Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading

National Center for Science Education ^ | 4/5/2002

[JediGirl]

			National Center for Science Education
			Defending the Teaching of Evolution in the Public Schools

		Intelligent Design Bibliography Misleading by NCSE Staff In a fifteen-page analysis sent earlier this week to every member of the Ohio Board of Education, the National Center for Science Education exposed the Discovery Institute’s “Bibliography of Supplementary Resources for Ohio Science Instruction” as a systematic misrepresentation of the scientific literature that it cites. The Bibliography, given by two representatives of the Discovery Institute — which seeks to promote “intelligent design” — to the Ohio Board of Education on March 11, claims that it lists publications that “represent dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism (the prevailing theory of evolution taught in biology textbooks), discuss problems that evolutionary theory faces, or suggest important new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins.” But the authors of the publications disagree. Twenty-six scientists, representing 34 of the 44 publications listed in the Bibliography, responded to NCSE’s request to evaluate the Discovery Institute’s description of their work. More than half of them regarded it as inaccurate and tendentious. As NCSE asks in its analysis, “Should the state of Ohio be guided in the development of its science standards by people who are apparently incapable of reliably and objectively summarizing the scientific literature?” NCSE also asked Brian J. Alters, an internationally recognized expert on science education who holds appointments at Harvard University and McGill University, where he is the Director of the Evolution Education Research Centre, to comment on the pedagogical value of the Bibliography. Alters responded, “Not only is this selection of papers inappropriate for the high school level, it will likely engender numerous misconceptions among high school students about the science of evolution — something no science teacher would want.” “In fact,” said Dr. Alan Gishlick of NCSE, “although the publications in the Bibliography are valuable contributions to the scientific literature, they provide neither evidence for ‘intelligent design’ nor evidence against evolution. The Discovery Institute is simply engaged in ‘quote-mining’ — searching for passages that it can misrepresent as somehow discrediting evolution.” He added, “If the Discovery Institute were really serious about improving science education, it would not be fomenting confusion about evolution.” The complete analysis is available in both html and PDF formats. The National Center for Science Education is a nonprofit organization, based in Oakland, California, dedicated to defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools. On the web at www.ncseweb.org. April 5, 2002

[VadeRetro]

More detail here. It's not pretty if you're a fan of the Discovery of Nothing Institute.

[VadeRetro]

"Eugene V. Koonin (coauthor of [12]): '…the conclusion that this is "a hypothesis quite unexpected on neo- Darwinian (common ancestry) assumptions" is (i) not taken from our paper and (ii) not at all compatible with the data or ideas presented in the paper.' "

[jwalsh07]

I read it before I commented. No quotes from the authors, none, nada, zippo. Fair and balanced.

Oh, by the way, if and when I want condescension, I'll get it on the NY Times website.

[Robert-J]

vade, you're not too bright. Figures.

Here's the actual quote in question:

12. Detlef D. Leipe, L. Aravind, and Eugene V. Koonin, “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?” Nucleic Acids Research 27 (1999): 3389-3401.

Replicating one’s store of genetic information (DNA) is a basic process in all known organisms. While functional similarities exist among bacterial and eukaryotic (and archaeal) DNA replication systems, many of the component proteins of their respective replication machines are, surprisingly, non-homologous. As Detlef Leipe (of Department of Biology at Texas A & M University) and his co-workers explain,

DNA replication is an essential, central feature of cellular life....It is therefore surprising that the protein sequences of several central components of the DNA replication machinery, above all the principal replicative polymerases, show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes. (p. 3389)

Given these fundamental differences in basic cellular machinery, Leipe et al. suggest that the process of DNA replication may have evolved at least twice independently -- a hypothesis quite unexpected on neo-Darwinian (common ancestry) assumptions. “The hypothesis of an independent evolution of DNA replication,” conclude Leipe et al., “offers a parsimonious explanation for the strange assortment of apparently unrelated, homologous but not orthologous and orthologous components in the DNA replication machineries of bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes” (p. 3401).

Look at the last paragraph. The part about the unexpected hypothesis is clearly conveyed as an interpretation of the Discovery Institute and not the author in question.

Learn to read more carefully vade.

[VadeRetro]

No quotes from the authors, none, nada, zippo.

I believe you mean, "no quotes from the quoted works" other than the ones supplied by the outraged authors themselves. The authors themselves are extensively quoted and they aren't happy. How did that happen?

[VadeRetro]

The part about the unexpected hypothesis is clearly conveyed as an interpretation of the Discovery Institute and not the author in question.

Really?

Given these fundamental differences in basic cellular machinery, Leipe et al. suggest that the process of DNA replication may have evolved at least twice independently -- a hypothesis quite unexpected on neo-Darwinian (common ancestry) assumptions.

Actually, there's nothing at all in that sentence to indicate that the Discovery Institute is suddenly stepping to the mike to add the "quite unexpected on neo-Darwinian assumptions" part. It's a Fig Newton of your imagination. As for me not being too bright, perhaps you were hoping I can't read at all. Your next attempt will have to be a bit more imaginative.

[JediGirl]

You're wearing us out. I'm still on the other 2 threads. I hope you're taking the weekend off for some relaxation (and maybe a good steak dinner????).

Actually, I'm retaking the ACT (itching to get out of those high 20's and into the 30s lol). No steak dinner. But a really good bit of cajun fish (gotta love that Tony's seasoning) and some black eyed peas and rice. No relaxing this weekend!

[VadeRetro]

You and Robert are on a roll tonight. But I don't envy your task trying to make the Discovery of Nothing Institute look good.

[jwalsh07]

:-}

[Lurking Libertarian]

Liars for Christ, I calls 'em

Bump for the God of truth-- the One who created the heavens and the earth, and told them to evolve.

[longshadow]

Actually, I'm retaking the ACT ....

Best of luck. If your performance on FR is any indicator, you should do well indeed.

[VadeRetro]

For the record, I didn't hit the button on post 28. But someone else knows a little Yiddish . . .

[jwalsh07]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

Did you do that?

[jennyp]

The tactic of abusing the primary scientific literature for the purpose of misleading the general public is not new to the anti-evolutionist movement. ...

The practice is so frequent among creationists (as well as other practitioners of pseudoscience) that it receives a name: quote-mining. ...

The Discovery Institute is accumulating quite a record of quote-mining of its own. Jonathan Wells's Icons of Evolution (Washington DC: Regnery, 2000) is essentially a compendium of quote-mining intended to discredit evolution in general; the reviewers for Nature, Science, and The Quarterly Review of Biology were unanimous in finding nothing of scientific or pedagogical value in it.[16] The Discovery Institute's Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's Evolution (Seattle WA: Discovery Institute, 2001) is another exercise in quote-mining, intended to discredit the recent critically acclaimed PBS series on evolution in particular. Jerry Coyne, one of the scientists whose views were misrepresented by the Discovery Institute in Getting the Facts Straight, commented, "The Discovery Institute is up to its old tricks. Given the complete absence of evidence for their own theory of 'intelligent design' — a theory that has produced not a single scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal — they instead seek 'confirmation' of their views in controversies about evolutionary biology. Their strategy (transparent to all thinking people) is to sow doubt about the fact of evolution simply because scientists do not know every detail about how evolution occurred."[17]

In fact, the Discovery Institute's reputation for quote-mining is apparently spreading in the scientific community. In his response to NCSE's questionnaire, for example, David P. Mindell (coauthor of [14]), wrote, "I am appalled that the Discovery Institute would find anything in any of my work to support their unscientific views. I am of course familiar with them as a source of misinformation and misunderstanding about nature and propaganda for anti-science education legislation."
-- Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography

You know, I think I'm becoming a little optimistic that the grand distraction of fabian creationism has run out of steam & is coasting towards oblivion.

The ID movement used to be at least a little challenging. But their sad descent into naked quote mining tells me they have run out of ideas and are getting desperate. From here on out they're just as relevant to conservatism as the ICR or AiG or Kent Hovind.

[jwalsh07]

Here's the bibliography and the disclaimers in the preface. Tell me which one violates their disclaimer.

Bibliography

[jwalsh07]

Have you read the bibliography and its preface?