keeping the explicit (and redundant) ban couldn't go beyond the legislature's intent, unless the intent was not to ban ID at all, in which case, why isn't the DI protesting that effect of the guidelines?
It makes no sense at all ... unless the legislature's intent, happily adopted by the DI, was to keep the whole thing as fuzzy as possible, in hopes that some creationism will slip by the courts and others who have actual respect for our Constitution.
If this is the kind of "critical thinking" that one can expect from supporters of the Louisiana Science Education Act, then maybe we need to consider the possibility that they, like Humpty Dumpty, choose to make words mean different things.
"Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs, and Sea Monsters . . . Oh My!!!
Those of us of a certain, um,
Phooey on the claim that the SNL skits were parodies of the 1970's "Jaws" movies. In my Kansas-centric way, I'm convinced that the SNL writers, in their infinite wisdom, had heard of the great Cretaceous-era finds in western Kansas.
Chevy Chase as
Now, those were sharks which make Peter Benchley's creatures look about as threatening as Disney's Nemo. A monster like that would have chewed up that boat it breached, digested the humans, and used the boat splinters as toothpicks as it sauntered sneeringly through the shallows with a pack of ciggies in its rolled-up shirt sleeve.
In the Wikipedia graphic below, the green shark is a modern Great White shark and the red shark is Carcharocles megalodon:
The good news is that our next Science Cafe in Hays is coming up fast - next Tuesday, the 20th, 7pm-ish, at Cafe Semolino's as usual. The better news is that we'll be entertained this time by Mike Everhart, author of "Oceans of Kansas" and National Geographic's "Sea Monsters: Prehistoric Creatures of the Deep." Mike will open our minds to thoughts of ancient seas in this now-arid land with "Mosasaurs, Plesiosaurs, and Sea Monsters: Oh My!"
Oh my indeed. Lucky for Dorothy she only had to worry about lions, tigers and bears, 'cause if she'd met up with Carcharocles megalodon her little dog, too, would have been just big enough to qualify as a snack.
Join our Facebook group, Science Cafe Semolino's!
P.S. - Hays' Science Cafe is sponsored by Kansas Citizens for Science and the FHSU Science and Mathematics Education Institute.
edited for . . . oh, it just didn't read right.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Another Trap to Avoid
I found this tip from the new website "Teach Them Science" to be particularly helpful:
Reporters admirably try to avoid taking sides in political battles, but they often fall into a trap set by anti-evolutionists. Reporters can help by avoiding this trap and reporting fairly. It's simple:
Say alleged weaknesses, not "weaknesses."
There are two sides to this political controversy. One side says that evolution suffers "weaknesses," and the other side says that it does not, that evolution is strongly confirmed science. But reporters frequently say this: "One side wants the weaknesses taught and the other side doesn't." This is one-sided reporting, as it tells people that there are weaknesses that could be taught. Reporters should instead say, "One side alleges weaknesses with evolution and wants them taught, while the other side says the alleged weaknesses do not survive scientific scrutiny and are false."
I appreciate this tip because it correctly identifies the political basis of the controversy over teaching evolution.
Regardless of the strategy they choose to employ ("strengths and weaknesses" or "academic freedom"), anti-evolutionists are seeking a political solution to their failure to make inroads in the scientific community. REAL science is not advanced through the kind of political shenanigans we see occurring in Texas and Louisiana right now.
I think it is important to get this out in the open.
Coming Together for REAL Science
UNLESS YOU HELP
The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) will soon determine the science curriculum standards that will be in place for the next ten years. An SBOE-appointed committee of teachers and scientists has drafted new standards, which they recommended that the SBOE adopt to give students in Texas a 21st century science education.
However, nearly half of the SBOE hold worldviews that are at odds with the recommended standards. To sway children towards their worldview, they prefer that the standards teach rhetorical arguments against evolution. These false arguments have no basis in science and actually teach students to think unscientifically.
If you are a Texas resident, go here to find out how you can get involved.
Friday, January 16, 2009
155 Reasons Why Expertise Matters
Kudos to pilot Chesley B. "Sully" Sullenberger III! Because of his extensive experience as a pilot, his F4 training in the Air Force, his experience with gliders, and his work as a safety consultant, he was able to safely ditch his Airbus in the Hudson River yesterday without any loss of life among the 155 passengers and crew onboard.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
As the Trap Evolves . . .
The future of science education in Louisiana continues to ricochet between pro-science and anti-science forces.
D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
But this morning, the Associated Press reports in theadvertiser.com that a key phrase has been dropped from the guidelines:
"Religious beliefs shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking."
This phrase is entirely consistent with section 3 of the LSEA. Why was it eliminated? Could it have something to do with complaints from the chair of the Louisiana Family Forum that the earlier draft was "hostile to religion" and a "cheap shot?"
The Discovery Institute's John West isn't happy about what remains in the guidelines:
"materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science classes."
Of course West isn't happy. The Discovery Institute's new publication, Explore Evolution - I can't in good conscience refer to it as a textbook - would lose a willing and gullible market if its use is prohibited in science classes. This phrase also brings intelligent design to the same religious level as creationism as both rely on religious beliefs that "a supernatural being created humankind."
According to the Times-Picayune,
Supporters of the law are not happy either, saying that the latest draft rules gut the act and ignore the Legislature's intent. A leading policy fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle group that publishes educational materials [educational? - csa] and has advocated for the Louisiana law, called the proposed science instruction guidelines unconstitutional.
But if the Legislature's intent was to promote critical thinking and academic freedom, then why is the Discovery Institute so miffed that religious publications aren't to be used as science references?
West acknowledged the DI's work with the Louisiana Family Forum, an affiliate of James Dobson's Focus on the Family:
A Discovery Institute representative is trying to travel to Baton Rouge for today's hearing, West said. He also confirmed that his group has continued advising the Louisiana Family Forum on the law. The Baton Rouge-based organization often pushes for more religious expressions in the public sphere. The Forum's executive director, the Rev. Gene Mills, did not return a request for comment.
One wonders why West is still maintaining that religious motivations aren't behind these shenanigans.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Disarming the Trap
When it was first enacted last year, I referred to the Louisiana Science Education Act (LSEA) as a "Dover Trap." My concern with the bill was that it would embolden Louisiana public school teachers with Creationist leanings to bring religiously-based Creationist material into the classroom under the guise of "critical thinking." Such an action could ultimately make the local district the target of a costly lawsuit, similar to what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania.
"I don't think there is anything in there that is going to give very much room to anyone who wants to teach creationism or who wants to undermine evolution," Forrest said of the advisory panel's proposed guidelines.
Unsurprisingly, an ardent supporter of the LSEA is not pleased, claiming that the proposed guidelines constitute "religious hostility."
But Gene Mills, executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, said the advisory panel's recommendations were merely the first draft in the discussions.
Mills said those proposed guidelines included "religious hostility" that went beyond the intent of lawmakers and was a "cheap shot."
What could be so hostile about the language found in these guidelines?
Here's a description from an article on theadvertiser.com:
Proposed for discussion ... were requirements that any information in the supplemental material be "supported by empirical evidence."
Okay, so far there should be no problem. After all, empirical evidence is the currency of science, right?
The description continues:
The proposed language also said religious beliefs "shall not be advanced under the guise of encouraging critical thinking"
This should also pose no problem for supporters of the LSEA, given that the legislation itself states that it "shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine." Indeed, supporters of the bill went to great lengths to disavow any religious motivations when the bill was being debated.
...and that materials "that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited in science classes."
Aye, there's the rub!
Apparently, Gene Mills is unhappy with the fact that the proposed guidelines would specifically prohibit materials that advance the religious belief that humans were created by a supernatural being. Based on legal precedence, this means that the teaching of creationism and/or intelligent design is going to be prohibited.
The trap may be disarmed!
In conclusion, from my vantage point, the proposed guidelines appear to be a strict, literal interpretation of Section D of the Bill (pg. 2).
D. This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.
Clearly, this whole episode in Louisiana is an example of literalism gone awry.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Sooner in Oklahoma
Oklahoma wins the
Senate Bill 320 (document), prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a first reading on February 2, 2009, is apparently the first antievolution bill of 2009. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Once again, the legislation states that students may be evaluated on their comprehension of REAL science, not that they will be held accountable for learning science. In other words, students aren't required to understand REAL science in order to pass because of the presence of the weasel word "may:"
E. Students may be evaluated based upon their understanding of course materials, but no student in any public school or institution shall be penalized in any way because the student may subscribe to a particular position on scientific theories.
Here's a scenario dreaded by science teachers:
"For 5 points, explain the scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang theory."
Student response: "God said BANG; see Genesis."
Wouldn't the student be due full credit for this answer because (a) they're not required to understand the science and (b) they're expressing a religious viewpoint against which we must not discriminate?
The anti-evolutionists in Oklahoma aren't content to wait until the 2009-2010 school year to put this bill into effect should it pass (emphasis added):
SECTION 3. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Were you theeeere?" is Ken Ham's suggested response for students to give to teachers who are trying to teach REAL science.
I was fortunate to be invited to participate in Louisiana v. Schmidt as a scientist and expert witness by Michael L. Metzker of the Baylor College of Medicine and David M. Hillis of the University of Texas at Austin. The three of us worked together on the molecular analyses. The uncontested facts in the case are that a gastroenterologist broke into the home of his former office nurse and mistress and gave her an injection. He claimed it was a vitamin B shot. She claimed it was HIV. She had begun feeling ill several months after the injection and a blood test revealed that she had become infected with HIV, at which point she went to the district attorney's office to file charges. The DA's detectives quickly obtained a search warrant for the physician's office, where they seized his record books and a vial of blood from a refrigerator. The physician said that the blood sample, drawn from one of his HIV-positive patients, was for his own research.
The next logical step in the investigation was to perform phylogenetic analyses of the HIV lineages from the nurse and the alleged source. My collaborators and I selected two HIV genes to sequence, one relatively fast-evolving, encoding part of the viral envelope (env), the other slow, encoding a vital enzyme called reverse transcriptase (RT). We also had blood samples from about 30 other infected individuals to serve as a reference point.
Our analyses of the env gene showed the HIV sequences from the victim and the doctor's sample formed two sister clades relative to the epidemiological sample. The likelihood of two random people from the infected population having such similar viruses is extremely small. This result is consistent with the accusation that the physician used the blood sample from one of his patients to infect the nurse, but it could also be that the patient was infected with HIV from the nurse. The phylogeny inferred from the more slowly evolving RT sequences showed that viruses from the victim were younger, arising from within the clade of viruses from the alleged source. This result clearly indicated that viruses from the alleged source had infected the nurse. -David P. Mindell
No witnesses were present when Schmidt drew up that injection of HIV virus for his nurse. Still, from the evidence produced at the trial, the jury found Schmidt guilty. He is currently serving a 50-year prison sentence.
This edition of Scientific American has oodles of good evolution reading; this particular article "Putting Evolution to Use in the Everyday World" explains in more detail how we've used evolution to help in common situations.
Just because we weren't "there" doesn't mean we can't know anything about the situation.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
A Fish on Dry Land
As a spokesperson for the Discovery Institute's Center for
I like to explain the "irreducible core" using the analogy of a bicycle: A bicycle has an irreducible core that requires a frame, two wheels, a motor mechanism (like legs on pedals), and a steering mechanism (like handle-bars attached to the front wheel). A bicycle also has a seat, but obviously you can ride a bike without a seat (though it wouldn't be very fun). So, while the seat sure helps a lot, it is not part of the irreducible core of a bike. Same could be said for light deflectors, etc. So the fact that a bike has a couple dispensable parts doesn't mean that there isn't an irreducible core to a bike.
Luskin revisited his analogy in Part 2:
Bicycles have two wheels. Unicycles, having only one wheel, are missing an obvious component found on bicycles. Does this imply that you can remove one wheel from a bicycle and it will still function? Of course not. Try removing a wheel from a bike and you'll quickly see that it requires two wheels to function. The fact that a unicycle lacks certain components of a bicycle does not mean that the bicycle is therefore not irreducibly complex.
As you can probably guess, Luskin's bicycle analogy was like chum in the water for critics of ID. Carl Zimmer was the first to pick up the scent. As you can clearly see in the picture on the right, it turns out that one-wheeled bicycles can and do still function (for a better demonstration, see this movie).
Interestingly, bicycles with one wheel have been co-opted for other functions, as seen in the "Bikamper" by Topeak:
Clearly, Luskin's bicycle analogy was a total flop, but what about the rest of his arguments?
Well, Ken Miller has now responded with his own 3-part series of guest-posts on Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom.
In Part 1, Miller responded directly to Luskin's "smoke and mirrors" charge:
I wasn't blowing any "smoke" when I characterized Behe's views as pertaining to the entire clotting pathway in both books. What I was actually doing, unlike Luskin, was taking Behe's claims in their totality. Behe really did argue that the whole system is irreducibly complex, and that it would be impossible for evolution to add so much as a single step to it. That's why I testified to the effect those missing clotting factors in the pufferfish were a fatal blow to Behe's argument.
With Part 2, Miller demonstrated that Luskin does not even understand the basic logic of the irreducible complexity argument:
Like just about everything that comes out of the Discovery Institute, Luskin's idea of evidence isn't intended to advance scientific understanding - it's only designed to score debating points. Unfortunately, it doesn't do that, either. What Mr. Luskin clearly does not understand is that irreducible complexity is really an argument about how a system came to be, not whether it contains dispensable parts.
Part 3 of the series
Casey Luskin is formally trained as a lawyer, and it obvious that he is capable of constructing detailed arguments. However, when it comes to discussions of biological evolution, he has consistently revealed himself to be a fish out of water. His arguments keep getting filleted, gutted, scaled, skinned, and de-boned by supporters of REAL science.
To me, Luskin's efforts to argue against evolution resemble a fish that is stranded on dry land, gasping for air as it frantically flops in pursuit of an elusive puddle. Unfortunately for Luskin, the available puddles seem to be quickly drying up. And yet, this stranded fish continues to flop.
I guess Casey's lucky that Seattle gets a lot of rain.
How REAL Science Works
The University of California Museum of Paleontology has done it again. First, they brought you Understanding Evolution, your one-stop source for information on evolution.
Nature's Darwin 200 Special
February 12, 2009 is the 200th anniversary of the birth of one of the most influential scientists of modern times, Charles Robert Darwin.
What is REAL science?
The thoughts and opinions expressed on this blog are solely our own. They do not necessarily represent the views of our employers or any other organization with which we are affiliated.
One of the goals of this website is to foster constructive dialogue concerning science and science education. Comments not in line with this goal may be deleted.