Lately, the Discovery Institute has stuck its neck out in response to the popularity of showings of Randy Olson’s movie, Flock of Dodos, which I reviewed a while back. They slapped together some lame critiques packaged on the web as Hoax of Dodos (a clunker of a name; it’s especially ironic since the film tries to portray the Institute as good at PR), which mainly seem to be driven by the sloppy delusions of that poor excuse for a developmental biologist, Jonathan Wells. In the past week, I’ve also put up my responses to the Wells deceptions—as a developmental biologist myself, I get a little cranky when a creationist clown abuses my discipline.
Discovery Institute fires its first salvo in the War Against Dodos: in which I point out that the two ‘big’ objections the DI levies against the movie are complete duds.
Wells’ false accusation against Randy Olson: in which I show that Olson actually described the representation of Haeckel in textbooks accurately.
Exorcising the spectre of Haeckel again: in which a commenter lists how Haeckel’s figure was actually used in 15 textbooks.
Wells and Haeckel’s Embryos: in which I go on at some length about Wells’ misrepresentations of developmental biology in his Icons of Evolution.
In case you are completely baffled by this whole episode, here’s a shorter summary.
In the early 19th century, a very famous embryologist, Karl Ernst von Baer, made the observation that vertebrate embryos go through a stage in which all are surprisingly similar to one another — so similar that he, probably the greatest embryologist of his day, couldn’t tell bird and reptile embryos apart. This observation has been repeatedly confirmed; no rational person argues against the general statement, although there have also been good, detailed studies (by Richardson in particular) that show that there are differences in specifics that need to be appreciated. In addition, modern observations of patterns of gene expression show that there is also a deeper similarity in the molecules involved in this particular period.
I emphasized the observations above because these are the data, and they aren’t in question. One could argue that interpretations are open to questioning, however. So what are the interpretations?
Karl Ernst von Baer was a creationist. He lived long enough to know of Darwin’s work, and was critical of it; he never accepted evolutionary explanations. His interpretation of his own observations was that as a general principle, development proceeded from a general foundation and then the specific details emerged progressively. Because we also classified organisms into phyla on the basis of universal, general characters, it isn’t surprising that we would then see that phylum-wide, general features develop at an early stage, and that all embryos in a phylum would briefly resemble one another. He did not infer any other relationship between species, especially not an ancestral relationship.
Ernst Haeckel was an enthusiastic promoter of evolutionary theory in the late 19th century. His interpretation was wishful—he wanted to study processes that occurred in the past by studying processes that occur now, so he postulated that development was a process that replayed evolutionary history, and that we could review an organism’s evolution by working out the details of its developmental history. This was an appealing idea, especially since at that time we lacked any knowledge of the actual mechanisms of inheritance. The interpretation didn’t work, since as observations of development accumulated, it became clear that they weren’t simple records of evolutionary change—developmental changes could occur at any step in the process, muddying the history. It was discarded because of a lack of utility, conflict with the growing data, and later, because genetics revealed a deeper mechanism that wasn’t tied in any way to the sequence of development.
Almost incidentally, Haeckel also faked a couple of figures, which earned him some academic censure. This is not why his theory was discarded, though; the observations of similarity at an early stage were secured by independent confirmation. One bit of sloppiness and his backing of a fruitless theory made him increasingly irrelevant (which is actually unfortunate—he was otherwise an interesting, if bombastic and overzealous, thinker who contributed to many disciplines) but his theory, called recapitulation or the biogenetic law, was abandoned because his theory didn’t fit the facts.
The modern interpretation is still a work in progress. What we see is conserved genetic circuitry involved in patterning the whole of the organism, and the idea is that this is particularly refractory to change. We agree with von Baer, that we’re looking at very general properties of the organism—which end is the front, how is it partitioned into regions, how the heart is specified to form in the chest/throat area rather than the tail, for instance—but we’re also finding that the molecular mechanisms driving these processes are so similar that homology, or similarity by shared ancestry, is the best explanation.
The explanation by the Intelligent Design creationists is…uh, it seems to be…well, actually, they don’t offer an explanation. Instead, under the leadership of Jonathan Wells, they’ve chosen to attack the veracity of the observations rather than producing a better interpretation.
This is the level of intellectual bankruptcy the Discovery Institute has reached. They choose to deny the facts, an observation made by a fellow creationist almost 180 years ago and repeated over and over again, to the point that Wells in his book Icons of Evolution condemns textbooks that show photos of embryos at this particularly interesting stage. This Intelligent Design ‘theory’ they promote is so toothless that they have no alternative explanations, so they choose try to to bury the data.
What I also find interesting is that these proponents of ‘teaching the controversy’ are so anxious to hide the fact that legitimate biologists wrestled over an alternative theory that had, for a brief (but still too many decades) time had engaged a significant number of members of the scientific community. Haeckel’s theory was popular among scientists and the public, had some intuitive appeal, and also promised to explain many phenomena…but it fizzled precisely because it failed to accumulate scientific evidence in its favor. The textbooks that still mention it do so because it was our example of phlogiston—an interesting historical curiosity that tried to explain real observations, but failed under growing experimental tests. Wells’ denial of the similarity of vertebrate embryos as a tactic for disputing evolutionary theory is comparable to trying to refute modern chemistry by attacking phlogiston theory on the grounds that substances don’t burn. Not only does the absurdity of the target label them a kook, but even if they were successful, no one is defending phlogiston or the biogenetic law anymore.
Dave Carlson says
Nice summary, PZ. I know you guys don’t get along (perhaps that’s a bit of an understatement), but I’d like to point out for the record, that, in the past few days, Ed Brayton has been praising your series of posts on Wells and Haeckel over at Dispatches.
Dave, that’s just how it is. I dislike many of the things that Ed writes, but when he is right, he is right, and he is right about this.
Loren Petrich says
In the eighteenth century, Lavoisier settled the phlogiston question by showing that everything ascribed to the release of phlogiston was accompanied by the gaining of oxygen. This meant that phlogiston was an accounting error: phlogiston = lack of oxygen. And oxygen, unlike phlogiston, was shown to have a positive mass density, which made it more “mormal”. And also, unlike phlogiston, it could be isolated in the lab.
Troy Britain says
“Academic censure”? To what are you refering? Not to the Keplerbund business I hope.
Steve LaBonne says
See- so there IS a falsehood in that movie! I knew it! ;)
They lie because they have to. The truth would make their world crumble.
The truth would make their world crumble.
I don’t think so. Either they set up a big pile of cognitive dissonance (humans seem to be good at this, like pattern recognition and Machiavellian behaviour) or the collapse of a world-view turns out to be much less destructive and painful than anticipated.
Much conversation has focussed on the pain of abandoning ideas in favour of better ones. I think this pain is overrated, and that deconversion experiences are actually highly survivable and generally inflict little or no lasting psychological damage.
That Casey Luskin’s rebuttal video doesn’t mention this key factor is quite revealing. It is an extremely underhanded and frankly dishonest tactic to make the assertion that modern biology textbook’s continue to rely on Haekel’s drawings while completely failing to mention that these same text books are using Haekel as an example of an incorrect theory. Such an underhanded tactic is analogous to quoting Ralph Fiennes’s character in Schindler’s list in an effort to argue that Mr. Fiennes is an antisemite without mentioning that he is an actor playing a villian.
Toaster Sunshine says
I’ll admit that sometimes I miss the beautiful illogic of phlogiston, alchemical symbols, and intergalactic ether, but preformationism and flat earth are concepts that don’t have much intuitive appeal.
That the Dodo was a flightless bird seems very appropriate in regards to The Discovery Institute.
Adam Cuerden says
But isn’t Preformationism just a somwhat cackhanded way of saying that mothers pass on genes to their offspring, if ye look at what the preformationists said? Of course, they were wrong: They completely edited out the father, for one, and instead presumed the code was pre-prepared, but, given the knowledge of genetics at that time, their insistance that there must be something to pattern development, in some highly modified form, isn’t ridiculous.
Of course, I read Gould a lot.
Gould no longer exists.
No, Gould is dead. Not quite the same thing.