Biogeography Workshop at Evolution2009

Next week's evolution2009 conference offers a K-12 educators workshop entitled "Evolution 101: Evolution and Biogeography." The announcement explains that:

Biogeography is traditionally a keystone approach to evolutionary biology, as seen in the works of Charles Darwin, Alfred Russell Wallace and Henry Bates.

The works of Darwin and Wallace? The Darwin-Wallace paradigm was a restrictive dogma, not a keystone, in biogeography. It took a century to exorcise but now, fifty years later, is it resurrected as good science.

In addition to brainwashing, workshop participants will also receive a small library of evolution propaganda, including the National Academies of Science's Science, Evolution and Creationism. This handy booklet is packed with evolutionary newspeak, such as the wonderfully freeing thought that evolution is true regardless of the evidence. "Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct," the NAS informs young scientists, it would not matter because evolutionists can always contrive alternative explanations. Now that's hard science.

Also, Mike Webster and Louise Mead will lead a session on "tree-thinking." Apparently unaware of the scientific evidence, and that even evolutionists are admitting that tree-thinking needs a reassessment, Webster and Mead will "use simple games and simulations to demonstrate why it is that evolution leads to tree-like patterns of relationships among species." If that is true then evolution is false.

And of course do not miss the Gould Lecture that evening where Eugenie Scott will be rewarded for her tireless efforts in saving the world for evolution. Scott will bemoan the public's "high incidence of rejection of evolution" and encourage teachers to do what they can to dispel such ignorance. The problem, as Scott sees it, is that people just don't understand the basic ideas of evolution.

Don't understand the basic ideas of evolution? How could that be? In fact we are, and have been for many years, awash in evolution education. Public school classes, with their highly produced textbooks, have been inculcating tender minds for generations. And our media, legal system, entertainment, and cultural elites are all dominated by a positive, evolutionary-is-good-science, mindset. TV specials, museums, science and popular magazines--everywhere we look we are told about the virtues of evolution and the nefarious motives of those who doubt.

The problem is not that folks do not understand evolution well enough, the problem is that folks understand evolution too well.

PZ Myers: The Anti-Authoritarian Authoritarian

Is there a religious influence and authoritarian tradition in science? Evolutionist PZ Myers rejects any such notion. Though Myers relies on the usual theological truth claims that are fundamental to evolution, he is sure that science is free of all such nonsense. When he is not busy shutting down scientific inquiry with religious dictates, he reassures his readers that science is a process that empowers questioning and change.

Certainly that is what science should be, but it is precisely the opposite in the hands of evolutionists such as Myers. They believe evolution is a fact, based on religious dogma that goes back centuries. Far from the empowering the asking of questions when the evidence contradicts their theory, they protect evolution from harm. You can see examples of Myers' religious commitment here and here. Myers criticizes the religious ignorance and dogma he disagrees with, but he ignores the religious dogma that is foundational to evolution.

Did Vision Evolve?

Those textbook diagrams showing the supposed evolution of vision reveal a real blind spot. There are at least three big problems with this evolutionary narrative. First, the biochemistry, even in primitive eyes is numbingly complex. The notion that it evolved is nowhere motivated by the scientific evidence.

Second, if a new vision capability did just happen magically to arise, it would be worthless since there would be no interpretation of the new signals in the brain. And third, speaking of signals, the signal processing that goes on between the initial signal transduction and the brain is profound. The signal transduction, as phenomenally complex as that is, is only the beginning.

The incoming light is converted into an electrical signal (action potential) and then undergoes massive processing before making its impact on the brain. And new research is revealing new levels of complexity in this processing. If you stare at a horizontal line first then a circle appears stretched out, like an ellipse. This simple fact was ingeniously used in an experiment to study how the processing deals with the incoming signals that must be changing too fast.

Our eyes move several times per second. If we were aware of what our eyes were seeing we'd have difficulty making sense of such rapid movements. As it is we don't sense such movements, and one theory held that the signal processing in our vision system deleted certain scenes to keep the image steady in our brains. But when subjects were shown a horizontal line too quickly to be sensed, they nonetheless then saw a circle as an ellipse.

In other words, even those scenes of which we are not aware have an effect on the scenes that we do see. Our vision system is even more complex than we thought, and the evolutionary narrative, that a few mutations created and modified a few genes from which arose fancy new vision capabilities, has become that much more absurd.

Groups That Laugh Together Stay Together

Evolutionists group species by similarities, thinking this reveals patterns of common descent. Then they find another similarity (not surprisingly with the same pattern) and they conclude it must have evolved. After all, it fits the pattern.

The logic is laughable, and here's a funny example. Evolutionists are now concluding that laughter evolved in a common ancestor of the great apes and humans. And how do they figure this? First, they tickled 22 apes and three humans (your tax dollars at work). Then they discovered similarities. As the BBC reports:

Because the sounds of the most closely related apes matched most closely in the analysis of the laughter, the researchers believe the work is proof of laughter's shared evolutionary origin, followed by adaptation to its form in the species we see today.

Should we laugh or cry?

Pure Dogma

Once upon a time scientists were supposed to be skeptical. Scientific theories, we were taught, were to be questioned. Yes scientists were to formulate theories, but they were also to search for evidence against theories, even their own. And while such a noble action as searching for problems with one's own theory might be too much to ask, certainly scientists were never to protect a theory against contradictory evidence or mislead the public. That would be the ultimate scientific sell out. Scientists were to be objective, and to follow the evidence where ever it may lead.

Those days are gone--long gone. Misleading the public, covering up evidence, protecting theories--that is all standard fare today. We have now arrived at the sad state where evidence that is contrary to evolution--any contrary evidence--is not allowed. Consider this recent exchange between Yudhijit Bhattacharjee of Science magazine and evolution crusader Eugenie Scott:

Science magazine: How has this battle changed in the past 20 years?

Eugenie Scott: The enemy has become more diverse. When I started, it was just creation science. Now we have creation science, intelligent design [ID], and straight-up antievolution in the form of "evidence against evolution."

Evidence against evolution? Is there something wrong with that? Yes, there is for evolutionists. Science, in the hands of evolutionists, is something to be manipulated. Scientists who want to examine the evidence are ridiculed and marginalized. If you doubt evolution you are considered to be the enemy. Motives are assigned to you, and you are stereotyped. This is pure dogma. Religion drives science, and it matters.

The Three Fallacies of Evolution

We routinely hear that the biological evidence proves evolution, beyond any shadow of a doubt. Recently PZ Myers made this claim for the fossil evidence and Sean Carroll for the molecular evidence. These evidences are often debated and discussed, but what is often missed is that this evolutionary reasoning is illogical to begin with. Philosophical failure is not a good starting point for discussion. Any debate needs to start with a clear understanding of the evidence and what it means. Unfortunately, such a starting point is difficult to come by. In fact, three different fallacies are routinely at work in the evolution genre. Here are quotes from Myers and Carroll, and an explanation of the fallacies.

In his book The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution, Carroll discusses the use of genetic markers such as LINEs and SINEs (long and short interspersed elements, respectively) to reconstruct evolutionary relationships. He concludes:

biologists have sufficient forensic evidence to determine species' kinship beyond any doubt. [99]

Similarly, Myers derives similar certainty from the fossil evidence:

The evolution of whales is also a matter of fact and evidence. We have the fossils; we can see a pattern of change across geological time, from those hooved terrestrial quadrupeds to flippered ambush predators adapted to living in the shallows to four-flippered, paddle-tailed swimmers to obligate water-dwellers with flukes and no hind limbs, with many stages in between. It is a beautiful and strongly-supported example of macroevolutionary change. So yes, we believe it — you'd have to be blind to ignore the testimony of the rocks.

Fallacy #1: Affirming the consequent

These types of truth claims are consistent in the evolution genre. The first, and most important fallacy is that these arguments affirm the consequent. This fallacy states that if P implies Q, then Q implies P. For instance, if a theory predicts that it will rain next Tuesday, that does not mean that if it rains on Tuesday the theory is true. But this is precisely the logic of evolution. If evolution is true then we expect fossil sequences and genetic similarities to fall into the expected evolutionary patterns. Evolutionists such as Carroll and Myers have found such patterns in the fossil and molecular data and claim, as above, that they prove evolution to be true.

Fallacy #2: Confirmation bias

A common motif in the evolution genre is the elevation of confirming evidence. As in the examples above, the patterns that fit the evolutionary expectations are touted as proof texts. But there are plenty of evidential problems as well. Often these problems are in the same data in which the evolutionists find their persuasive patterns. Yes, many fossils fall into the expected pattern, but many do not. Likewise for the molecular data. These uncooperative data are often not considered when evolutionists formulate their proofs of why evolution is a fact. This fallacy is known as confirmation bias.

Fallacy #3: Evidence denial

Because there is so much uncooperative data, evolutionary expectations have become quite flexible. In fact, sometimes it is difficult to identify just what constitutes the expected evolutionary pattern. In the fossil record, for instance, increasing complexity, decreasing complexity, rapid appearance, trees, bushes, diversity explosions, stasis for eons can all fit within evolution's broad and flexible imagination of what natural forces can do. Therefore, when evolutionists find great significant in evidences that fulfill some particular evolutionary pattern, they are ignoring the many other patterns that evolution also expects.

Evolutionists consistently make eye-brow raising claims. Evolution, they say, is a fact beyond any shadow of a doubt, as obvious as gravity, and so forth. These claims are perceived to have the full faith and backing of modern science. But they do not. Behind such unbelievable claims is, not surprisingly, any number of logical fallacies that cannot stand up to even modest scrutiny.

Behavior Solutions

Behind all the incredible structural designs in biology are the amazing behavioral designs. They expose evolution’s absurdities perhaps even more than do the structures. As one evolutionist admitted, the theory is in disarray. And so it is good to see that an understanding of behavior is emerging that is free of the evolutionary dogma, such as in Nature's I.Q., where, according to the publisher, “Hungarian scientists Balazs Hornyanszky and Istvan Tasi ... point out how Darwinian 'just so' stories fail to explain these irreducibly complex instincts and behaviors.”

The Unavoidable Teleology

Evolution is constantly force-fit into roles it was not designed for. We often see explanations such as: “Evolution uses strategy X to create fantastic design Y.” Such design language is not merely convenient shorthand or sloppy thinking. It is the only way to imagine how evolution could work, in many instances, but of course it makes no sense. Consider this latest teleological description of evolution’s creation of the amazing squid’s vision systems, provided by Margaret McFall-Ngai:

Evolution has a “toolkit” and when it needs to do a particular job, such as see light, it uses the same toolkit again and again. In this case, the light organ, which comes from different tissues than the eye during development, uses the same proteins as the eye to see light.

How clever of evolution to create a “toolkit” that it could then use when the need arises.

Religion Masquerades as Science in Forbes Magazine

Michael Ruse has a piece in Forbes magazine about the recent hype over the Darwinius masillae fossil. I’m not sure what a business magazine finds interesting about the 47-million-year-old primate fossil, but I’m sure it isn’t interested in promoting the religion that underwrites the theory of evolution. Like most evolutionists Ruse doesn’t hide his theological convictions. I once debated Ruse but it was hardly a debate. I explained that evolutionists mandate naturalism for religious reasons such as the problem of evil, and Ruse argued that evolution is mandated for religious reasons such as the problem of evil. Such convictions provide evolutionists with a metaphysical certainty that evolution is true. As Ruse writes:

Thanks to the Origin and to the huge amount of research done in the subsequent century and a half, we have massive evidence–from paleontology, biogeography, anatomy, embryology and every other branch of biology–putting the fact that organisms evolved well beyond reasonable doubt. This is as certain as that the Earth goes around the sun or that water is composed of oxygen and hydrogen. Other than the aforementioned biblical literalists, no one doubts this fact. Nor should they.

Evolution is a fact, and is well beyond reasonable doubt? It may sound like science but it is not—this is religion in disguise. This level of certainty comes from metaphysics, not measurements. From a scientific perspective the evidence presents a plethora of problems for evolution. But from a religious perspective the evidence is conclusive. Consider the evidence from biogeography. Elsewhere Ruse has written that:

Given an all-wise God just why is it that different forms appear in similar climates, whereas the same forms appear in different climates? It is all pointless without evolution.

Here we have the strength of the argument, and the mandate for evolution. It really doesn’t matter if evolution struggles with the evidence. It must be true. You can read the rest of the biogeography story here. Religion drives science and it matters.

David Penny: Religion Can be Subtle

At next week’s evolution2009 conference, David Penny will give the Society of Systematic Biologists Presidential Address. Penny’s talk has the engaging title: “Why we should finally take Darwin 100% seriously: who's afraid of the big bad ID’er.” It should be interesting. As an evolutionist, Penny is an advocate of religious interpretations of the scientific evidence. Often this religious influence is obvious but sometimes it is subtle, as in a paper that Penny and coworkers published in Nature magazine.

In that 1982 paper, Penny responded to Sir Karl Popper’s occasional criticisms of evolution, such as that it is not falsifiable and is a metaphysical research program. Penny responded with the classic random-design-as-null-hypothesis argument which dates back to the eighteenth century when it was introduced by Daniel Bernoulli, and elaborated by Immanuel Kant and Pierre Laplace.

That’s quite a trio and the argument, though it is deeply theological (simply put, it claims God would not create patterns in nature), soon became standard fare in science. And the argument had the virtue of sounding scientific when carefully restated. As Penny declared:

Clearly we can reject any idea that the trees from the different sequences are independent.

Independent? What does that mean? This is a subtle, but deeply metaphysical interpretation of the evidence (See Science’s Blind Spot for more details). It is used as a consistent and powerful proof in the evolution literature, and it is not scientific. Ironically, in attempting to rebut Popper’s observation that evolution is not falsifiable and metaphysical, Penny instead confirmed these very points. Religion drives science and it matters.

Wiker's New Book

The history and philosophy of science, as they relate to theories of origins, are largely sympathetic to evolution. The history of how Darwin's theory arose and its subsequent acceptance often carries with it the implicit assumption that evolution is true. Many questions that a curious historian would naturally explore if evolution was viewed merely as a theory, rather than a fact, go unasked. Likewise, important philosophical issues are left untouched because, if evolution is true they are less interesting. All of this helps to fuel a climate of anti intellectualism. But there are some historians and philosophers who are willing to suspend the assumption that evolution is true. One such scholar is Benjamin Wiker and you can see his new book, The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin, here.

Fighting Religion in Texas

Ever wonder what it would be like to go up against religious forces? Don McLeroy, who wanted evolution to be exposed to scientific scrutiny now knows. He was ousted this week from his post as the Texas chairman of the State Board of Education. This is the first step of a new religious offensive against science. And this offensive will of course require a righteous mandate. For that, McLeroy is reportedly being blamed for a host of evils, including recklessly disregarding the advice of education experts (i.e., evolutionists), causing the board to be “extremely dysfunctional,” fueling endless culture wars, and putting ideology and partisanship ahead of the schoolchildren of Texas. It is apparently OK to promote religion in science, but to ask for scientific scrutiny is to be reckless, ideological, partisan and dysfunctional.

If you are a journalist, law maker, educator, administrator, policy maker or scientist who thinks that evolution should be exposed to scientific scrutiny, then beware. You will be going up against religious forces. In this case, the inquisition was divided along party lines, with one of our great political parties aligning itself with enforced religion. It is ironic that these same politicians claim to support the separation between church and state.

The Brilliance of Evolution

Science and engineering have produced some very sophisticated machines. After centuries of advances and who knows how many millions of hours of work, we have now sports cars and spacecraft. Such high tech marvels, however, in many regards do not match the wonders of biology. Evolutionists are convinced that the forces that bring us the wind and the rain also accomplished what our leading scientists and engineers, armed with determination, years of training and supercomputers, could not. We cannot even build a single cell bacteria from scratch, which evolution somehow is supposed to have produced early on in a warm little pond somewhere.

But scientists and engineers are producing ever improved robots to study animal design and even evolution. Ignoring the fact that evolution did not have the benefit of a robotics industry, microprocessors, and centuries of supporting fundamental science, evolutionists are claiming that their robotics experiments are simulating evolution. The key is all the new, advanced technology that makes for more advanced robots. As one report explained:

Microprocessors are now tinier and more sophisticated. Building materials are more pliable. The same technology driving the use of electronic prosthetic limbs and vacuuming robots also is giving scientists a sophisticated tool to study biology. "In the past, if you think about it, robots wouldn't work because we could only make these big metal things with rotating joints that were really stiff ... and that's not how nature is," said Robert J. Full, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley.

With enough investment, research and determination perhaps someday we can catch up to evolution—a truly brilliant designer.

Behavior Problems

In attempting to explain behavior, evolution has become dramatically more complex in recent decades. Love, hate, deception, cheating, suspicion … the list of nuanced behaviors evolution now explains goes on and on. And the explanations are rather incredible. Children use temper tantrums, for instance, to manipulate parents. Parents countered this with the ability to discern and children, in turn, refined their manipulation with heartfelt whining. All a result of the complexities of natural selection. Such highly detailed, elaborate, speculation has raised evolution’s legendary just-so stories to a new level.

But speculation on steroids is not the only problem with today’s version of evolution. As is often the case, though evolutionists are convinced their theory is a fact they can’t quite figure out how it works. This leads to competing hypotheses which, in this case, deal with the different levels at which natural selection may work. Is natural selection more important at the level of the individual and family or the group and society?

The theory is in disarray, but evolutionists remain as confident as ever. Here is what one evolution said this week about new research supporting one hypothesis:

Inclusive fitness is the thing. It's a powerful way to think about the world and a powerful way to model the world.

It is true these hypotheses can model a variety or behaviors, but such explanations also raise profound problems for evolution.

Genocentrism

One of the problems with evolution is its elevation of genes. Because genes are so central to the evolutionary narrative, they have taken on an unrealistically important role in evolutionary theory. Here's an example from an article about research comparing mice and humans:

"In the last decade or so, we've come to realized that the mouse is really similar to humans," said co-author of the new study, Wolfgang Enard of the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthrophology. "The genes are essentially the same and they also work similarly."

Only in evolutiondom do we find otherwise smart people making such bizarre, non scientific conclusions.