The intertubes are all a-twitter (is Twitter a-twitter?) with the video of what appeared to be a missile launch off the coast of Los Angeles yesterday. It did look pretty weird, but the evidence is mounting that this was not any kind of missile launch, but in fact just the contrails of flight AWE808 from Hawaii to Phoenix. You can read a bunch of terrific evidence at the link below:
Category Archives: Bad Science
Intelligent Design the Future: Heddle on Sagan: Billions and Billions of Errors
Today’s rant on the subject of Intelligent Design is going to be a little difficult to follow, so try to stick with me. Today, on the blog, Intelligent Design the Future, Jonathan Witt reports on “physicist” David Heddle’s critique of the late astronomer Carl Sagan. Actually, you can’t really call it a critique: it’s basically the assertion that Carl Sagan was never right about anything. Heddle comments:
Recent astronomical data have again demonstrated that few scientists have simultaneously achieved such widespread acclaim while consistently being wrong as the late Carl Sagan.
In the area of popular science, I don’t know much that he wrote or said that was correct.
The problem (aside from its obvious vagueness) is the part that we don’t know: how much of Sagan’s writings on popular science has Sagan Heddle actually read?
Heddle’s vita (updated at Heddle’s request) suggests that for the last fifteen years at least, his publications have all been in the field of scientific software, not the most illustrious physics resume you might actually find. shows him to be a collaborator on a large number of papers on particle physics. You can check out some of Sagan’s achievements via his wikipedia entry, and decide for yourself who might be best qualified to speak for the world of exobiology in astronomy.
The one criticism that Heddle makes against Sagan is:
Sagan was wrong, wrong, wrong. The earth is in a privileged location (not just for life as we know it, but for any kind of complex life imaginable), as discussed quite convincingly by Gonzalez and Richards in the Privileged Planet.
But there is the problem: The Privileged Planet isn’t convincing in the least. Their reasoning is basically that the earth occupies a fairly uncommon part of the galaxy, a part which happens to be reasonably quiet astronomically. No recent supernovas. Relatively few life extinguishing collisions. Not too close to the radiation centers at the galactic core. Isn’t it amazing, that we find ourselves in such a friendly place?
Does everyone spot the problem with this argument?
If you win the lottery, people might interview you and ask what is it about you that enabled you to win. You might think that you deserved it, or that “God told you to pick the numbers”, or that your lucky rabbits foot enabled you to win. But if you didn’t win, nobody would be around to ask the question, because nobody cares what all the losers did. Similarly, it is not at all surprising that we find ourselves orbiting a particularly boring star in the most boring part of the galaxy. If we didn’t, we would have been exterminated a long time ago, and wouldn’t have the metabolism necessary to ask the question. We didn’t evolve around a random star: we evolved around a star where life could evolve. Therefore, it really isn’t evidence of anything when we find that these places are uncommon.
You’d think this would be relatively easy to figure out.
Oh, and incidently, if you’d like to claim that intelligent design and religion are completely different, surf on over to Heddle’s personal blog and read what things he feels strongly enough to post about, and then see if you can maintain a straight face.
[tags]Intelligent Design,Sagan,Jonathan Witt,David Heddle[/tags]
Another Blog on Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design
I don’t know why Wesley Elberry’s weblog hasn’t gotten onto my reading list before, but today I found an interesting article detailing how ID luminary William Dembski decided to call the Department of Homeland Security on a scientists solely on the basis of the rather curious assertion of Forrest Mimms (yeah, the guy who wrote all those Radio Books) that the scientist was telling fellow scientists to create airborn strains of Ebola to wipe out 90% of the world’s population. It’s just too bizarre for words (at least mine), so go ahead and read the who deal below:
The Austringer » Now in the “Do As We Say, Not As We Do†Dept.
[tags]Evolution,Intelligent Design,Dembski,Mimms[/tags]
Typical Objections to Intelligent Design by Bob Murphy
As part of my usual scuffling around, reading about intelligent design, I ran across this article:
Typical Objections to Intelligent Design by Bob Murphy
which appears to be a sincere attempt by someone who doesn’t follow the issue of intelligent design very closely to make some sense out of the recent hullabaloo regarding it. He begins by stating:
However, I do think I’m pretty good at analyzing arguments, and – as I’ve said before on this site – the more I look into this stuff, folks, the more I think that the ID people are on to something, while the proponents of Darwinian evolution are missing the point. In the present article, I want to quickly discuss several typical objections to ID.
The first primary objection is that scientists have accused Behe of being ignorant and/or deceitful. Murphy cites Behe’s own statement of his curriculum vitae in order to show that he shouldn’t be labelled as ignorant. On the face of it, I think that Murphy is right: Behe should not be assumed to be ignorant solely because of his stand on Intelligent Design. We should look at what his qualifications are in the field in which he is engaged and his publications and statements to decide whether he is qualified or not. Certainly, he has a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania in biochemistry. He certainly has published, he was tenured, he gets research money. All good signs that he’s qualified.
But if you look closer to the statements that Behe is responding to, people are making very specific accusations: that Behe made a claim that he knew of no papers which tried to illustrate evolutionary pathways for irreducibly complex systems, and in this, Behe showed that he really didn’t do his homework (despite his protestations to the contrary). For example, Behe made the claim that there were only two papers that “even attempt to suggest a model for the evolution of the cillium”. But David Ussery did a quick search on PubMed (a standard database of relevent publications) and located 107 at the time he did the search (188 showed up just now when I did it). From:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/Behe.html
A quick PubMed search (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/, (all the PubMed searches were done in July, 1998 – here I just typed in “cilia” and “evolution”), revealed 107 articles, many of which discuss exactly the types of mechanisms Behe claims are missing from the literature. The interested reader with web access is certainly encouraged to try this little experiment for themselves – how many articles can you find about the evolution of flagella? According to Darwin’s Black Box, “Even though we are told that all biology must be seen through the lens of evolution, no scientist has ever published a model to account for the gradual evolution of this extraordinary molecular machine.” (page 72, emphasis his) I found 125 articles, several of which DO discuss and give models for gradual evolution of flagella, with titles such as “The flagella apparatus of spermatozoa in fish. Ultrastructure and evolution”. So my point in all of this is that Behe hasn’t done his homework.
It’s usually in this kind of context that strong criticism of Behe’s competency and honesty are put into question. Â He does respond usually that such papers aren’t significantly detailed, but that amounts to hair splitting, and is different than saying that such papers don’t exist at all, which was his argument in the first place. Â When someone tries to shift the aim of an argument, that amounts to deceit.
Murphy goes on to Behe’s admission that ID that under his definition of science, astrology would also be classified as a science, as if that admission where somehow proof that Behe was honest.  I would merely suggest that when one is part of a court proceeding and sworn in as a witness, there are very serious legal consequences to lying to the court. It was not laudible for Behe to tell the court the truth in this case: it was required by law.
Regarding peer reviewed publications, Murphy again leaps to Behe’s defense.  It’s simply a fact that intelligent design papers aren’t published in scientific journals.  There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that this is in part because ID theorists don’t actually submit articles to scientific journals for review and publication.  Science journals are (by and large) not particularly scared of publishing scientific work which may not pan out, which might be speculative, which could be wrong. This is because science publication is a conversation amongst the world’s scientists, and the ability to think and speak freely are good.  But it’s also true that such publications have review processes, and they are unlikely to publish things which are of dubious value or are by their very nature unscientific.  In other words, scientific publications do have a bias: it’s a bias against crap. ID loses on two fronts here: scientists like Behe are for the most part not submitting such papers for publication, and when they are submitted, they are recognized for being incredibly unscientific in their methodology and conclusion.
Murphy goes on to address the issue of Intelligent Design being unscientific.  It is.  As a counterargument, he quotes William Dembski as saying that Intelligent Design might be useful in determining if a disease outbreak was the result of bioterrorism or a naturally occuring mutation. Of course, Dembski doesn’t actually have any idea how to do that: he’s just riding the bandwagon of anti-terrorism hysteria in some attempt to make his work appear relevent.  I’d also add that forensics, which nominally tries to reconstruct what actions were performed by intelligent agents, gets all its leverage from actual observations of the intelligent designers.  When we see a bullet-ridden corpse lying in an alley, we don’t consider that Wesson, the American God of Bullets suddenly appeared and shot him full of holes, we consider the motives, means and opportunity that known intelligent beings had. Since ID works so consistently to avoid determining any properties of their ID, they really can’t pretend they are very good at this forensics game.
Murphy then addresses the issue that critics call Intelligent Design an Argument from Ignorance. Well, it is.  Behe says that since he can’t imagine a probable pathway that leads to the blood clotting cascade or the bacterial flagellum, that the most reasonable conclusion is that some unnamed designer, about which he can tell you nothing, is the most likely alternative.  Does that seem sensible to anyone?
The last argument he addresses is that Intelligent Design is simply Christianity in disguise. Well, it is. The testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover was pretty conclusive, and witness the response.  The outrage of Christian group after Christian group. Where are the scientists arguing that it was a bad decision? Where are the atheists?
In the end, Murphy misses the real point.  The real point is that there is no scientific controversy: ID began and remains a political and social issue. ID theorists want to adopt the mantle of science without doing the work. They want the respectability that science has in the modern world, but they aren’t going to earn it.  Scientists and people of good conscience simply aren’t going to stand by and let that happen.
Addendum: One last thing regarding Behe. Â His own department at the University of Lehigh has this to say:
http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
The faculty in the Department of Biological Sciences is committed to the highest standards of scientific integrity and academic function. This commitment carries with it unwavering support for academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas. It also demands the utmost respect for the scientific method, integrity in the conduct of research, and recognition that the validity of any scientific model comes only as a result of rational hypothesis testing, sound experimentation, and findings that can be replicated by others.
The department faculty, then, are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory, which has its roots in the seminal work of Charles Darwin and has been supported by findings accumulated over 140 years. The sole dissenter from this position, Prof. Michael Behe, is a well-known proponent of “intelligent design.” While we respect Prof. Behe’s right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.
This comes from the people that sign his checks.
[tags]Behe,Intelligent Design, Bob Murphy,Evolution[/tags]
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover School District
The 137 page decision in the Kitzmiller case in Dover Pennsylvania has been handed down:
Kitzmiller Decision: Plaintiffs Prevail
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
Read the entire decision.
Phil Plait v. Bart Sibrel
Some of you may remember hearing the story about Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin punching some lunatic who was trying to badger him into swearing on the Bible that he really did land on the moon. That was Bart Sibrel, and he’s gonna be on the radio today to sell his brand of bullflop on 97.1 FM St. Louis. Luckily for all, Bad Astronomy astronomer and blogger Phil Plait has also agreed to be on the show. It will be at 5:00 PM Central time Monday, Dec 12th, and can be heard via their streaming website. I’ll be tuned in!
Update: Sigh. Their website requires IE, so I guess I won’t be tuned in. Bummer.
I’m converting to Pastafarianism
Anyone who looks to Kent Hovind as the intellectual juggernaut of Creationism is obviously about as smart as a bag of hammers. I mean really, be serious. Even that bastion of creationist confusion, Answers in Genesis has noted that many of Hovind’s arguments are simply untenable.
Oh, and incidently, Kent Hovind doesn’t believe in Intelligent Design either, at least the kind that the The Discovery Institute is trying to claim is scientific (albeit with a wink and a nod).
I can appreciate sarcasm…
If you can as well, try checking out this Open Letter to the Kansas school board who is struggling with the idea of teaching so-called “Intelligent Design Theory” in their science classes.
I am writing you with much concern after I read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design to be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design..
Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
Heh.
Gutenberg Gem: Occult Chemistry, by Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater
Okay, okay, it’s not really a gem, except in the sense that it’s interesting to read an early example of utter and complete mumbo jumbo. Occult Chemistry, by Annie Besant and Charles W. Leadbeater is an extensive, detailed, and complete description of chemistry as revealed to the authors through clairvoyance. Published in 1919, the exact nature of elements was still fairly new: Rutherford had proposed his planetary model of the atom in 1911. Still, this had to have been considered craziness of the highest order, even in 1919.
A quote, just to give the flavor:
I remember the occasion vividly. Mr. Leadbeater was then staying at my house, and his clairvoyant faculties were frequently exercised for the benefit of myself, my wife and the theosophical friends around us. I had discovered that these faculties, exercised in the appropriate direction, were ultra-microscopic in their power. It occurred to me once to ask Mr. Leadbeater if he thought he could actually see a molecule of physical matter. He was quite willing to try, and I suggested a molecule of gold as one which he might try to observe. He made the appropriate effort, and emerged from it saying the molecule in question was far too elaborate a structure to be described. It evidently consisted of an enormous number of some smaller atoms, quite too many to count; quite too complicated in their arrangement to be comprehended. It struck me at once that this might be due to the fact that gold was a heavy metal of high atomic weight, and that observation might be more successful if directed to a body of low atomic weight, so I suggested an atom of hydrogen as possibly more manageable. Mr. Leadbeater accepted the suggestion and tried again. This time he found the atom of hydrogen to be far simpler than the other, so that the minor atoms constituting the hydrogen atom were countable. They were arranged on a definite plan, which will be rendered intelligible by diagrams later on, and were eighteen in number.
Ministry uses dinosaurs to dispute evolution
Quote of the day:
Ministry uses dinosaurs to dispute evolution
“I consider Ken Ham the most informed creationist in America.”
Jerry Falwell
The very definition of damning with faint praise.
Science & Technology at Scientific American.com: Okay, We Give Up
I’ll admit it: I love to argue about evolution and creationism. Actually, it’s not so much an argument, as no real rational argument in favor of creationism can be made. It’s really more of a desire to hitch creationism to the bumper of my car, and drag it through the mud. Call it a personal failing if you like.
This explains why I find Scientific American’s April editorial amusing; perhaps more amusing than any of you will find it.
In retrospect, this mag-azine’s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.
Heh. Sarcasm. Have to love it.
MSNBC – Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers
MSNBC – Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers
A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution “a theory, not a fact,” saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The complete decision is here. The Judge claimed that the stickers failed the second and third parts of the so-called “Lemon Test”: in particular that’s primary purpose was to advance religion and that it created excessive entanglements between government and religion. Worth reading.
If you need some more stickers, print ’em up for yourself.
White Noise
I haven’t done a movie review in quite some time, but I did manage to get out with my better half to see White Noise, starring actors Michael Keaton, Chandra West, Debra Unger and Ian McNiece.
The film begins with the tragic death of author Anna Rivers under mysterious circumstances. Her husband, Jonathan Rivers, is distraught, but begins to receive strange phone calls from his dead wife’s cell phone. He then meets Raymond Price, a self-made psychic investigator who uses EVP, or electronic voice phenomena, to contact the dead. Rivers becomes obsessed with trying to contact Anna and to resolve the situation surrounding her death.
The problem is that it isn’t always safe to talk to the dead.
To give much more of the plot would probably give away too much, but I’ll just say this: while the performances were credible, I really didn’t find the movie that scary, nor did I find the use of EVP to be in anyway critical or central to the story. It could have just been a conventional ghost story, and it would have been just as effective. I give the movie about a C+: no nightmares or glancing over my shoulder as I exit into the dark parking lot.
By the way, EVP is something that some people take very seriously, including concerns about its safety, although they note:
We believe that working with EVP and ITC is fundamentally safe. It is difficult to find a single example in which an individual has been harmed because of their communication across the veil. Yes, people have occasionally been “bothered.” It is known that the time we spend carefully listening too hard to hear EVP examples seems to enhance our clairvoyant and clairaudient senses. To many people, this is exciting and something they want. To others, it can be disturbing. This enhanced sensing has been reported to fade if one takes a break from EVP or other development work.
Indeed.
Woo-Woo!
If you’d like to adopt a new quack persona on the Internet, you could always
look at How to be an Internet Woo-Woo.
Nobody acts this way except as a joke, right?
Parody or not?
There is a saying on USENET: any sufficiently advanced parody is indistinguishable from real stupidity. (You could try looking at
Korpela’s Laws of USENET for items in a similar vein.)
It’s this basic idea that gives us the (not always so obvious)
parody Landover Baptist Church.
Or you could read about a brave paleontologist who uncovered the fossil remains of a human being eaten by an Allosaurus (see this page for the explanation). But sometimes you uncover stuff that’s
every bit as absurd, and yet seems to be entirely for real, like
OBJECTIVE: Creation Education: Creation Science Fair 2001
Sweet spirit of Cthulhu preserve us…