Intelligent Design Creationism

[Warming- rant involving swear words and unpleasantness. This is my blog and I am allowed to let off steam here.]

The latest Creationist attack in the UK is a group called “Truth in Science”. Personally I call them “Truthiness in science”. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness )


They would make Goebbels or Karl Rove proud, in their carefully plotted campaign against Evolution. They have sent out a bunch of DVDs and lesson plans to every secondary school in the country, suggesting that they be used to show the alternatives to “Darwinism”. Now, the alternative to Darwinism is Evolutionary Biology, but they don’t want you to know that.* Instead, in the lesson plans on their website, they push several Intelligent Designs arguments, such as irreducible complexity. The really ironic thing is that Truth in science are actually Young Earth Creationists!
The cheek is amazing- instead of honestly saying “We’re Creationists, we think God takes precedence over science”, they are actually now saying “Here’s some scientific reasons why evolution is wrong”, but not mentioning God at all.

Needless to say, “Truth in Science” also bring in the peppered moth as a problem with Evolution. In fact every so called argument on their website is either a mischaracterization or involves question begging. Their website argues about teaching alternatives to Evolution, yet they persistently do not state what such alternative is on their website! Just go and read it. Nowhere do they say “Our Christian God did it”. I am sure that most true Christians would be horrified by the way that this group hides their antecedents and aims. I too am horrified, agnostic though I am. I hate it when people are mendacious and try and cover things up.

They even say:
Yes, a significant minority of qualified scientists do not believe that Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of the diversity of life we see around us. For example, over 600 scientists with PhDs have signed a public statement: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
(From: http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/109/54/)

They bring up the very old public statement. Project Steve was started by “darwinists” who only wanted people with Biology qualifications called Steve or Steven etc to sign up to it. They have more people signed up to it than the Creationists have!
It is however typical of their reliance upon appeals to authority. All their press releases make much out of the fact that some of their supporters are university professors. Oddly enough none of these professors have published scientific papers showing that “Darwinism” is wrong, nevertheless they insist on claiming so.

Another sign of their antecedents and desire to cover their tracks is this essay:
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/55/65/
by Paul Garner, on the evolution of the horse. If you google on his name and “horse”, you find this essay:
http://www.biblicalcreation.org.uk/scientific_issues/bcs146.html

They are functionally identical. The first one, on the TiS website has merely had some of the pictures and more complex stuff removed, and more importantly, had all reference to a flood elided.
Yes, the Creationists are trying to show that they are not creationists, by re-modelling an essay. A fuller explanation can be found here:
http://www.justscience.org.uk/tikiwiki-1.9.5/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=14

It is classic lying by omission. The essay even ends by saying that actually the sequence of horse fossils is neutral as to whether evolution or creationism is correct. Which is a lie. In science, you have to look at the big picture. In this case, everything from the age of the earth through to molecular genetics shows that the horse sequence of fossils is a really good example of evolution in action.

Now, part of the public relations problem that those of us who support real science face, is that a weak form of intelligent design is the default position for many people. After all, who set the universe in motion? Obviously [insert deity of choice] did, since it must have started somehow. Sure, I have no problem with this position in general. But claiming that there is scientific evidence to support it is utterly wrong. We have yet to scientifically prove the existence of [insert deity of choice]. Remember that it is also impossible to prove the non-existence of [insert deity of choice] because we do not know everything about the universe- it’s the infamous you can’t prove a negative problem.


-----
This of course does not stop TiS. They spew propaganda all over the place. Take this post for example (my comments are in bold):
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/site/content/view/217/63/

As reported yesterday in the Sunday Times, twelve senior academics have written to the Prime Minister and Education Secretary in support of Truth in Science.
The group was led by Norman Nevin OBE, Professor Emeritus of Medical Genetics, Queen's University of Belfast and included Antony Flew, former Professor of Philosophy at Reading University and a distinguished supporter of humanism.
Look at our big names! Never mind that Flew has converted to some form of deism, although he is very coy about what kind. Nor that Nevin is also religiously motivated, as can be found out by anyone with internet access.
"We write to applaud the Truth in Science initiative," the letter said. Empirical science has to recognise "severe limitations concerning origins" and Darwinism is not necessarily "the best scientific model to fit the data that we observe".
What limitations on empirical science, you fuckwits? It’s the only kind of science there is. The reader will note that at no time do they actually say what this non empirical science actually involves. This is typical creationist fertiliser. But they are right about one thing. Darwinism is not the best scientific model to fit the data. The actual best fit comes from modern evolutionary biology.
They concluded: "We ask therefore that, where schools so choose, you ensure an open and honest approach to this subject under the National Curriculum, at the same time ensuring that the necessary criteria are maintained to deliver a rigorous education."
An honest approach would involve the teacher leading an hour long lesson on the differences between pseudoscience and real science, with creationism firmly in the former camp.
The other signatories were: David Back, Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Liverpool; Steve Fuller, Professor of Sociology at Warwick University; Mart de Groot, Director, Retired, Armagh Astronomical Observatory; Terry Hamblin, Professor of Immunohaematology, University of Southampton; Colin Reeves, Professor of Operational Research at Coventry University and John Walton, Professor of Chemistry, St Andrews University, as well as the three University Professors who are members of the TiS Board and Council.
John Walton is a 7th day adventist from my old university. Steve Fuller is some kind of make believe philosopher who thinks that the reigning paradigm should always be challenged, and therefore non science like ID should be supported. He appears to be the only one here without a religious agenda.
Professor Norman Nevin has authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications on various aspects of genetics, especially single gene disorders and congenital abnormalities. In his distinguished career he has held the posts: Head of the Northern Regional Genetics Service, President of the UK Clinical Genetics Society, member of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and of the subsequent Human Genetics Commission, member of the European Concerted Action for Congenital Abnormalities, Chairman of the UK Gene Therapy Advisory Committee (GTAC). In 2003 he received an OBE for his services to gene therapy.
Look at our qualifications, now, do you believe everything we say? Obviously someone who has had such a productive professional life can’t be wrong?

On 11 December, Professor Nevin received a response from the Department for Education and Skills' Public Communications Unit on behalf of both the Prime Minster and the Education Secretary. The support for Truth in Science had been "noted by the Department" but the "vast majority" of enquiries that the DfES received had "expressed concern" about the Truth in Science resource pack.
Yes. Most of the replies would have said “Fuck off and die, Creationist scum”, except that MP’s don’t really like reading that kind of letter, so they were toned down.
"Intelligent design is not a recognised scientific theory" the Department claimed "and is therefore not included in the science curriculum. The Truth in Science information pack is not therefore an appropriate resource to support the science curriculum."
Spot on!
However, intelligent design could discussed in science classes in response to pupil's questions: "During a science lesson on evolution it is possible that pupils may ask about creationism and intelligent design. In this situation, the Department would expect teachers to answer pupil's questions about this and other beliefs in a balanced way."
Yes. Here’s a scientific balance. On this side, I’ll put 3kg of lead. On the other side I’ll put this nitrogen molecule. Guess which is evolutionary biology?

----
TiS are operating with a sophisticated but non-mainstream propaganda machine. This limits their activities somewhat. Since they are so religiously based, it is very hard for them to break out of the fundamentalist churches they thrive in.
A sign of this is the effort that senior TiS people are having to put in on the propaganda front. For example, Richard Buggs, one of their “scientific” (scare quotes deliberate) advisors, had an article in the guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1985698,00.html

It is simple creationist boilerplate. Astounding in its mendacity and sleight of mind. For example, he says:

“If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.”

Rubbish! If Darwin had known about the nested hierarchies, the way we can trace mutations through species, the “molecular clocks”, the basic similarities between all species on the planet, he would have heaved a huge sigh of relief, since it would have filled in many of the gaps and uncertainties in his theory. After all, Bugg’s supposed argument is simply a restatement of the idea that since a birds wings operate so well to help it fly, it must have been designed by a deity. It is a simple argument from incredulosity, and indicates the limited mindsets of the intellectual pygmies that are Creationists.
We have multiple possible pathways for the evolution of bits of the immune system, and many more ideas about the evolution of a host of other cellular functions. (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_4.html)

The more astute amongst you will recognize that Buggs spends a fair bit of time in his article trying to say that since “Darwinism” can’t explain everything, there must be another answer that is correct. Yet he never comes out with it. What kind of Christian refuses to give the real reason for his opposition to something?

I am pleased to note that the article got the same kind of reception that HG Well’s Martians would if they invaded us today. I was in there, commenting like mad, it was fun.

One last LIE from Richard Buggs Guardian article:
“In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence.”

No other word will do, except the word lie. Firstly, logical inferences are not science, they have to be tested. The ID pushers have not tested any of their inferences. Dembski has signally failed to produce any calculations using his probability maths. Behe is unable to offer anything except an ability to ignore the evidence, as shown at the Dover trial in the USA, where an attempt to get ID into schools failed the Lemon test, and ID was also branded religiously inspired to boot.

More on the Dover trial:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/12/waterloo_in_dov.html
The outcome of this trial was that intelligent design was legally found to be religiously inspired, and not based in science. TiS have no mention of this trial on their website at all. Can anyone else say lying bastards?

One of the bigwigs in TiS is Professor Andy McIntosh, of Leeds university. He is fond of making statements such as (taken from the TiS website:
The principles of thermodynamics even in open systems do not allow a new function using raised free energy levels to be achieved without new machinery. And new machines are not made by simply adding energy to existing machines.
And this thesis is falsifiable. If anyone was to take an existing chemical machine and produce a different chemical machine which was not there before (either as a sub-part or latently coded for in the DNA template) then this argument would have been falsified.

Stop and think about this for a minute. What exactly has free energy (G, Gibbs free energy) got to do with machinery? You will note that he does not provide any supportive references for his claim. Moreover, the second section is laughable. New structures are often formed when bacteria develop antibiotic resistance, or when they learn to digest nylon. Or in the case of sickle cell anemia, when a gene or two mutate, with the end result of making your red blood cells sickle shaped.

He appeared on the radio twice, talking about his amazing insight into evolutionary biology that he hadn’t actually bothered to try and publish anywhere. The link below takes you to an attempt by him to clarify his position:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2007/01/the_thermodynamics_of_andy_mci.html

This is what he said, my comments in SHOUTY:

Thermodynamics as I have explained before, does lie at the heart of the debate. Boeing 777s cannot be made in a car factory unless the machinery is available to do so
BUT THEY ARE MADE USING SMALLER MACHINES TO MAKE BITS OF THE LARGER ONE, ARE THEY NOT? BESIDES, WHEN DID YOU LAST SEE A PAIR OF MATING 777’S?

Similarly the human brain cannot be formed from simpler machines if there is no machinery available to do this.
THEY’RE CALLED CELLS, YOU MORON.
Spontaneously forming such will not happen, even with natural selective forces at work
AND YOU KNOW THIS HOW? BESIDES, NOBODY IS SAYING THAT CELLS AS THEY ARE TODAY SPRANG SPONTANEOUSLY INTO BEING.
All natural selection will do is select from what is there already.
INDEED.
It will not create a new machine which was not there before (either as a sub-machine or coded in embryonic form).
NO, YOU MICROCEPHALIC PINHEAD. MUTATION IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THERE, NOT NATURAL SELECTION. HERE YOU CAN SEE HIS IGNORANCE OF BIOLOGY.
An open thermodynamic system is not the answer either since simply adding energy to existing machinery will not change what is there already to a new machine.
BUT WHAT IF THE MACHINERY IN QUESTION CAN BE REFORMED, LIKE OUR DNA IS? LOOK AT MUTATIONS- THEY CAUSE CHANGES IN THE MACHINE THAT FORMS OUR PROTEINS ETC ETC. IN FACT, I SUGGEST THAT MUTATIONS MAY WELL BE THERMODYNAMICALLY FAVOURED, SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ATOMIC LEVEL, WHERE THINGS CAN CHANGE WITHOUT ANY DEFINITE INPUT.
To quote Wilder Smith whose book 'The natural sciences know nothing of evolution' is available on the web - p. 146 "Today it is simply unscientific to claim that the fantastically reduced entropy of the human brain, of the dolphin's sound lens, and of the eye of a fossilised trilobite simply "happened", for experimental experience has shown that such miracles just do not "happen"."
MORE QUOTING, NO EVIDENCE. WHAT IS THIS SIMPLY HAPPENED THING? DO THEY THINK THAT THEY DROPPED OUT OF THE SKY ONE DAY? NOT TO MENTION THE HUGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THEY CAN EVOLVE ANYWAY.

My position is to side with experimental science and not with 'just so' attempts to get round the clear evidence of design in nature. At the very least these matters should be critically considered in science teaching today.
WHAT EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCE, YOU MORON? CREATIONISTS, NAY, CRETINISTS LIKE YOURSELF HAVE NOT DONE ANY. WHERE ARE THE DETAILED THERMODYNAMIC CALCULATIONS SHOWING THAT YOUR STATEMENTS ABOUT FREE NERGY LEVELS IN CELLS ETC ARE CORRECT? A MAN OF YOUR EDUCATION CAN SURELY PERFORM SUCH CALCULATIONS, AND DAZZLE US ALL WITH YOUR GRASP OF SCIENCE!

I don’t think we’ll see anything from Mcintosh about his scientific basis for his belief. Suffice to say, he is a laughing stock.
Ultimately, the most laughable thing about it is that the Creationists come across as arch materialists, with their insistence on machinery in cells.

Other entertainment can be had here:
http://idintheuk.blogspot.com/
http://www.exilefromgroggs.blogspot.com/

Meanwhile, on the BBC blog here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/
I have run into such a monumentally stupid poster that even I have trouble believing it. They insist on conflating methodological naturalism, which is what science does, considering only things which are material, that can be sensed etc, with philosophical naturalism, which says that there are only natural things in the universe, that there are no supernatural entities. So he claims that science is atheistic, because it says nothing about god, indeed can only work when you disregard supernatural entities.
Well, duh.
Science only looks at material things. It has nothing to say about gods.

So, if you are concerned about TiS and their stupidity, please write to your MP expressing your concern.


* Evolutionary science has undergone at least 2 revisions since Darwin’s time. These have integrated what we now know of genetics and other influences upon evolution into the science of Evolutionary Biology. More information here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html
It is worth reminding people that Creationists will quote mine sentences from scientific sources that appear to damage Evolutionary theory, whilst ignoring that the source as a whole actually backs evolution. It is quote common for scientists to say something like “This blows a huge hole in the current way of thinking about this.” (They are human after all and like hyperbola just like the rest of us, not to mention puffing themselves up) The Creationists then quote this sentence, whilst ignoring that the next sentence says “Fortunately, my work shows that if you integrate this, this and that, because of X, then actually its no problem at all and it all fits nicely within Evolution”.