"You Cannot Trust Reasons to Believe"

At least that's what Todd Wood thinks.

In a series of detailed posts, Todd does an excellent job of taking apart a series of posts and responses by Dr Fuzale Rana of Reasons to Believe (a christian group that "bridges the gap between science and faith by exploring questions about God and the Bible". They have no problem with an ancient Earth, but evolution is apparently another matter) on the similarity between the human and chimp genome (or not, in the case of Reasons to Believe) and moves on to pseudogenes, thus:

"In his latest post, Rana asserts the following about the argument for common ancestry from pseudogenes:

When evolutionary biologists present this argument, they make a number of assumptions, all of which appear to have questionable validity based on recent research results. For the pseudogene evidence to have potency: (1) pseudogenes must lack function; (2) their origin must be due to rare, random events; and (3) their juxtaposition to other genes must be arbitrary.

Everything he wrote there is utterly false. None of those conditions are required to argue for common ancestry from pseudogene similarity. Not one."

Ouch!

Well, you may say, 'showing up the mangling of science by those seeking to support their religious views, is not unusual".

True. But Todd happens to be a young earth creationist.

Double ouch!

Here is post one, from there move on to "Newer Post" and read them in sequence. Post four is at the bottom of the front page of Todd's blog. You can work your way up.

It's well worth the read.

Creationists Lose Again

In 2005 the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) sued the University of California who had decided that their school qualifications were unsuitable as entry qualifications. This was due in part, to the use of creationist-leaning biology textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books (including Biology: God's Living Creation and and Biology for Christian Schools.

Michael Behe was an expert witness for the ACSI, with Donald Kennedy and Francisco J. Ayala expert witnesses for UC.

The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the ACSI appealed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the University of California's policy was constitutional.

Money quote

"The plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing any risk that UC's policy will lead to the suppression of speech. ... the plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that this policy is discriminatory in any way. ... The district court correctly determined that UC's rejections of the Calvary [Baptist School] courses [including a biology class that used Biology: God's Living Creation] were reasonable and did not constitute viewpoint discrimination. ... The plaintiffs assert a myriad of legal arguments attacking the district court's decision, all of which lack merit."

So no change there then.

Another victory against creationism, but as Larry Moran keeps saying, the fact that these battles are being undertaken in court is a failure, despite the fact that we keep winning.

Also this is the second time Michael Behe has been an expert witness for the loosing side.

More on this from the NCSE

Anti-Science Science Minister?

The recent statements by the Canadian Minister for Science have left the impression that he does not understand evolution and he does not accept evolution. The reason? When asked about whether he believed in evolution, he refused to answer saying that is was a religious question.

Actually, I have to say that, in part, he is right. I do not believe in evolution. I accept evolution is one of strongest scientific theories we have, because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that supports it, from a myriad of scientific disciplines. I do not believe in evolution. Belief is a religious question.

However, the Minister clearly wasn't talking about that when, in his response, he conflated evolution and religion. That, frankly, is a creationist response. His subsequent clarification also showed that he doesn't understand evolution.

As a consequence, he has been tagged, with justification, as anti-science.

So? After all, there is no requirement that the Minister for Science has to be a scientist, or accept one of the fundamental basics of modern science?

Well, having a science minister who doesn't accept one of the fundamental basics of modern science, is like having a health minister who doesn't accept that HIV causes Aids. Wait a miniute, we've had one of those in South Africa.

How did that turn out?

Umm, not well.

Addicted to Adduction

The inability of creationists to deal honestly with scientific evidence is legendary, especially when it comes to human evolution. Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Science are the standard bearers of disingenuity.

Jim Foley has a post up at the Panda's Thumb about the latest creationist effort, this time concerning the recent find of 1.5 million year old fossil footprints from Illeret, Keyna.

One thing caught my attention was a neat story concerning the hallux, or big toe.

Discussing the different characteristics of modern, Illeret and Laetoli footprints (and hence exposing the claims by creationists that they are all the same, and so human), Jim mentions the hallux and abduction. Abduction of the hallux can be explained as the 'movement' of the hallux away from the line of the foot.

Compare your left hand and foot. Draw an imaginary line through the length of the foot. The hallux is set slightly off that line (taking in to account changes to the big toe caused by a lifetime of wearing shoes). Now, compare that the your left hand. The thumb is at a much greater angle to a line along the length of the hand. The thumb is abducted to a much greater extent that the hallux.

The foot of our distant ancestors would have had been more like our hand in terms of the position of the hallux - for prehensile reasons. But as our ancestors moved to be primarily ground dwellers and upright bipedalists, the shape of the foot evolved. The big toe adducted (moved closer the the line of the foot - the opposite of abducted) and the footprints at Illeret and Laetoli show this rather neatly.

The angle of abduction in modern humans is around 8 degrees (see figure showing abduction angle for the left foot). The angle of abduction of the Laetoli prints (at 3.7 mya) is 27 degrees. The angle of abduction for the Illeret prints (at 1.5 mya) falls neatly in between these two values at 14 degrees.

Now, what is another name for something that falls somewhere between two conditions? . . . Umm . . . Oh yeah, . . . intermediary.

New Scientist - Again

The latest round in the New Scientist cover 'story' is the editorial by New Scientist. PZ Myers thinks it goes some way to defuse the situation, which surprises me, because I don't think it does.

Here's the disclaimer editorial in full (it can be found here)

"THERE is nothing new to be discovered in physics." So said Lord Kelvin in 1900, shortly before the intellectual firestorm ignited by relativity and quantum mechanics proved him comprehensively wrong.

If anyone now thinks that biology is sorted, they are going to be proved wrong too. The more that genomics, bioinformatics and many other newer disciplines reveal about life, the more obvious it becomes that our present understanding is not up to the job. We now gaze on a biological world of mind-boggling complexity that exposes the shortcomings of familiar, tidy concepts such as species, gene and organism.

A particularly pertinent example is provided in this week's cover story - the uprooting of the tree of life which Darwin used as an organising principle and which has been a central tenet of biology ever since (see "Axing Darwin's tree"). Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable. Other important bits of biology - notably development, ageing and sex - are similarly turning out to be much more involved than we ever imagined. As evolutionary biologist Michael Rose at the University of California, Irvine, told us: "The complexity of biology is comparable to quantum mechanics."

Biology has been here before. Although Darwin himself, with the help of Alfred Russel Wallace, triggered a revolution in the mid-1800s, there was a second revolution in the 1930s and 1940s when Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, Sewall Wright and others incorporated Mendelian genetics and placed evolution on a firm mathematical foundation.

As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not.

Nor will the new work do anything to diminish the standing of Darwin himself. When it came to gravitation and the laws of motion, Isaac Newton didn't see the whole picture either, but he remains one of science's giants. In the same way, Darwin's ideas will prove influential for decades to come.

So here's to the impending revolution in biology. Come Darwin's 300th anniversary there will be even more to celebrate."

This indicates that New Scientist knew exactly what damage the cover could do, but instead of stopping the damage, went after the money, and used the editorial to cover their backsides when the inevitable excrement hit the spinning blades.

This editorial is simply New Scientist saying, "Don't call us a goose just because we laid a golden egg for creationists. Look at the pretty words."

But it even fails that, for two reasons.

1) Creationists are not going to read the editorial. The people in the audience when the cover is shown, will not read the editorial. The school boards to whom the cover will be shown as evidence that evolution is wrong, will not read the editorial.

PZ thinks that this paragraph may work:

"As we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth, we await a third revolution that will see biology changed and strengthened. None of this should give succour to creationists, whose blinkered universe is doubtless already buzzing with the news that "New Scientist has announced Darwin was wrong". Expect to find excerpts ripped out of context and presented as evidence that biologists are deserting the theory of evolution en masse. They are not."

Somehow I don't think a creationist presenter will wait politely while someone interrupts the presentation to read out these 72 words. 72 words. Against 1 picture.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, 72 doesn't quite seen enough, does it.

2) The editorial hands some more golden eggs to IDiots!

Lets see how an IDiot would read this:

"If anyone now thinks that biology is sorted, they are going to be proved wrong too. The more that genomics, bioinformatics and many other newer disciplines reveal about life, the more obvious it becomes that our present understanding is not up to the job. We now gaze on a biological world of mind-boggling complexity that exposes the shortcomings of familiar, tidy concepts such as species, gene and organism."

A particularly pertinent example is provided in this week's cover story - the uprooting of the tree of life which Darwin used as an organising principle and which has been a central tenet of biology ever since (see "Axing Darwin's tree"). Most biologists now accept that the tree is not a fact of nature - it is something we impose on nature in an attempt to make the task of understanding it more tractable. Other important bits of biology - notably development, ageing and sex - are similarly turning out to be much more involved than we ever imagined. As evolutionary biologist Michael Rose at the University of California, Irvine, told us: "The complexity of biology is comparable to quantum mechanics."

"See", they'll say,"New Scientist agrees that life is too complex for Darwinism to explain. It must have been designed."

New Scientist, you're a goose!

New Scientist - creationist shills

I’ve refrained from commenting on the woeful New Scientist cover because I was so angry, and you shouldn’t post stuff when you are angry.

It’s been a few days, but I’m still angry, and comments by the New Scientist staff in a number of blogs, here, here and here, haven’t made things any better.

It’s clear from the comments that the intent of the cover was to sensationalise the story and sell copies, and that the ways in which the cover could be used against evolution were understood, but they didn’t care.

Good people are fighting long and hard to protect science education from the very real threat of creationist ignorance, and New Scientist hands the creationists a propaganda goldmine (as false as the cover is) that requires no misquoting or taking out of context.

The mealy-mouthed distancing from the cover in the editorial and article not only shows that New Scientist knew exactly what they were doing and how the cover could be used, but is also worthless, as the creationists will not read the editorial or the article, and the school boards, that the creationists will use this cover to attack the teaching of evolution with, will not read the editorial or the article.

So good luck with the new sales tactic of flogging your product on street corners with the hack rags, using their tactics, but I will not be buying New Scientist again. I prefer my science reporting with more journalistic integrity that New Scientist can muster.

But hey, there is a potential revenue stream from this. New Scientist could chase all the creationists that will be using this cover in presentations attacking evolution, and invoke copyright. I don’t know how much that’ll bring in, maybe as much as 30 pieces of silver.

Don’t buy New Scientist. Don’t support those that provide support for creationists.
Support those that are fighting to ensure the integrity of science education. Support the National Center for Science Education.

Ignorance attacks atheist bus sign

And now, in the "I don't think they've thought this through" catagory . . .

A really sad Christian group in the UK, Christian Voice, has complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about the atheist signs on buses in London that say "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

The grounds? the signs break the ASA's rules on substantiation and truthfulness!

The ASA's code states "marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims". The regulator said it would assess the complaint and decide whether to contact the advertiser.

There relevent portion of the code is:

marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims.

The regulator is said to it be assessing the complaint and decide whether to contact the advertiser.

A spokesperson for Christian Voice (identity here concealed to protect the stupid) said,

There is plenty of evidence for God, from people's personal experience, to the complexity, interdependence, beauty and design of the natural world.

"But there is scant evidence on the other side, so I think the advertisers are really going to struggle to show their claim is not an exaggeration or inaccurate, as the ASA code puts it..

The British Humanist Association is not worried. Hanne Stinson the chief executive, said: "I am sure that Stephen Green really does think there is a great deal of evidence for a God (though presumably only the one that he believes in), but I pity the ASA if they are going to be expected to rule on the probability of God's existence."

I just have one word:

Countersue!

More from the BBC website.

Told ya so!

And for my next trick, this weeks lottery numbers will be . . . .

Last year (well all right, December 31 2008), I blogged about how certain phrases in science papers could have been better constructed to avoid misrepresentation and quote mining by creationists.

The example I used was:

The size increases appear to have occurred when ambient oxygen concentrations reached sufficient concentrations for clades to realize pre-existing evolutionary potential, highlighting the long-term dependence of macroevolutionary patterns on both biological potential and environmental opportunity. (emphasis added)

From Payne, J. L. et al. (2009) Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(1): 24-27.

Today, PZ Myers had blogged that the creationists are using this exact quote to support their discredited views.

Told ya! And yes, I'm looking at you Eamon Knight! :-)

Trouble in paradise

As some of you may know, Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis in Kentucky has been in litigation with Creation Ministries International (CMI) – the old “Answers in Genesis” in Australia (AiG in Australia was forced to change it’s name over this).

It’s been fun to watch this unfold since 2005, and some interesting documentation has been produced. I will not go into details as information can be found here and here.

The latest salvo was that Answers in Genesis in Kentucky wanted CMI to attend and be bound by “Christian Arbitration” with American-based, Peacemaker Ministries. CMI objected to arbitration in general, saying that many of the issues are to resolved under Australian law, and to Peacemaker Ministries in particular. The judge has ruled that arbitration should take place (a loss for CMI), but that it take place under the American Arbitration Association (a loss for AiG).

That’s where it sits at the moment.

A list of documents relating to the litigation can be found here and it provides some interesting reading.

For example, you’d think this is all about the freedom to operate to spread the word of G-d, right? Well according the attorney for AiG in Kentucky, one of the reasons for a rapid conclusion to the case is:

. . my client is prohibited or impeded from using its name in conjunction with its ministry or any of its materials in any of these English-speaking countries outside of the United States and the U.K. We have a big market presence, have a lot of supporters, and customers, in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

We can't do business in these countries pending the cloud on this title.

And

CMI aggressively goes after churches, ministries, distributors, and retailers that sell anything that have anything to do with my client in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand It hurts my client's business. (p.27)

So there you go, it’s all about the money.

Want more?

One of the documents lists an application by AiG to register Answers in Genesis as a trade mark in Canada.

Hang on. Didn’t their attorney say that, my client is prohibited or impeded from using its name in conjunction with its ministry or any of its materials in any of these English-speaking countries outside of the United States and the U.K.? Hmmm.

Anyhow, Answers in Genesis International which appears to opperate out of the same building in Queensland as CMI), has objected and had introduced an application of it’s own to register Answers in Genesis as a trade mark in Canada.

This is part of what Answers in Genesis in Kentucky want their trade mark to cover:

WARES:
Pre-recorded video discs containing movies, seminars and lectures in the field of creation science; video game cartridges and software; sunglasses; interactive multimedia computer game program, educational software featuring instruction on material related to creation science; pre-recorded DVDs containing movies, seminars and lectures in the field of creation science; computer screen saver software; pre-recorded compact discs containing music, seminars and lectures in the field of creation science; children's educational software featuring material related to creation science; decorative refrigerator magnets; magnets; wall calendars; trivia cards; trading cards; tracing paper; paper towels; three-ring binders; story books; stories in illustrated form, namely illustrated books in the field of Biblical apologetics; stamp pads and inks; stationery boxes, folders, writing paper, envelopes and stationery-type portfolios; sketch books, pads, and sketches; scrapbooks, albums and pages; religious books; prayer books; pocket calendars; playing cards and cases; pictures; picture books; pens; pencils; paper name badges; paper napkins, paper note tablets; paper party bags; paper plates; paper display boxes, flags, empty gift bags, gift wrap bows, gift wrapping ribbons; identification tags; painting sets for children; paintings, pamphlets; note books; note cards; note pads; notebook paper; notebook dividers; posters; markers; marking pens; lunch bags; letter openers; ink pens; greeting cards; gift cards, gift wrapping paper; fountain pens; flash cards; felt tip markers, pens; engraving plates; engravings; embroidery design patterns; desk calendars; comic books, comic strips; comic strips' comic features in the field of Biblical apologetics; coloring books; children's activity books; children's books; children's story books cartoon prints; cartoon strips; calendar desk pads; calendars; bumper stickers; bookmarks; baby books; ball point pens; arts and craft paint kits; art pictures; art prints; architectural models; squeeze bottles sold empty, glass mugs, drinking glasses, cups, coffee cups, lunch pails, lunch boxes; bath towels, pillow cases, covers, and shams, handkerchiefs, bed sheets, bed spreads; trousers; t-shirts; ties, sweat shirts; sweat pants; sweat bands; sweat shorts; sweat suits; sweaters; swim wear; swim suits; sport shirts; sleep shirts; sleepwear; slippers; scarves; rain boots, clothing, namely, coats, jackets, suits, and rainwear; polo shirts; ponchos; neckwear, namely, neckties, neckerchiefs; knit shirts; hats; gym shorts; gym suits; clothing caps; prerecorded audio cassettes, tapes, video cassettes, and video tapes featuring material related to creation science; children's video tapes featuring material related to creation science; audio cassettes, audio digital tapes, audio compact discs and audio tapes featuring music, seminars and lectures in the field of creation science; printed lectures and seminar notes; printed teaching books and pamphlets and teaching activity guides featuring material related to creation science; newsletters featuring material related to creation science; magazines featuring material related to creation science; educational books featuring material related to creation science; publications, namely training manuals in the field of material related to creation science; brochures featuring material related to creation science; books featuring material related to creation science.

Rain boots!? Rainwear!? Do AiG know something they’re not telling us? There’s not another flood due is there?

Pedantic pedantry 1

OK, This is going to be an occasional series where I highlight where certain phrases or statements in the current science literature could have been . . . um . . . better thought through? Yes, better though through. Because as written, provides inadvertent fodder for the creationists/IDiots to quote mine.

Having some considerable experience with the various forms of creationism from Young Earth to ID, a common thread through most creationist claims is the misrepresentation of the scientific literature by taking short piece out of context or a single phrase or sentence to support their claims, when the piece as a whole clearly doesn’t. The creationist quote mine has been documented many times, and to be fair to creationists, is also employed by both AIDS deniers, and climate change deniers.

In order to starve the quote miners, authors need to be very careful in their phraseology. And so here is my contribution (every little helps, but this is also a case of those who can, write, those who can’t, contribute)

PP1 comes from:
Payne, J. L. et al. (2009) Two-phase increase in the maximum size of life over 3.5 billion years reflects biological innovation and environmental opportunity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(1): 24-27.

The paper discusses an increase in body volume of 16 orders of magnitude for living organisms over the last 3.5 billion years, with two pronounced jumps of approx. 6 orders of magnitude 1.9 billion years ago and between 600-450 million years ago hence my interest). It is claimed that these two jumps are related to increases in the ambient oxygen concentration.

The statement under consideration here is the concluding sentence of the conclusion:

The size increases appear to have occurred when ambient oxygen concentrations reached sufficient concentrations for clades to realize pre-existing evolutionary potential, highlighting the long-term dependence of macroevolutionary patterns on both biological potential and environmental opportunity.

*polite cough* (See – I’m being polite)

The problem here is the phrase pre-existing evolutionary potential.

I’m going to assume here that the authors (all 13 of ‘em) didn’t mean to imply that evolution pump-primed organisms with abilities and then waited around until the conditions in which those abilities would be useful, occurred. In other words, the ability of organisms to grow big occurred in anticipation of the right environments that would allow such growth – which is what creationists will claim it says. See they will say, scientists say organisms were provided with pre-existing abilities prior to those abilities being useful. Only God a Designer could do that.

Undoubtedly what the authors intended was to say, was that, as increasing oxygen levels expanded the area of morphospace available for evolution to operate in, some clades that acquiring separate features to scavenge oxygen from the environment (gills), and a mechanism to transport that oxygen deep into the tissues (circulatory system with some oxygen-hugging components)- which was very useful even at lower oxygen concentrations - evolve larger forms as the ambient oxygen concentration increased. And not, that the features previously mentioned evolved to take advantage of future increases in oxygen levels.

Please remember – as far as creationist quote miners are concerned, it’s the words that count, not the intent.