Posted on 11/03/2003 12:05:39 PM PST by Heartlander
|
A Response to Eugenie Scott and the NCSE By William A. Dembski Discovery Institute November 1, 2003 |
| Originally published Oct. 10, 2003 Eugenie Scott’s letter of September 30, 2003 to members of the Texas State Board of Education purports to show that intelligent design research is not published in the peer-reviewed literature. But in fact, Scott has purposely failed to disclose certain key items of information which demonstrate that intelligent design research is in fact now part of the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature. I can substantiate the charge that Scott has purposely failed to disclose key information in this regard. Scott and I have met at several conferences and debates, and we correspond typically a few times a year by email. Here is a paragraph from an email she sent me on December 3, 2002 (in context, Scott is disparaging my work on intelligent design because, so she claims, it has not been cited in the appropriate peer-reviewed literature): “It would perhaps be more interesting (and something for you to take rather more pride in) if it were the case that the scientific, engineering, and mathematical applications of evolutionary algorithms, fuzzy logic and evolution, etc., referenced TDI or your other publications and criticisms. In a quick survey of a few of the more scholarly works, I didn’t see any, but perhaps you or someone else might know of them.” The abbreviation “TDI” here refers to my book The Design Inference (more about this book in a moment because Scott disparages it also in her letter of September 30, 2003). Now the fact is that this book has been cited in precisely the literature that Scott claims has ignored it. I pointed this out to her in an email dated December 6, 2002. Here is the key bibliographic reference, along with the annotation, that I sent her: Chiu, D.K.Y. and Lui, T.H. Integrated use of multiple interdependent patterns for biomolecular sequence analysis. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems. Vol.4, No.3, Sept. 2002, pp.766-775. The article begins: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to The Design Inference. Not only does this article cite my work favorably, but it makes my work in The Design Inference the basis for the entire article. When I sent Scott this information by email, she never got back to me. Interestingly, though, she has since that exchange dropped a line of criticism that she had previously adopted; namely, she had claimed that intelligent design is unscientific because intelligent design research is not cited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. There’s no question that it is cited (and favorably at that) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. What about actual intelligent design research being published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Scott doesn’t want to allow that my book The Design Inference properly belongs to this literature. In her letter of September 30, 2003, she remarks that this book “may have undergone a degree of editorial review” but it “did not undergo peer-review in the sense in which scientific research articles are peer-reviewed.” She then adds that The Design Inference “does not present scientific research -- Dembski’s book was published as a philosophy book.” Every one of these remarks is false. What’s more, their falsity is readily established. Editorial review refers to a book submitted to a publisher for which the editors, who are employees of the publisher and in the business of trying to acquire, produce, and market books that are profitable, decide whether or not to accept the book for publication. Editorial review may look to expert advice regarding the accuracy, merit, or originality of the book, but the decision to publish rests solely with the editors and publishers. Peer-review, on the other hand, refers to journal articles and academic monographs (these are articles that are too long to be published in a journal and which therefore appear in book form) that are submitted to referees who are experts in the topic being addressed and who must give a positive review of the article or monograph if it is to be published at all. The Design Inference went through peer-review and not merely editorial review. To see this, it is enough to note that The Design Inference was published by Cambridge University Press as part of a Cambridge monograph series: Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. Scott doesn’t point this out in her letter of September 30, 2003 because if she had, her claim that my book being editorially reviewed but not peer-reviewed would have instantly collapsed. Academic monograph series, like the Cambridge series that published my book, have an academic review board that is structured and functions identically to the review boards of academic journals. At the time of my book’s publication, the review board for Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory included members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. As it is, The Design Inference had to pass peer-review with three anonymous referees before Brian Skyrms, who heads the academic review board for this Cambridge series, would recommend it for publication to the Cambridge University Press editors in New York. Brian Skyrms is on the faculty of the University of California at Irvine as well as a member of the National Academic of Sciences. It is easy enough to confirm what I’m saying here by contacting him. Scott either got her facts wrong or never bothered to check them in the first place. What about Scott’s claim that The Design Inference “does not present scientific research—Dembski’s book was published as a philosophy book.” It is true that Cambridge University Press officially lists this book as a philosophy monograph. But why should how the book is listed by its publisher be relevant to deciding whether it does or does not contain genuine scientific content? The Library of Congress Control Number (LCCN) for The Design Inference is QA279.D455. As any mathematician knows, QA refers to mathematics and the 270s refer to probability and statistics. Is Scott therefore willing to accept that The Design Inference does present scientific research after all because the Library of Congress treats it as a mathematical and statistical monograph rather than as a philosophical monograph? How this book is listed is beside the point. I submit that the book makes a genuine contribution to the statistical literature, laying out in full technical detail a method of design detection applicable to biology. Scott can dispute this if she likes, but to do so she needs to engage the actual content of my book and not dismiss it simply because the publisher lists it one way or another. Also, it’s worth noting that up until I pointed out to her that The Design Inference is cited in the peer-reviewed mathematical and biological literature, her main line of argument against the scientific merit of my work was that it wasn’t being cited in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As I showed above, this line of criticism is no longer tenable. I’ve discussed at length Scott’s treatment of my own work because this is where I’m best qualified to speak to the issue of peer review in relation to intelligent design. As for the other claims in her letter of September 30, 2003, let me briefly offer three remarks: **Discovery Institute is only the tip of the iceberg for scientists who support intelligent design. Intelligent design research is being published in precisely the places Scott claims it is not being published. What’s more, intelligent design has a developing research program. For some details, see the attached ID FAQ that I handed out on September 10, 2003 at the textbook hearings in Austin. It is also available on my website: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.ID_FAQ.pdf. **Scott’s charge that critics of Darwinian evolution, like me and my colleagues at Discovery Institute, “misquote” or “quote-mine” the work of scientists has degenerated into a slogan. As a slogan, its effect is to shut down discussion before it can get started. Scientists have no special privileges over anyone else. If they say things that are false, inaccurate, or stupid, they need to be called to account. Reasoned discourse in a free society demands that people, and that includes scientists, confront the record of their words. One can dispute what the words meant in context, but it is not enough merely to assert that the words were quoted out of context. **Finally, in her letter of September 30, 2003, Scott objects to my use of a statement she made in an interview with Salon. I am supposed to have implied that “Scott believes that textbooks should not discuss arguments about how evolution occurs.” She protests that she “was not discussing doubts about how evolution happened but rather doubts about whether evolution happened.” (Emphasis hers.) But if she really believes that there are many views of how evolution occurred, why does she and her lobbying group the NCSE support only one view on how evolution occurred, namely, the Darwinian view? Why, for instance, isn’t she demanding that the biology textbooks describe the controversy between neo-Darwinists (like John Maynard Smith) and self-organizational theorists (like Stuart Kauffman)? Neither disputes whether evolution has happened. Yet the self-organizational theorists strongly dispute that the Darwinian view adequately explains how evolution occurred. All the textbooks ignore the self-organizational challenge to Darwinism. If Scott is such a champion of pluralism concerning how evolution happened, why isn’t she pressing for the inclusion of self-organizational theory in the biology textbooks? Why do all her lobbying efforts promote neo-Darwinism as the only view of how evolution occurred that’s appropriate for the textbooks? I submit it is because, as she said in her Salon interview, to do otherwise will only “confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science.” In other words, to ensure that kids are not confused about whether evolution occurred, textbooks need to tell them only one story about how evolution occurred, namely, the Darwinian story. This isn’t education. It’s indoctrination. THREE FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT INTELLIGENT DESIGN Textbook Hearing, Austin, Texas, September 10, 2003 (available at www.designinference.com after September 10, 2003> by William A. Dembski What is intelligent design? Intelligent design is the science that studies how to detect intelligence. Recall astronomer Carl Sagan’s novel Contact about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (or SETI). Sagan based the SETI researchers’ methods of design detection on scientific practice. Real-life SETI researchers have thus far failed to detect designed signals from distant space. But if they encountered such a signal, as the astronomers in Sagan’s novel did, they too would infer design. Intelligent design research currently focuses on developing reliable methods of design detection and then applying these methods, especially to biological systems. Does research supporting intelligent design appear in the peer-reviewed literature? Here are a few recent peer-reviewed publications supporting intelligent design in biology. There is also a widely recognized peer-reviewed literature in physics and cosmology supporting intelligent design (see, for instance, the work of Paul Davies, Frank Tipler, Fred Hoyle, and Guillermo Gonzalez). • W.A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1998). This book was published by Cambridge University Press and peer-reviewed as part of a distinguished monograph series, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory. The editorial board of that series includes members of the National Academy of Sciences as well as one Nobel laureate, John Harsanyi, who shared the prize in 1994 with John Nash, the protagonist in the film A Beautiful Mind. Commenting on the ideas in this book, Paul Davies remarks: “Dembski’s attempt to quantify design, or provide mathematical criteria for design, is extremely useful. I’m concerned that the suspicion of a hidden agenda is going to prevent that sort of work from receiving the recognition it deserves. Strictly speaking, you see, science should be judged purely on the science and not on the scientist.” Quoted in L. Witham, By Design (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2003), p. 149. • D.D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, 301 (2000): 585–595. This work shows that certain enzymes are extremely sensitive to perturbation. Perturbation in this case does not simply diminish existing function or alter function, but removes all possibility of function. This implies that neo-Darwinian theory has no purchase on these systems. Moreover, the probabilities implicit in such extreme-functional-sensitivity analyses are precisely those needed for a design inference. • W.-E. Loennig & H. Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389–410. This article examines the role of transposons in the abrupt origin of new species and the possibility of an partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species. The authors’ approach in non-Darwinian, and they cite favorably on the work of Michael Behe and William Dembski. • D.K.Y. Chiu & T.H. Lui, “Integrated Use of Multiple Interdependent Patterns for Biomolecular Sequence Analysis,” International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 4(3) (September 2002): 766–775. The opening paragraph of this article reads: “Detection of complex specified information is introduced to infer unknown underlying causes for observed patterns [10]. By complex information, it refers to information obtained from observed pattern or patterns that are highly improbable by random chance alone. We evaluate here the complex pattern corresponding to multiple observations of statistical interdependency such that they all deviate significantly from the prior or null hypothesis [8]. Such multiple interdependent patterns when consistently observed can be a powerful indication of common underlying causes. That is, detection of significant multiple interdependent patterns in a consistent way can lead to the discovery of possible new or hidden knowledge.” Reference number [10] here is to William Dembski’s The Design Inference. • M.J. Denton & J.C. Marshall, “The Laws of Form Revisited,” Nature, 410 (22 March 2001): 417; M.J. Denton, J.C. Marshall & M. Legge, (2002) “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 219 (2002): 325–342. This research is thoroughly non-Darwinian and looks to laws of form embedded in nature to bring about biological structures. The intelligent design research program is broad, and design like this that’s programmed into nature falls within its ambit. What research topics does a design-theoretic research program explore?
|
 Discovery Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan, public policy think tank headquartered in Seattle and dealing with national and international affairs. For more information, browse Discovery's Web site at: http://www.discovery.org. |
I was very pleased to learn that a local high school is teaching students how to perform simple DNA database searches using their own home computers. One of the exercises is they have the kids to search for all of the homologs of the vitamin C gene and align them across species (exactly what we did here on an earlier thread before it was spammed and pulled). The concept of shared errors between closely related organisms should be enough to convince even teenagers that ID is bunk.
Now Dembski is trying to use anything that is not strictly random mutation and natural selection as support for intelligent design. It isn't. There are multiple theories that come under the umbrella of evolution and none of them support intelligent design.
This might be the time to bring in Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics for those who haven't seen it yet.
And Ohio agreed…
Oh, and textbooks are still changing.
That's a great essay. A LOT of material in there. The Vitamin C example is simple and easy for anyone to do it. Max mentions Vitamin C along with a plethora of other shared errors.
It takes an amazing amount of brass to accuse the scientific establishment of being a religion, while claiming that creationism isn't.
None of the items on that list have anything to do with introducing ID into high school biology. Most of it deals with correcting errors and/or overstatemtents in current textbooks. I can actually agree with some of their objections.
Gee, that looks like (OK, it is ...) the very document of which I linked my critique in post 14. Since you have essentially answered the rebuttal by repeating the rebutted, let me show you in one little bit of detail where I think it appalling that Dembski endorses this nonsense and scoffs at charges of quote-mining.
First, just for irony, let's note what DI says early on:
Every case of misrepresentation claimed by the NCSE dissolves entirely on close inspection.There will literally be nothing to see here when they are done, if this statement isn't hucksterism.
So skip down to their first treatment Erwin. (He's in there twice.)
Author’s comments on the summary’s accuracy:The short summary: Erwin said the paper DI cited is old and the problem it lays out for the evolutionary biology of its day has been substantially addressed. DI says other people have recently cited the paper without mentioning how out-of-date it is.“Citing a paper from 1994 is decidedly poor scholarship, however, given how fast this field has moved. The rapid advances in comparative developmental biology have rendered much of this pretty outdated. We now have a very well substantiated metazoan phylogeny, at least in general outline, allowing some of the tests suggested at the end of the cited passage. Moreover, comparative developmental studies have only served to emphasize the fundamental unity of bilaterian animals.”
REPLY:
Erwin does not challenge the accuracy of the summary. Rather, he says that his article is “pretty outdated.” Erwin’s colleagues, however, continue to cite this 1994 publication. In a major review article published in 2000, for instance, paleontologist David Jablonski of the University of Chicago cited the article (D. Jablonski, “Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolution biology and paleobiology,” Deep Time (Paleontological Society, 2000), pp. 15-52; see pages 23 and 44). Graham Budd, a paleontologist at the University of Uppsala, cited the paper in another major review published in 2000, “A critical reappraisal of the fossil record of the bilaterian phyla,” Biological Reviews 75 (2000): 253-295; see pages 257 and 290.
Jablonski and Budd say nothing about the paper being out of date. Both refer to the paper in the context of ongoing debates in paleontology.
What I said on that other thread (already linked back in post 14) is that DI's response
... ignores the substance of his criticism, which is that by using his old paper, D.I. ignores subsequent work clearing up the questions he raised in 1994. D.I. answers him by saying that there were citations elsewhere of that paper (of some unspecified sort) as late as 2000. Simply a dodge. Do the year-2000 papers claim that the problems Erwin now says are cleared up weren't cleared up by 2000? D.I. omits to mention.I caught them at the same game in "refuting" another criticism, from David M. Williams.
A further instance of what they tried with Erwin. If a paper has been cited anywhere by anyone for any reason lately, D.I. can represent to others that problems it described as current in its day remain unsolved even if they're not. Flimsy excuse for a misrepresentation, that! The lovely thing is that they continue to "misunderstand" this even after it is explained to them. Erwin, above, specifically said that Discovery didn't just quote his old paper, but his old citation of problems that have since been resolved. So far, nothing is exactly dissolving entirely for me.DI's behavior is unforgiveable, and so is Dembski still brazening it out.
and proudly too: (in the spirit of f.christian, (except for scan, meter and diction, of course))
When I was one I was just begun,
When I was two I was nearly new,
When I was three I was hardly me,
When I was four I was not much more,
When I was five I was barely alive,
But now I am six, and as clever as clever,
So I think I'll stay six now forever and ever
a.a.milne
quod erat demonstrandum
I wonder if the author pursues his scientific endeavors with the same rigor. ;)
You said they want textbooks to be accurate. I don't think so. They're not very accurate themselves, and their inaccuracy seems very self-serving.
This article completely misses the point.
The mutation which destroys the L-GLO (Vit C metabolic) gene is exactly the same in higher primates. Guinea pigs cannot make Vitamin C either, but they have a completely different mutation than the one found in humans, chimps and gorillas.
TABLE 2. Number of families of mammals having at least 1 species with site of vitamin C synthesis indicated.
Order Kidney synthesis Liver synthesis Neither Monotremata 2 Marsupicarnivora (marsupials) 2 Peramelina (marsupials)* 1 1 Diprotodontia (marsupials) (trace in 1 of the 5) 5 Insectivora 2 Chiroptera (bats) (trace in 1 of the 7) 7 Primates (prosimians) 2 (anthropoids) 5 Carnivora 5 Lagomorpha (rabbits) 1 Rodentia 9 1 Artiodactyla 3 (low) *The 1 family reported is represented under both Liver and Kidney.
…In conclusion, what has the study of many more taxa done? 1) It has greatly enriched our picture: rather than the long-held view that vitamin C is required in the diet of guinea pig, monkeys and man, we now see that it is required also by bats, at least some fish, and many birds; and on the other hand, not by all primates. Further, animals which make their own do so in different organs: the kidney, especially reptiles and birds; or the liver, especially mammals and perching birds. 2) There is evidence for a taxonomic explanation of part of the diversity between classes and between orders, but hardly data at lower taxonomic levels even to carry out a common statistical test. 3) It appears to provide more support for change by loss than by gain of capability.Were all animals once able to make their own vitamin C? or were they all dependent on their food for it? or some of both? Would original design plus degenerative loss serve to explain the present-day diversity? In any case, we see here a current example of how more research can greatly change our understanding of diversity. This should make us slow to conclude that scientific and revealed information on origins actually conflict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.