One of the characteristics of science is that it is self correcting. One of the most common and successful methods for self correction involves peer review. In case the reviewers do not catch the errors, comments from colleagues can result in a later correction of the mistake. Examples of such can be found throughout the scientific world. Relevant to evolution the following examples come to mind: Piltdown Man, Haeckel embryos, Nebraska man. (See Is Evolution Science?. Scientific theory is always tentative, open to refutation, reaffirmation, and alteration when more and more data become available.

Despite this we see ID proponents such as Nancy Pearcey speaking out against what they consider to be “defenders of falsehoods” when accusing Darwinists of refusing to correct errors in textbooks. Most of their perceived ‘errors’ are in fact overblown. What is relevant however is that ID proponents seem to expect Darwinists to be ‘self correcting’.

Paul Nesselroade similarly observes that when it comes to public trust, science should be self-correcting .

The public trust afforded to science comes, in part, from its own claim that it is self-correcting, constantly engaged with the evidence and paying tribute to no person, philosophy, or creed. But how can this basis for trust be reconciled with a refusal to hear challenges or examine its own presuppositions?

Then there is David Buckna who argues without much supporting evidence that:

Good science is always tentative and self-correcting, but this never really happens in the case of evolution.

Often the ID proponents seem to confuse legitimate debate about issues as a weakness of evolutionary theory.

Another major misconception is that science is simply the accumulation of observational fact, and theories are merely unsubstantiated guesses.  This “facts only” view of science misses the core of what the scientific enterprise really is.  In my opinion, nothing could be more deadly to teaching science than to divorce it from the unifying theories which give observations meaning.  They make the world comprehensible.  They also generate the testable hypotheses (expectations) that drive further exploration and discovery.  When science is taught as only factual observation (something the standards passed by the Board would encourage), then disagreements among scientists and changing scientific views are seen as weaknesses and failings of scientific knowledge.  However, the exact opposite is the case.  It is the dynamic, changing, self-correcting nature of science that is its very strength.  The less science is seen as a body of established knowledge, the more inherently interesting and exciting it becomes.

Keith B. Miller in The Controversy over the Kansas Science Standards

So how does the Intelligent Design movement, which claims to be a scientifically motivated movement deal with correcting its own errors and omissions ? In the next few postings that will start with the title “Icons of ID:” I intend to explore some icons of the ID movement and show how corrections are being handled. I intend to show that the ID movement is far from self correcting when it comes to their own arguments and claims.

Posted by PvM on Jun 10 at 06:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Niall Shanks has informed me that his recent debate with William Dembski at UCLA will be broadcast by CSPAN-2 this Saturday at 9:30 A.M. I already have my VCR programmed ...

Posted by Jason Rosenhouse on Jun 10 at 02:49 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

Blogger Kathy Shaidle has a review here of a new creationism book, By Design Or By Chance: The Growing Controversy On The Origins Of Life In The Universe by Denyse O'Leary.

But the review is so full of mischaracterizations and misleading statements that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Continue reading  “An empty review of an empty book”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on Jun 9 at 01:21 AM | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)

A hot-off-the-presses article in Science describes the discovery of bilaterian fossils in the Doushantuo Formation, from roughly 570 million years ago.

Ten phosphatized specimens of a small (<180 µm) animal displaying clear bilaterian features have been recovered from the Doushantuo Formation, China, 40 to 55 million years before the Cambrian. Seen in sections, this animal (Vernanimalcula guizhouena gen. et sp. nov.) had paired coeloms extending the length of the gut; paired external pits that could be sense organs; bilateral, anterior-posterior organization; a ventrally directed anterior mouth with thick walled pharynx; and a triploblastic structure. The structural complexity is that of an adult rather than larval form. These fossils provide the first evidence confirming the phylogenetic inference that Bilateria arose well before the Cambrian.

This is exciting news, not because it revolutionizes our understanding of evolutionary history, but precisely because it is nothing surprising at all—we expect, from molecular/phylogenetic evidence, that complex animal life arose long before the Cambrian 'explosion', and what these fossils represent is a satisfying confirmation of that expectation (and they neatly fit predictions about bilaterian evolution that Erwin and Davidson made in 2002). It is actually expected, though, that bilaterian coelomates are even older than the 570 million years of the Doushantuo Formation; the last common ancestor of protostomes (arthropods and others) and deuterostomes (vertebrates and others) is estimated to have lived somewhere between 600 and 1200 million years ago.

Continue reading "Pre-Cambrian coelomate!" (on Pharyngula)

Posted by PZ Myers on Jun 7 at 09:30 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

I just wanted to let everyone know that after a two-week vacation, EvolutionBlog is back. I make regular posts Sunday through Thursday evenings. Stop by for a visit!

Posted by Jason Rosenhouse on Jun 6 at 03:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The recent anthology Darwinism, Design and Public Education, edited by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, is chock-full of brazen dishonesty, false science, and sloppy arguments. In the midst of all of this silliness, however, is one essay whose arguments are so absurd, so completely divorced from all semblance of rational thought, that it must be singled out for special attention. The essay is entitled “Intelligent Design Theory, Religion, and the Science Curriculum”, by Warren A. Nord. Nord is a professor of philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Continue reading  “Is it Unconstitutional Not to Teach ID?”

Posted by Jason Rosenhouse on Jun 5 at 03:20 PM | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)

Gary S. Hurd, Dave Mulllenix

Scientific Creationism wholeheartedly embraced fundamentalist Christian dogma, particularly the notion of a six-day creation week with the inference that every ‘kind’ of life was directly and uniquely created, that a global flood covered the entire Earth in which only those life forms rescued on Noah’s Ark survived, and that the ‘ages’ associated with various biblical genealogies could be summed to obtain a chronology of creation.  In the face of repeated legal losses, which excluded religious indoctrination from public schools in America, the Scientific Creationists asserted that they could use purely scientific means to “prove” that their specific biblical interpretation was literal truth.  Thus, they argued their creationism was different from simple fundamentalism, and deserved to be taught as science in public schools.  The origin, and (lingering) decline of Scientific Creationism are very sympathetically studied by Ron Numbers in his 1993 book, The Creationists: The Evolution of Scientific Creationism (Berkeley: University of California Press).  Scientific Creationism never made good on the promise to use science to ‘prove’ that their biblical interpretations were empirically correct, although there are a small number of individuals still trying.  They have been reduced to making ‘scientific arguments’ more bizarre than accepting miracles, and lame efforts to attack evolution such as denying fossil evidence of evolutionary transitions, or equating “Darwinism” simultaneously with Nazis, Communists, and recently Al Qaeda.  Throughout the 1980s Scientific Creationists lost legal battles.  Scientific Creationists were turned away from public schools by the courts.  This set the stage for the emergence of a new version of creationism, Intelligent Design.

Continue reading  “Dembski's Five Questions: Number One.”

Posted by Dr.GH on Jun 4 at 10:10 AM | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)

The server that hosts the Panda’s Thumb was affected by the power outages in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex area. The server was offline from about 4AM on the 2nd, and went back online around 7PM on the 3rd. As it is, we should consider it fortunate to have power restored so soon.

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jun 3 at 11:41 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack (0)