On Saturday, 19 April, I’m supposed to be in a debate on campus. It’s with Angus Menuge of Concordia University and the Discovery Institute, a fellow who did not impress Josh Rosenau, and who professes to have been converted by C.S. Lewis, which bodes ill right there. The organization has been a low-level, simmering clusterkluge ever since a few students asked me to do this months ago, exemplified now by the signs that have gone up all over campus that misspell my name (of course), and by this amazing announcement of the topic on the campus Lutheran ministry web page.

SPRING RETREAT: The Spring LSF Retreat will be held April 19th at the U of M, Morris chapter. Dr. Angus Menuge, professor at Concordia University Wisconsin will be the main speaker. There will also be a debate between Dr. Menuge and Professor P.Z. Myers (UMM) discussing “Does neuroscience leave room for God”. Myers has postulated that the reason people believe in God is because there are “ghosts” in their brains, and as Pastor Jarvis understands it Myers believes that theists have something wrong in the way their brains function that make them believe in God. If you have any questions regarding this debate, please forward them to Pastor Jarvis from UMM. rjarvis@hometownsolutions.net. If you are interested in going to the retreat please see Shaina or Pastor.

I am always impressed at how much creationists can get wrong in one sentence.

Anyway, I don’t think this will be much of a debate. Menuge will drone out some theology, the creationists in the audience will be happy; I plan on discussing some real neuroscience, and if that audience listens they might learn something, but more likely they’ll come away with some mangled, confused mess of scrambled ideas, like “Myers thinks there are ghosts! In brains!”, that gets everything completely wrong. I am not going into this with a high estimation of the majority of the audience, unless, of course, you show up. I may have to invite students in my classes to go just to bring more good minds into the room.

I wonder if Menuge is getting coached by his fellow Fellow, Michael Egnor?

The Florida Senate Judiciary committee is meeting just a few hours from now to conder the fate of SB2692, the bill that would promote the teaching of creationism in science classes in that state. Call the members of the committee and tell them that you strongly oppose SB2692!

The new generation of creationists has been doing something rather remarkable. Flaming anti-scientific religious nutcases like Wells and Dembski have been diligently going to real universities, not the usual hokey bible colleges, and working hard to get legitimate degrees in actual fields of science and math to get themselves a superficial veneer of credibility. It’s basically nothing but collecting paper credentials, though, since they don’t actually learn anything and never do anything with the knowledge they should have acquired, other than use it to razzle-dazzle the rubes.

One other example is Paul Nelson, and today is the anniversary of an infamous interaction. You see, Nelson likes to flaunt the pretense of being knowledgeable about developmental biology. Several years ago, he invented this mysterious metric called “ontogenetic depth” that he claimed to be measuring, and which he claimed to have used as evidence that the Cambrian fauna did not evolve. He even dragged this nonsense to professional meetings where he was ignored, except by vicious anti-creationists. I harshly criticized the entire vacuous notion. (I also expressed sympathy for the poor graduate student Nelson had lured into this waste of effort…it was Marcus Ross, remember him?)

He said he’d write up a technical summary that would explain exactly what ontogenetic depth was and how it was measured. He gave us a whole series of dates by which he’d have this wonderful summary. Every one of those dates sailed by without a word. And ever since we have commemorated Paul Nelson Day on 7 April, one of the dates in 2004 that he promised us an explanation. Here’s my anniversary timeline from last year.

I was just reminded that last year at this time I announced an anniversary. In March of 2004, I critiqued this mysterious abstraction called “ontogenetic depth” that Paul Nelson, the ID creationist, proposed as a measure of developmental and evolutionary complexity, and that he was using as a pseudoscientific rationale against evolution. Unfortunately, he never explained how “ontogenetic depth” was calculated or how it was measured (perhaps he was inspired by Dembski’s “specified complexity”, another magic number that can be farted out by creationists but cannot be calculated). Nelson responded to my criticisms with a promise.

On 29 March 2004, he promised to post an explanation “tomorrow”.

On 7 April 2004, he told us “tomorrow”.

On 26 April 2004, he told us he was too busy.

On 13 January 2005, he told us to read a paper by R Azevedo instead. I rather doubt that Ricardo supports Intelligent Design creationism, or thinks his work contributes to it.

Ever since, silence.

This year he is apparently off in Brazil, proselytizing his lies and fake science to the people there, so I’m assuming he won’t get around to explaining his magic metric tomorrow, either. Isn’t it amazing how creationists can make stuff up and get a career speaking at exotic places all around the world?

Oh, and get a day named after them! In his honor, we should all make it a point to ask people “How do you know that?” today, and the ones who actually can explain themselves competently will be complimented by being told that they’re no Paul Nelson.

We’ll celebrate it again next year, I’m sure.

One of the serious shortcomings of Intelligent Design is that it does nothing to provide any new or productive insights into the workings of biology. ID proponents seem to be at least vaguely aware of this failure, in that they do frequently claim to be thinking about working on a preliminary, tentative approach towards the beginnings of a potential research program (my paraphrase), but most of the effort has been directed towards political and legal enforcement of their ideas, rather than actually testing those ideas. One advantage of pursuing only legalisms is that they don’t give scientists anything to grapple. Invariably, when ID proponents do dip their toes in the scientific waters, they end up getting eaten by the sharks that lurk there.

One example: Paul Nelson, of the Discovery Institute, has been peddling a peculiar idea he calls “ontogenetic depth” as a scientific concept that emerges from Intelligent Design. To his credit, he has been presenting this idea in legitimate science venues, at the Geological Society of America and Society for Developmental Biology meetings. Note that getting on the program at these meetings is not subject to peer-review, so it is not automatically a recognition of merit that this work has been presented publicly. It is a good sign that Nelson is willing to expose his work to criticism, though.

I’m going to give it some criticism here. “Ontogenetic depth” is a developmental idea, and I’m a developmental biologist. Today I also get to play shark.

[Read more…]

Look at this: the Expellers are lying again. In this case, they’re screening people who’ve asked to attend showings, and then, instead of just telling them that they are not invited, they’re being cowardly and telling them that the screening has been cancelled. It’s so pointless — they could just state the truth, that they are only allowing friendly reviewers into the early screenings, but instead they seem compelled to make up pathetic, transparent excuses. I guess once they started lying, they can’t stop anymore.

(By the way, if you’re expecting me to annoy Ben Stein for yet another weekend, it’s not in the cards. I’m at an evo-devo conference in Eugene, Oregon, so you’re more likely to get science from me than rude movie reviews.)

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.

[Read more…]

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:

[Read more…]

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.