Sad news: we’ve lost an important scientist and atheist, Abby Hafer, professor and American Humanist board member. Also, the Discovery Institute hated her, which is a tremendous accolade.
The enmity arose when she published an article titled No Data Required: Why Intelligent Design Is Not Science, in which she pointed out that the ID movement was barren of data and hypothesis testing, and was essentially a club for debate-bros who would masticate observations until they were a gooey pulp that they could sculpt to fit their conclusion.
Intelligent Design (ID) proposes that biological species were created by an intelligent Designer, and not by evolution. ID’s proponents insist that it is as valid a theory of how biological organisms and species came into existence as evolution by natural selection. They insist, therefore, that ID be taught as science in public schools. These claims were defeated in the Kitzmiller case. However, ID’s proponents are still influential and cannot be considered a spent force. The question addressed here is whether ID’s claim of scientific legitimacy is reinforced by quantified results. That is, do they have any data, or do they just argue? The ID articles that I analyzed claimed to present real science, but they rarely referred to data and never tested a hypothesis. Argumentation, however, was frequent. By contrast, peer-reviewed articles by evolutionary biologists rarely argued but referred frequently to data. The results were statistically significant. These findings negate claims by ID proponents that their articles report rigorous scientific research. Teachers will find this article helpful in defending evolution, distinguishing science from non-science, and discussing the weaknesses of ID.
She was sharp. She will be missed.
ID? Intelligent designer? Guinea worms, screw flies, liver flukes, brain eating amoebas, malarial parasites, and nasty parasites that infest the animal world. That intelligent designer seems to be a rather sadistic being. Not the God of the Bible explicitly claimed to be merciful, compassionate and just. The blog “Parasite Of The Day” is grim reading for the ID peddlers. Rather, predation, diseases and parasites demonstrate nature is blind, amoral and opportunistic.
I recall picking up Darwin’s Black Box over 25 years ago. This was before I’d ever heard the term Intelligent Design. At the time, I thought this sounds interesting, and actually read it through. Even back then, I kept wondering about this concept they called irreducible complexity. The eye is just too complex to have evolved; therefore it must’ve been designed. Designed by whom, I wondered? It soon became obvious to me that they were referring to God. Of course they were. I donated the book to Goodwill. In hindsight, I should’ve put it in paper recycling instead.
I know the dangers, but every time I hear about some podunk school board mandating the teaching of ID in science classrooms my first thought is “Oh yes please!” Teach it in science classes, as science, evaluated as science, where the argument “But I believe!” holds no water.
Then teach it in literature, as an example of bad fiction.
We no longer have her.
@ ^ John Morales : No – and that is a big loss but we have her memories, recordings like Abby Hafer – Animals that Shouldn’t Exist, According to Intelligent Design (25 mins long), videos like
California Freethought Day 2018 – Dr. Abby Hafer (20 mins long – audio a bit bad in parts – gets better when mic off – but excellent & funny speech*), writing. She won’t be forgotten and leaves a positive legacy and good memories and made the world better by being in it.
@1. cheerfulcharlie : That’s the second time in the last few days and posts here that I’ve been reminded of
this classic parody song – all things dull and ugly. (1 minute and a half long.)
.* “..Call me old-fashioned but I want my political arguments tobe true as well..” 5 mins 30 seconds mark.
John Watts@2–
The sad thing is that Darwin wrote several pages of Origin of Species using the eye as an example of a complex organ that can seem irreducibly complex, but with some thought can be explained as a series of stepwise adaptions from the simpler light-receptor organs (or as he put it given the knowledge of his time “an optic nerve coated in pigment”). He added a powerful argument that an organ may acquire functions different from its original adaptation, with examples from biology. So, yeah, Michael Behe. Ignoring the evidence since 1859.
Crossing the streams of two recent posts (Abby Hafer has died and Sex is a spectrum) here is Abby Hafer giving a talk entitled Everything you know about Sex is wrong:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abby_Hafer_-_Everything_you_know_about_Sex_is_Wrong.webm
StevoR, no more Hafer.
Better version of Hafer’s Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong: