Tikistitch reports that certain billboards are popping up in Oregon — yeah, the same signs our crazy billboard lady has been putting up around Minnesota. Try reading her forum — the stupid will burn, and you will wonder how anyone that ignorant is getting her message spread across the country.

I met Thomas Martin the other day in NY — he’s the fellow who wrote the winning essay in the Seed science writing contest. I had no idea he was a flaming creationist! At least, you’d get the impression that his essay was ID-friendly from the assessment of Uncommon Descent.

Of course, what the essay actually says is that science works because “it compels smart people to incessantly try to disprove the ideas generated by other smart people,” and that one goal of science is to “find those ideas that can withstand the long and hard barrage of evidence-based argument.” I don’t think Martin was being at all kind to ID, because I’m afraid ID withers before the evidence.

It is interesting, though, that the first response of the creationists to an essay on science literacy is to quote-mine it.

That movie Expelled is acquiring an international reputation: Spiegel reports on Unfreiwillige Kreationisten-PR: Forscher fühlen sich von Filmemachern missbraucht (if you’d rather, here’s the google translation). By the time the film opens, what it will be best known for is that they had to lie to get their interviews.

(They quote me. They get my name wrong. Oh, well, it’s part of my grand plan: from now on, every scientist with a weird name you’ve never heard of before? Just assume it’s me. I shall be ubiquitously mysterious.)

And it’s in an article by Cornelia Dean, one of their best science people. I have to single out this short summary of the argument as a good example of the right way to handle the “controversy”.

The growing furor over the movie, visible in blogs, on Web sites and in conversations among scientists, is the latest episode in the long-running conflict between science and advocates of intelligent design, who assert that the theory of evolution has obvious scientific flaws and that students should learn that intelligent design, a creationist idea, is an alternative approach.

There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And while individual scientists may embrace religious faith, the scientific enterprise looks to nature to answer questions about nature. As scientists at Iowa State University put it last year, supernatural explanations are “not within the scope or abilities of science.”

I’ve emphasized that last paragraph because it is so good to see: instead of the usual dreadful “he said, she said” nonsense that passes for balance, Dean plainly states the scientific position, which does not include the supernatural. But on to the premise of the film, and the dishonest protestations of its makers:

[Read more…]

Denyse O’Leary finds another review of Lifecode … and reveals again her own lack of discrimination. It’s by Jerry Bergman, a deranged young earth creationist who works for the Institute of Creation Research. Why??? This is a man with disreputable credentials afflicted with a ridiculous position on science — it’s like writing down the ramblings of some addled wino, and has just as much credibility.

It’s a tepid review that does not endorse Pivar’s work at all (not good enough for Jerry Bergman—that’s got to sting.) But mainly what we learn is that Bergman doesn’t know any biology.

All cells and embryos assume the toroidal shape. How they respond to this initial shape determines their adult morphology. The details of how this shape guides development and morphogenesis in general were, in my opinion, not very well defended in this work. This theory may explain certain aspects of the external morphology of a life form, but how much else does it explain?

No, Pivar’s theory explains nothing, because cells and embryos do not assume this hypothetical toroidal shape. The reason the work fails is that it ignores and contradicts basic observations of developmental processes — the kind of stuff undergraduates can routinely observe.

Bergman also whines a little bit; I can understand why he’d sympathize with crackpottery, since he’s one himself. But this claim is bogus:

In the meantime, the comments on Amazon and various Web sites leave me wondering why there is such an emotional and vociferous reaction to a new theory of evolution. Part of the reaction is that any theory that proposes to replace Darwinism produces a knee-jerk reaction of uncalled-for invective. This attitude hardly encourages new ideas.

You can read my reviews of Lifecode and it’s second version. My gripes were that it was fantasy, not science, and that it ignored the evidence.

There is no “knee-jerk”. There is a recognition that people like Pivar and Bergman are unqualified kooks who make stuff up, and act as if they’re knowledgeable. It is well-considered, measured, and deserved invective.

I know there are a few fans of Peter Irons out there — and maybe some of you agree that he ought to have a blog. Since he doesn’t, though, I’m posting a little email exchange he had with Denyse O’Leary and William Dembski, by his request and with the permission of the participants.

[Read more…]