The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design: Chapter 3: Simply incorrect embryology

This article is part of a series of critiques of Jonathan Wells’ The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design that will be appearing at the Panda’s Thumb over the course of the next week or so. Previously, I’d dissected the summary of chapter 3. This is a longer criticism of the whole of the chapter, which is purportedly a critique of evo-devo.

Jonathan Wells is a titular developmental biologist, so you’d expect he’d at least get something right in his chapter on development and evolution in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, but no: he instead uses his nominal knowledge of a complex field to muddle up the issues and misuse the data to generate a spurious impression of a science that is unaware of basic issues. He ping-pongs back and forth in a remarkably incoherent fashion, but that incoherence is central to his argument: he wants to leave the reader so baffled about the facts of embryology that they’ll throw up their hands and decide development is all wrong.

Do not be misled. The state of Jonathan Wells’ brain is in no way the state of the modern fields of molecular genetics, developmental biology, and evo-devo.

[Read more…]

Holocaust ≠ natural selection

Aaron Kinney makes a good point about claims that the Holocaust was Darwin-inspired:

I would argue that even if Hitler really did use Darwin’s theory as inspiration for the mass-murder of Jews, he got it wrong. Throwing millions of Jews into death camps is, in my opinion, artificial selection! It is stacking the decks, not proving the superior adaptability of a breed of human.

Exactly so. There are a lot of mistaken ideas about how an individual demonstrates a natural superiority to other individuals, and foremost among them is this belief that it always involves being “red in tooth and claw” and exterminating the competition (secondmost: that it is always those who have the most babies who win). Simple-minded aggression and heedless procreation actually seem to be very poor strategies for human beings, who are more the slow and deliberate type of replicator, dependent on conspecific cooperation. The kind of social Darwinism/eugenics that Hitler favored was not evolution or Darwinism—it owes more to farming folk knowledge than to the complexity of evolutionary theory.

Not that that will matter to the people peddling the Darwin-Hitler link. I think they’d have a better case if they were arguing for a pigeon fancier-Hitler link.

The Catholic Church retreats into the darkness, again

George Coyne, the Vatican astronomer, has been sacked. Red State Rabble and John Wilkins speak out on it.

They cite one source condescendingly claiming that Coyne “appointed himself an expert in evolutionary biology,” while Bruce Chapman of the Discovery Institute (speaking of unqualified gits appointing themselves the status of ‘expert’) calls Coyne an “evangelizing Darwinist,” and blames his fall on his radical theology. It seems to me that Coyne was actually a highly qualified scientist who was well-informed about the general principles of science, and who informed the Vatican about the actual status of the discipline of evolution within the domain of science. What this represents is a case of Catholicism once again rushing to bury its head in the sand—they can’t have someone who honestly represents the uncomfortable facts of science speaking out, after all. I’m sure his replacement will be better steeped in the dogma, will confine himself to a much less forthright position, and appreciates theology more than the science.

I hope George Coyne uses the freedom from one set of duties to reconsider that religion thing. It must be hard to serve two masters, especially when one is about enlightenment and knowledge, and the other is about ignorance and dogma.

Shermer on Salon

Don’t let the first paragraph stop you—it’s awful. Once the reporter gets out of the way and lets Shermer get going, though, it’s a good interview.

Here’s the bad part of the opening:

Some of Shermer’s ivory towerish science pals, like Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Jay Gould, told him not to bother with the I.D. boosters, that acknowledging them meant going along for their political ride, where the integrity of science was being run into the ground.

Gould and Dawkins have both said we shouldn’t debate creationists—we shouldn’t elevate them to the same status that science holds. But both certainly have ripped into ID; the argument isn’t that we shouldn’t criticize them forcefully, but that we shouldn’t give them the opportunity to pretend their dogmatic foolishness is the equal of science.

After that, though, the article is good godless fare.

From the mailbag

Since several have asked me to post these strange emails prompted by the WingNut Daily article, here’s a couple of the cleaner, more coherent ones.

Batboy satanist
I believe that you are a satanist.Pukehead.W.M.

It is a shame that such a learned individual can be so afraid of opposing viewpoints. How can one explain maintaining a point of view about something (evolution) that most scientists secretly admit is bunk. Despite the years of research and billions in funding spent on this idiotic “theory”, never has anyone been able to produce ANY hard evidence to support this theory. In fact, more evidence exists to disprove it. Yet, our tax-payer funded schools are being forced, despite the will of the people in this “democratic” nation, to teach this bunk to our children, while being blocked from teaching ANY opposing viewpoints. And, those who dare will find themselves in court so fast it will make their head spin.

I dare you to read this
Jesus loves you even if you are a pig-####### ############. [I edited that last bit]

“…ejaculations from a godless liberal
Why are godless liberals the only ones who seem to have faith in the Darwinic system of beliefs? Evolution was a great belief when it was first introduced. After all there were brass microscopes and all kind of modern tools to study this new found faith. Today evolution is as ###### as it was in the past and people who hold no faith in religion or evolution can see it for what it is. A farce!

You can see why I don’t dump more of these here: they’re boring. Especially after you get 20 or 30 of them.

Maybe it’s to prevent evolutionists from exercising in air conditioned rooms…

I’m hearing lots about this CHE story that documents an omitted category in a list of subjects eligible for a class of grants…and the omission conveniently knocks out evolutionary biology. I’m suspicious, and everyone is suspicious, and for good reason—this is an administration that elevates incompetent ideologues to positions of unwarranted power in the halls of science, so seeing that kind of selective deletion isn’t too surprising.

However, Matt Brauer at the Panda’s Thumb finds two other deletions: exercise physiology, and…Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Technology? Unless there’s a passage in the Bible that says Jesus hates ducts, this sounds like a case of incompetence being a bigger factor than ideology.