The joke’s on them

I hesitate to mention this, but I seem to be the target of creationist humor. It’s not being targeted that I mind, but that the ‘humor’ is so lame and the photoshopping is so bad. I would have thought that I’d be an excellent subject for lampooning, being easily caricatured and having views outside the mainstream, so why are they so pathetic at it?

Never mind, I looked around the site a little more — it’s all that bad, a kind of ham-fisted exaggeration of creationist misconceptions that really only makes the creationists look foolish, on a par with Dembski’s clumsy attempts at a joke. Don’t they know that good satire has to build on some grain of truth about the subject?

SMU ‘Darwin vs. Design’ conference is coming soon, and the creationists are flustered

The ID creationists are having one of those ludicrous “Darwin vs. Design” conferences, in which they rehash assertions and nonexistent evidence and practice propaganda and rhetoric, at Southern Methodist University this week. They seem a little nonplussed at the opposition they’ve encountered. Hey, it’s Southern Methodist University — it’s got a religion in its name! — and it’s Texas, aren’t they all ignorant bible-thumping yahoos down there who ought to chow down happily on any Design story they spin? No, they aren’t, and good, legitimate scientists are on the staff at SMU, and suddenly, the creationists are getting criticized.

Advocates of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute have been rattled by the strong showing of scientists at Southern Methodist University who called their bluff, and questioned SMU for hosting an ID conference this week. SMU’s officials pointed out they were just renting out facilities, and not hosting the conference at all.

The ID conference, with special religious group activities preceding it, is scheduled for April 13 and 14 at SMU. It is a rerun of a similar revival held in Knoxville, Tennessee, last month. The conference features no new scientific research, no serious science sessions with scientists looking at new research, or new findings from old data.

[Read more…]

What’s the creationist position on ‘framing’?

The proper answer to that question is “Who cares?”, but just in case you’re morbidly curious, Bill Dembski weighs in:

The authors of “Framing Science” (see below), which appeared in Science, are world-renowned scientists and therefore know whereof they speak. Well, not exactly. Matthew Nisbet is a professor of communication and Chris Mooney is a correspondent for the atheist magazine Seed. (Nisbet’s blog is also hosted by Seed.) Nisbet and Mooney are both outspoken defenders of Darwinism and critics of ID — which is no doubt why the American Association for the Advancement of Science (publisher of Science) regards them as qualified to “frame” science.

The man is a bitter, seething mass of envy, isn’t he? It takes some chutzpah for a fellow of the Discovery Institute, that nest of lawyers, bad philosophers, and theologians, to complain about the scientific qualifications of others. If Dembski is world-renowned as anything, it’s as an incompetent hack and promoter of anti-scientific nonsense, so I don’t think he should be whining about credentials.

As for that “atheist magazine Seed” … I’ve read every issue, and the magazine as a whole does not take any noticeable position on atheism or religion; some of the interviews have been a little too conciliatory for my taste (but then my taste does not dictate content in any way, or he would have grounds fro calling it an atheist magazine!) Neither is scienceblogs in any way a host that favors atheism, and that is not a criterion used in selecting blogs to join the mob. My little corner here may be a vicious hotbed of brutal, humorless, militant atheism, but Pharyngula is not scienceblogs (it isn’t even particularly well liked by a great many of the sciencebloggers here) and it is especially not Seed.

But then, accuracy and honesty are not what we expect of Dembski…

300

The movie 300 has finally arrived in Morris, and I saw it last evening. I’d heard a lot about this film, in particular that it was loaded with relationships to current events—the war in Iraq, in particular, with arguments for it being pro-war, anti-war, a jingoistic propaganda film, etc. The arguments are all wrong. I could tell exactly what this movie’s hidden meaning was: it’s a retelling of the creation-evolution struggle! “But of course!” you’re all saying to yourselves, “It’s so obvious, now that you mention it!”

[Read more…]

Three years and counting

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.

One day has stretched into three years. I would fear that Paul Nelson has fallen into a chronosynclastic infundibulum and come unstuck in time, except that he still pops up saying the same stuff at creationist conferences. Maybe he just forgot, and this thread will remind him so that he’ll show up and post that promised explanation in a comment.

Tomorrow.

Believing and understanding

Larry Moran criticizes a dramatic Youtube video that purports to show how evolution works. He asks if we think this helps or hurts the cause of evolution education. Speaking as an evo-devo guy (forgive me, Larry), I’d also say it hurts. Without understanding the mechanisms of morphological change underlying the simulation, it’s useless. It doesn’t explain anything about the roots of the variation it’s demonstrating or the principles of the propagation of genetic change through a population — funny faces shift generation after generation, with no explanation given. It asserts change without showing how. That is not science.

This is also where I have problems with the Nisbet/Mooney thesis. I presume this kind of simplified, cartoony presentation is what they think we need more of, and that scientists ought to just swallow their pride arrogance and go along with the “framing”…but there’s a point where simplification and flash become the antithesis of good science. I don’t want people to believe in evolution, I want them to understand it.

Would the cartoon help them believe? Maybe.

Does it help them understand? No.

If you want to grasp the goals of scientists (and, tellingly, the goals of atheists), you have to understand that distinction between believing and understanding.

Wells on Hox structure: making the same mistakes over and over again

Jonathan Wells apparently felt the sting of my rebuttal of his assertions about Hox gene structure, because he has now repeated his erroneous interpretations at Dembski’s creationist site. His strategy is to once again erect a straw man version of biologist’s claims about genetic structure, show that biologists have refuted his dummy, and claim victory. The only real question here is whether he actually believes his historical revisions of what we’ve known about Hox genes, in which case he is merely ignorant, or whether he is knowingly painting a false picture, in which case he is a malicious fraud.

[Read more…]