How do these yahoos get elected? We’ve got another dumb-ass bill about to emerge from the state of Florida:

State Sen. Stephen Wise of Jacksonville announced through an article in the Florida Times Union that he plans to file a bill this legislative session to require evolution to be balanced with a discussion of intelligent design. Yes, require. Not just allow, but to require.

Are there no senior, wiser heads in these legislatures who are willing to take these clowns by the collar and explain to them that they are an embarrassment to the state and the nation? Or are legislatures all brain-dead from top to bottom?

Not much, I’m afraid. The weirdly awful paper has been retracted, but we still don’t know how it got published in the first place. NCSE Reports has an excellent summary of the affair, but the conclusion is still highly unsatisfactory (the conclusion of the event, that is, not the summary, which is spot on).

THE EDITOR’S RESPONSE
I contacted the editor-in-chief of Proteomics, Michael Dunn, to find out more about what happened. Many scientists have speculated publicly that the peer review process went seriously wrong for this paper. Dunn assured me that the paper was reviewed by two “well-respected and highly competent reviewers” both of whom recommended minor revisions. For some reason, though, “neither picked up the references to creationism, nor did they recognize that sections of the text were plagiarized,” according to Dunn. It is not too surprising that the reviewers missed the plagiarism, but the title and abstract should have raised huge red flags warning the reviewers that this article had questionable science. I have to conclude that the reviewers were very sloppy, incompetent, or both; at the very least they were inattentive in this case, despite the editor’s claims to the contrary. And Dunn himself is not without responsibility in this case: he must have seen the reference to “the soul” in the article’s title, and he should have been more pro-active. His failure to make any public statement about the creationist claims in the article also raises questions about the leadership at the journal.

CONCLUSION
This entire episode points out a weakness in scientific peer review that creationists and other pseudoscience proponents may try to exploit again. We only caught this attempted fraud thanks to the diligence of bloggers: the journal itself had already missed it. What is perhaps more troubling is the fact that the journal relied solely on the plagiarism to force the retraction: if not for that, the article might have been published despite its unsubstantiated creationist claims. I asked Dunn specifically about this issue, but he declined to comment. The Warda and Han paper demonstrates a new strategy that proponents of creationism might attempt again, and perhaps next time they will not be so foolish as to plagiarize their text. We can only hope that the publicity surrounding this incident will alert both reviewers and editors of scientific journals to be on the lookout for “stealth” creationist claims in the future.

The title of the paper was “Mitochondria, the missing link between body and soul: Proteomic prospective evidence.” I’m still baffled by the fact that “well-respected and highly competent reviewers” could completely overlook the title and an abstract that makes extravagant claims for a complete and rather revolutionary revision of the most widely accepted explanation for the origins of mitochondria.

Forbes has published a collection of pseudoscientific nonsense, giving free rein to the hacks and frauds of the Discovery Institute, along with a few other crackpots. There is no hint given that these are marginal characters with no connection to modern science, who are following an ideological agenda with the admitted goal of replacing science and secular government with a Christian “spiritual” rule. There are no rebuttals. I’m sure the DI was thrilled to use Forbes as an arm of their propaganda machine.

I can’t possibly go through all of it; practically every sentence these guys write is misdirection, error, or outright lie. I’ll just try to give you a taste — a nasty, bitter taste, vile and rancid, but apparently the flavor Forbes wants to attach to their magazine — and you can decide whether you want to dig deeper into the cesspit.

Jonathan Wells, one of the more contemptible charlatans behind the Intelligent Design movement. Here’s one snippet of his sleight of hand.

Before 1859 science meant (and still means, for most people) testing hypotheses by comparing them with the evidence. For Darwin and his followers, however, “science” is the search for natural explanations. Such explanations should be plausible–that is, they cannot blatantly contradict the facts–but instead of being based on evidence they are based on the assumption that everything can be explained materialistically.

See what he did there? He implies that Darwin was doing something that his peers of that time should not have recognized as science, because science is based on “evidence” and not on “materialism”…and if you read further in his load of tripe, you’ll discover that he claims that “Darwinism” has no evidence, and that ID does, and will therefore win.

In addition to redefining the meaning of science, the intelligent design creationists apparently want to redefine evidence, too. Somehow, the fact that science demands material evidence — evidence that can by measured, repeated, analyzed, and integrated into theory — is a rule that means the kind of evidence that the DI wants to present is invalid. Which is true. We aren’t going to accept immaterial, supernatural claims as evidence, no matter how much Jonathan Wells whines that his Moonie fantasies ought to constitute legitimate support for his anti-science crusade.

Of course, Michael Egnor has to ramble vacuously in there. He’s a neurosurgeon, you know. It’s always the first thing he types. But then he makes the same empty claim as Wells.

But the evidence is unassailable. The most reasonable scientific explanation for functional biological complexity–the genetic code and the intricate nanotechnology inside living cells–is that they were designed by intelligent agency. There is no scientific evidence that unintelligent processes can create substantial new biological structures and function. There is no unintelligent process known to science that can generate codes and machines.

What evidence? All they do is wave their hands at the wonderful complexity that real scientists have discovered — which nobody denies — and repeat their mantra that natural processes can’t generate complexity, therefore God. But we know that natural, unguided processes are remarkably good at building elaborate innovations, and that chance can produce surprising novelties … and that natural selection acts to prune back the exuberance of random variation to a functional diversity. Their syllogism is false. One example: look at the nylonase enzyme, produced by a frameshift error. That’s a natural process, not design, and it produced new functionality.

John West repeats his bogus argument that Darwin was to blame for 20th century racism and mass murder.

Darwin waffled about following these ideas to their logical conclusion, but his followers were not so squeamish. The Darwinian rationale for eugenics was embraced by leading biologists at Harvard, Princeton and Columbia, as well as by leading European scientists, giving the movement the clear backing of the scientific community for decades and providing for justification of the forced sterilization of more than 60,000 people in the United States and the killing of more than 200,000 disabled persons in Nazi Germany.

Darwin did not “waffle”. He understood the sense of what people like Galton were proposing, that by protecting against selection by smallpox, for instance, we are allowing people with susceptibility to the disease to propagate, which would result in populations having a greater weakness to disease. That does not mean that he endorsed shutting down modern medicine, or any of the other institutions which support the poor or infirm. He had his own ideas about better ways to promote the common good.

The more efficient causes of progress seem to consist of a good education during youth whilst the brain is impressible, and of a high standard of excellence, inculcated by the ablest and best men, embodied in the laws, customs, and traditions of the nation, and enforced by public opinion. It should, however, be borne in mind, that the enforcement of public opinion depends on our appreciation of the approbation and disapprobation of others; and this appreciation is founded on our sympathy, which it can hardly be doubted was originally developed through Natural Selection as one of the most important elements on the social instincts.

It is also true that some few in the scientific community did endorse eugenics, and even that some scientists helped the Nazis. But it is a complete lie on the part of West that there was a “clear backing of the scientific community”: there were many vocal dissenters from the eugenics program, and eugenics as a whole was less the product of scientific consensus than a façade for the endemic racism of the population as a whole. Martin Luther was pushing his crude version of eugenics in the 16th century, after all.

Another clown in this show is Michael Flannery, someone I’ve never heard of before, who has apparently written a biography of Alfred Russel Wallace that I don’t think I need to read, if this is the quality of his history.

For one thing, Darwin’s own theory could hardly be called objectively scientific. Early influences on Darwin’s youth established his predisposition to materialism and a dogmatic methodological naturalism long before his voyage on the Beagle. In short, Darwin’s metaphysic compelled his science. Wallace, on the other hand, was a tireless investigator who increasingly discerned design in nature. Unlike Darwin, Wallace’s science compelled his metaphysics.

Say what? Darwin, trained to be a theologian, admirer of Paley, was philosophically predisposed to dogmatic materialism? That is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think?

But I think it’s part of the DI’s general strategy. Relying on real, physical evidence to make a case is to be declared anathema; True Scientists™ build their case on metaphysical imaginary supernatural “evidence”, like the creationist’s rationale for a god.

I think their new motto ought to be “Making Stuff Up for Jesus”. It’s all they’ve got.

Now why Forbes would willingly act as a mouthpiece for these shills is the real mystery — I‘ve written for Forbes before, and they usually seem sensible. But since they are implicitly endorsing the DI’s approach to evidence, I guess I actually don’t need to find out — I can just invent an explanation and it’s as good as any other. Therefore, I think somebody snuck into the editorial staff’s homes late at night and carried out involuntary lobotomies on everyone. And if you try to disagree with me, obviously you are an ideologue with an a priori commitment to the metaphysic of materialism.

The Darwin Day website has a calendar of events, and you can search for cool things that might be happening near you next week. Except…well, apparently the site organizers aren’t very discriminating about who and what can be posted there. Like this…

Darwin Conference (Free)
Location: 3800 S. Fairview St
Santa Ana/CA 92704

Activities: Saturday, February 07, 2009 8:30 AM to 8:55 AM Video (All Ages) 9:00 AM to 10:00 AM Ken Ham: Answers for Racism – Darwin & Evolution`s Racist Roots. (Ages 11 & Up) 10:20 AM to 11:10 AM Dr. Andrew Snelling:Answers from Geology – The Catastrophe of Noah`s Flood (Ages 11 & Up) 11:25 AM to 12:15 PM Dr. David Menton: Answers about the “Ape-Men” (Ages 11 & Up) 12:15 PM to 1:25 PM Lunch Break (All Ages) 1:30 PM to 2:40 PM Ken Ham: Answers for Effective Evangelism in the 21st Century (Ages 11 & Up) 3:00 PM to 3:50 PM Dr. Andrew Snelling:Answers from Science and Scripture on the Real Age of the Earth (Ages 11 & Up) 4:05 PM to 4:55 PM Dr. David Menton: Answers from Design – Intelligent Design vs. Darwinian Evolution (Ages 11 & Up) 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM Ken Ham: Genesis: Key to Reaching Today`s World (All Ages)

So if you want to celebrate Darwin’s birthday by listening to some cranks and crackpots make up stuff about the science, preach about jebus, and teach your children a hodge-podge of lies, there you go, have fun.

I think it’s a bit inappropriate, myself. Although I am looking forward to a fun summer when I can reciprocate and crash Vacation Bible School to tell the little kiddies about the fallacies and inconsistencies of the bible, and how the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and life evolved upon it.

Don’t tell me that would be rude. They started it!

P.S. Shame on you, DarwinDay.org. Could we maybe have a little quality control?

Nothing new here, just more of the same. I thought this time I’d insert my reactions into the stream of a fairly typical creationist letter that I received this morning. Really, people: you may think you’re very clever and persuasive, but I hear all of this same stuff every single day, and you’ve never got a new argument.

Thanks for removing all doubt as to what will be taught at U-Morris.[Yes. We will be teaching science, not creationism.] My daughter was considering attending after she graduates next year. [Good for her! She sounds like a smart young woman already]That will not be the case anymore.[I am very sorry to hear that—she clearly needs a good education to correct the indoctrination of her father. But then, any good school she gets into will teach her the same things I would]

For you to take it upon yourself to have people e-mail U of Vermont, protesting the invitation to have Ben Stein speak at commencement, shows a narrow minded disdain for relevant[From Stein? Nixonian hack with no knowledge of science and a failed track record in economics?] opposing [Some opposing views can be wrong because they are stupid, you know] views
in not only science but probably everything else.

Everyday. And I mean everyday. Your ‘we come from goo’[Uh-oh. Your true colors as a devotee of the crazy people at Answers in Genesis are showing] stance is loosing[Maybe your daughter can be an English major] ground [Actually, no — evolution is doing very well, is beautifully supported by the evidence, and is getting stronger year by year among people who bother to evaluate the evidence] and you and your ilk[Nice word] are scared to death of continually being proven wrong[Not at all. Easy to refute: prove evolution wrong. Go ahead. I’ll listen. Just don’t regurgitate AiG nonsense at me, OK?]. So you go nuts at these opposing views of creation[Just being an “opposing view” does not make it valid. You really need to learn some critical thinking skills.] and what not. Funny thing is Stein is a nice guy[Stein: “Science leads to killing people”] and probably wouldn’t even talk about that scary creation point of view anyway[Maybe instead he’d talk about his inane and demonstrably wrong views on the economy. Which is scarier?]. You have got to lighten up.[Dude, you’re the one writing a long letter to a stranger protesting that you’re going to dictate which schools your daughter can attend, because you don’t want her exposed to different ideas about evolution.]

Please do not take this personally[Since yours is one of 11 weird harangues I found in my mailbox this morning, I won’t. I just laugh.], since I have never met you or even heard of you[Nor I you. But I have heard this same cookie-cutter, boring creationist spiel a few thousand times.] until I saw Pharyngula. There are lots of people over the years that have been ramming[Really? Ramming? I suppose you could say your math teachers also rammed algebra down your throat.] this impossible Theory of Evolution[Sir, you do not understand the theory of evolution, and you are clearly planning to make sure your children don’t, either. Not only is it possible, it’s been demonstrated time and again] down our throats. But that does not mean its true.[Funny. I have never heard a scientist say evolution is true because we have indoctrinated people into it. That’s more the kind of thing that is true of creationists]

We need to keep open minds and field and teach opposing views and let truth take it where it leads no matter how improbable a direction[I repeat, guy: your whole letter is built on an assertion that you will not allow your daughter to be exposed to ideas you dislike. Why are you creationists always so oblivious?].

Respectfully,[Somehow, I doubt it]

Steve Broten

This is curious: apparently, the DVD of Expelled now comes with a little book of quotes which are supposed to support its thesis. Only they don’t. Somebody ought to scan these in so we could all share the hilarity.

Not me, alas. Not only didn’t I get to see the movie, the makers haven’t even had the courtesy to send me a complimentary copy. Maybe they’re anticipating that I’ll be able to get one in my goody bag at the Oscars.

Feel my pain. Listen to this ignorant young woman lie and lie and lie about evolution: Charles Darwin was a theologian who just guessed and didn’t do any science, there are no transitional fossils, the cell is very complex and therefore could not evolve, yadda yadda yadda. She has been grossly miseducated, and she’s parroting creationist dishonesty with extreme smugness.

There. Now I’ve ruined your morning.

This gets better and better. President Daniel Fogel of the University of Vermont has given several interviews on the Ben Stein affair, and clarified quite a few matters. He explicitly says he did not ask Stein to withdraw from the commencement ceremonies, but when you read these comments, it’s clear that that there was a lack of support from the UVM administration and that he was confronted with some serious objections, and Stein withdrew knowing that if he persisted it was going to get ugly. Here’s one interview with Fogel:

I think the fundamental concern of the people that wrote to me was that, while they are quite open to having a speaker with Mr. Steins views on campus, they felt that he should not be honored at the commencement ceremony when so many of his views seemed to be affronts to the basic premises of the academy, about scientific and scholarly inquiry and collaterally, people were deeply disturbed by his views on the roll of science in the Holocaust.

…

But I have to say, the issue here, and this is important, is not freedom of expression. Ben Stein has come to our campus to speak, and some of the faculty that are colleagues here wrote to me to say that they have no objection to him coming here to speak.

It was the legitimate concern among members of the community regarding the implications of granting an honorary degree to someone whose ideas fundamentally ignore the basics of scientific inquiry.

That’s a smart and important point: this was not about freedom of expression, since Stein clearly has a surfeit of venues in which he opens his tendentious mouth, but a question of a scientific research institution giving a science denier and propagandist a platform to validate his anti-university views. He reiterates this position in another interview:

“This is not, to my mind, an issue about academic freedom or the openness of the campus to all points of view. Ben Stein spoke here last spring to great acclaim,” UVM President Dan Fogel said. “It’s an issue about the appropriateness of awarding an honorary degree to someone whose views in many ways ignore or affront the fundamental values of scientific inquiry and I greatly regret that I was not attuned to those issues.”

Fogel just shot way up in my esteem…and ouch, that has got to sting Stein’s well-padded keester.

Good news, all! Ben Stein has withdrawn from the UVM commencement. I think we can thank Richard Dawkins’ clout for helping with this one.

Here’s the letter from President Fogel. They asked Stein to speak as an authority on economics?

Dear Professor Dawkins,

As one who has been deeply instructed by your work and who applauds your scientific leadership, I was honored to find a personal email from you in my inbox, but very sorry indeed that the occasion was the decision to invite Ben Stein to be a Commencement speaker and honorary degree recipient. Although we have recently learned that Mr. Stein will be unable to receive the honorary degree here or to serve as Commencement speaker, please know that it was our expectation that his remarks would address the global economic crisis and that he would speak from his widely acknowledged area of expertise on the economy. We regret that he will be unable to do so.

With thanks again for writing, with admiration, and with every good wish–Daniel Mark Fogel, President, The University of Vermont

And Dawkins’ reply:

Dear President Fogel

Thank you very much indeed for your extremely gracious letter.

I cannot disguise my gladness that Ben Stein will not be going to Vermont. Thank you very much for letting me know. I wish you, and your great university all good fortune. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help.

With my very best wishes, and thanks again for your letter

Yours sincerely

Richard Dawkins

Another victory against creationists!