The middle-aged man named Ian Musgrave has replied to the grey-haired man Michael Behe in response to his recent condescending dismissal of the young woman Abbie Smith (don’t these irrelevant signifiers of age, sex, and status add so much to our understanding of the discussion?) It’s really all about fun with viral proteins, and Behe’s failure to understand the basics of the evolution of the same. I think I’d be reluctant to refer to him as “the middle-aged biochemist Michael Behe” anymore — a biochemist should know this stuff.

---

Behe replies. He seems to be in a bit of a snit.

One of the most vocal pro-creationist governors in the country, Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky (home of Ken Ham’s infamous creationist “museum”) has had his re-election bid go down in flames. This is fabulous news. Revere sees it as one more sign of the impending demise of the religious right — I can’t be quite so optimistic, since they always seem to resurrect themselves. Greg Laden is also pleased with the result. He also takes exception to the claim that creationism is properly taught in social studies and comparative religion classes — and to that, I’d add the frequent suggestion that it belongs in philosophy classes. It does a disservice to all of those disciplines. At best, it ought t be mentioned in abnormal psychology classes, as an example of the madness of crowds or of religious hysteria.

Is everyone looking forward to the new Nova program, Judgment Day? Look for it next Tuesday, 13 November, on PBS. The first review I’ve seen is available in this week’s Nature, and it’s positive.

Hot on the heels of several books chronicling Kitzmiller vs Dover, comes Judgment Day, a rigorous television documentary from the producers of the prestigious science series Nova. This two-hour montage of interviews and reconstructions, to be shown on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States, features all the main players, bar one. Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme “irreducible complexity” and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate. His testimony — the cornerstone of the defence — revealed a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology.

I thought Behe was so proud of his testimony! Why should he now be reluctant to expound further on it in a documentary?

Herein lies the dramatic challenge of retelling this important story. The feebleness of the intelligent-design case, and the overwhelming strength of the prosecution in systematically deconstructing it, render the verdict clear just minutes into the programme. The makers of Judgement Day inject tension with eyewitness accounts from the people of Dover, and home-video footage of raucous school board meetings shows how passionate and divided this small community became. It works: it is inspiring to hear parents and educators,such as Sunday school and physics teacher Bryan Rehm, recount how they refused to be steam-rollered into bringing religion into the science classroom.

I’m happy to see that due importance is being attached to the real center of the argument: while they are important, the testimony of the scientists is secondary to the role local communities play. This is a battle that’s got to be fought in the minds of ordinary citizens, not just in laboratories.

Be sure to tune in next week!

---

Rutherford A (2007) Dover trial documentary screens. Nature 450:170.

Right Wing Watch has the press kit for Ken Ham’s creation science “museum”. It’s somewhat bizarre; they provide a collection of videos that are done exactly like broadcast news stories — making it easy for small town news stations to simply slot in creationist propaganda as if it were part of a real newscast.

Sleazy. Sleazier still if any broadcaster actually used the ghastly things.

Remember how I told people to Vote "no" on Bill Wenmark, the creationist school board member in the Minnetonka school district? Well, you did. Or at least that subset of you eligible to vote in that local election did. Bill Wenmark is out, and good people have been elected. The last vestiges of Intelligent Design creationism have been, ahem, expelled from one school district.

I think it was intended to be an unfavorable comparison, but the ambiguity of the phrasing does leave open the possibility that Ben Stein is accusing Einstein of having a closed mind.

What we see below are two views of Intelligent Design’s place in science. One quote is from a brilliant, open minded and humble man…the other from a man typical of those who believe that they know better, but who don’t have much to offer, other than a closed-mind.

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Albert Einstein (Nobel prize for Physics in 1921)

"Those crazy rascals behind Expelled have some new games they want to play: they’ve put out a casting call for victims of persecution. It’s a pitiful plea, but it will probably net a nice collection of complaints – because it’s true. We do reject Intelligent Design from the academy, from science, and from science education, and there’s a very good reason for that: it’s the same reason we reject astrology, alchemy, creationism, haruspication, necromancy, ornithomancy, and witchcraft from our science courses. Because they aren’t science."

PZ Myers, Neo-Darwinist, blog author and Wisconsin professor

A post from "EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed" spokesperson Ben Stein follows; it continues in the wondrously open – science view of Einstein, and provides an important perspective regarding academic freedom, and the right of every scientist, educator and researcher to pursue the evidence wherever it may lead, free from the persecution of The State, "Big Science" or lesser men wishing to impose an anti-theistic, materialistic worldview on our students, under the guise of “science.”

OK, not really. They’re trying to say mean things about me. I did have a couple of quick impressions about Stein’s remarks, though.

• I hate to say it, but Einstein sure could talk like an airy-fairy ditz at times.

• It was very nice of them to include enough of my quote to get the full meaning.

• The quote is actually from a post where I commend a college student for speaking out against creationist B.S., which makes it a bit ironic.

• I stand by my words. Good for me!

• WISCONSIN!?!! Damn you, Ben Stein. Damn you to hell.

Don’t you just love how Mike Behe is getting a serial reaming from a ‘mere’ student?

How can you not believe in creationism when such famous authorities in biology and human anatomy accept it?

No three words are more pregnant with the promise of error in a conversation with a creationist than to hear them say “what evolution predicts…”. It’s practically a guarantee that you’re going to hear something bizarre and fundamentally erroneous — but it is at least a good start on identifying basic misconceptions. Orac has found a doozy, a creationist who goes on at remarkable length, building a house of cards on a few flimsy premises. He’s dealt with it thoroughly, so I just want to focus on one piece of Pat Sullivan’s deeply flawed understanding of evolution.

[Read more…]