It’s my afternoon for getting lots of whiny right-wing Christianist email, I guess. This one is notable, not for its content (which is predictable, humorless, and indignant, and just like most of the complaints I get), but for the fact that it was also sent to my chancellor and every member of the biology faculty. Nice work, spammer.
My criticism of Mark Armitage’s “research” published in the ICR “journal” seems to have struck a nerve — he just sent me (and his colleagues at the ICR) an angry letter in which I think he is attempting sarcasm, he just isn’t very good at at it. Poor baby. Here it is:
Mike Dunford has a series of articles on a recent California court decision — in brief, Christian homeschoolers tried to sue California universities to force them to accept courses taught with Christianist literalist creationist textbooks as legitimate, college-level science credit, and they lost. They lost hard.
But the really funny part is that the creationists brought in Mike Behe as a friendly witness. Behe was asked to review the creationist textbooks that they used, bad books that anyone can see are misleading, unrepresentative, and ridiculous, and he approved them. The man has no standards and no credibility, and it’s appalling that he is such a man-whore for creationism that he’d approve even young earth creationist, fundamentalist books as reasonable texts for a science class.
But that’s not what the judge in this case ruled on; rather, Behe’s defense of these books was that it was “abusive” to ask students to subscribe to an idea like evolution with which they disagree. Setting aside the obvious point that the whole point of education is to introduce students to a multitude of ideas with which they may or may not agree, the judge pointed out that the books which Behe approved flatly state that Christians must accept creationist conclusions—unlike our biology books, which don’t demand any religious litmus test of their readers—and were therefore perfect examples of exactly the problem he was complaining about.
So, once again — Behe goes down in flames in a court of law, dragging the whole case to perdition with him. He’s like the fire ship of the creationist fleet, always being launched into a headwind. But, to be fair, you can’t just pick on Behe: the problem is that the entire creationist position is so bad, and so stupid, that whoever gets appointed to be the front man for it is going to look like an idiot. Poor sap.
I endorse this message. Enough said, right?
To my students and advisees: I’ve emailed a few of you, but just in case, I’m also putting this here. You’ve been trying to get in touch with me, especially this week when registration is pending, but when I’m not in class I’m flitting off to somewhere else. I was away in Washington DC last Thursday afternoon through Sunday, and I’m about to do it again with trips to Mankato tomorrow, a long weekend at a conference in Oregon, and then zooming away again right after class on Monday to Fergus Falls. Trust me, though, you’re not the only one feeling a bit tired of it all.
Here’s the deal, though. I’m done with today’s teaching at 12:45. I’m going to be in my office from 1 to 5, with the door wide open. I’ve even shoveled the stacks of books off of two of my office chairs — it’s almost hospitable in here. So come on by, I’ll be there all afternoon, and the only business will be student business. If you’ve got registration stuff to take care of, we can do that; if you just want to say hello, that’s cool, too.
But do I really have to share equal billing with Ben Stein?
The Institute for Creation Research is a treasure trove of sloppy pseudoscience. I mentioned one “research” article that they put out that was nothing but a flurry of bible verses wrapped around an argument from incredulity; now a reader has pointed me to another article that tries very hard to ape the form of a real scientific paper, and fails horribly.
It’s titled “COMPLEX LIFE CYCLES IN HETEROPHYID TREMATODES: STRUCTURAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN IN THE ASCOCOTYLE COMPLEX OF SPECIES”, by Mark Armitage. Oooh. Sounds so sciencey. And then you read further, and you see that it almost follows the correct form.
Watch the pretty squid.
They’re so far ahead, it’s almost April 2nd there right now. And they have taken an important next step: they have passed regulations requiring the reading of disclaimers at church services:
Congregants should be aware of the gaps and/or problems in the Catholic theory of transubstantiation, including, but not limited to, the Protestant notion that the bread and wine are merely symbolic, the opinions of other religions on the life of Christ, and the lack of conclusive scientific evidence available to support this theory.
This is excellent news. I only hope our country can some day follow suit.
The Institute for Creation Research has just published a fairly typical article for them: it’s the usual laundry list of amazing biological structures that cry out “Jaaayzuusss!” to the faithful. In this case, they pick on squid. You see, squid have wonderfully complex specializations to control pigment granules in their skins; these are so lovely and so intricate that — and this is the major leap of ignorance they demand of their readers — they couldn’t possibly have arisen by natural mechanisms, and must have been specially placed there by a loving god. As an extra special bonus, some squid have a symbiotic relationship with luminescent bacteria, so at long last the creationists notice a possible benign function for bacteria.
The reflectins seem to be unique to squid, coded for by at least six genes (specific DNA segments). In addition, researchers have found that the Hawaiian bobtail squid efficiently uses an exclusive bilobed ("two-lobed") light organ to its advantage. A species of bioluminescent bacteria called Vibrio fischera in the light organ receives nourishment from the squid. In return, the bacteria secrete a tracheal cytotoxin designed to control the development of the light organ. This cytotoxin is a small segment of the deleterious bacteria that causes whooping cough in humans. But perhaps the toxin served a more useful function, as we see in the squid, prior to the introduction of sin into God’s creation, which led to the Fall and the current curse under which creation groans (Romans 8:22).
To conclude, not only is biophotonic design evidence for a clearly seen creation (Romans 1:20), but the Hawaiian bobtail squid in particular provides the creation scientist with a possible original benign function for disease-causing bacteria. Truly, God’s creation declares–and reflects–His glory (Psalm 19:1).
Reflectins are proteins that stack in flat plates and efficiently reflect light, and it’s true that they are unique to cephalopods. However, there’s nothing magical about them — other animals have similar structures, they just tend to use crystallized purines. All it takes to make a reflector is a layered tissue that alternates sheets of high and low refractive index, and there are many routes to that kind of functionality.
I love how they had to spell out to their readers that “bilobed” means “two lobed”. They could have just written out “two lobed” in the first place, so all they’ve done there is show that they are pompously bad writers, and that they have a very low opinion of the reading abilities of their audience. It’s perfect.
Bacteria secrete all kinds of interesting stuff; in this case, Vibrio is pumping out a peptidoglycan, a pretty common class of molecules with diverse functions. It is not a sign of intent that similar molecules can regulate cell growth or cause symptoms of disease; rather, it tells us something about the flexibility of proteins and the variety of effects they can have in different contexts. The lesson of Darwin is that unguided natural processes have the ability to generate complex functionality, so it takes more than just showing complexity and function to demonstrate purpose. Creationists don’t understand that at all, so they keep whining “it’s complex!” as if they have brought up an irrefutable argument for design, when they’ve done no such thing.
And finally, isn’t it annoying and doesn’t it expose the ignorance of this creationist writer that he thinks finding bacteria that glow in squid at long last reveals a purpose for disease-causing bacteria? Bacteria thrive because they have abilities that help themselves, not because they’re servants to squid. That same creationist is carrying along a gut full of bacteria, and is covered with a layer of bacteria, and is living in a world aswim with bacteria, all dribbling out molecules that they find useful, and that sometimes do unpleasant things to human beings (and sometimes do useful things, but usually do things that have no direct effect on us) … and this confused, blinkered gomer finds one symbiotic function that biologists have known about for many years and thinks he has an answer? Please.
I wish I could think this article was an April Fool’s joke, too, but I know that creationists babble this kind of nonsense all the time.
